• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If they couldn't make single payer work in Vermont, why will it work nationally?

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
15,086
Reaction score
6,809
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Vermont is one of the healthiest states in the country. It's also one of the most progressive states. The state itself is small and homogeneous being 95% white. You couldn't ask for a better environment to implement single-payer healthcare.

Everything I've read comes down to the taxes necessary to fund it were too high for the progressive residents of Vermont to accept.

If an ideal state like Vermont couldn't make it work, how will anyone make it work nationally?
 
I cannot believe that a system that required 11% tax on employer side and a 9.5% tax on the employees side couldn't be sold to the legislature :lol:
 
Vermont is one of the healthiest states in the country. It's also one of the most progressive states. The state itself is small and homogeneous being 95% white. You couldn't ask for a better environment to implement single-payer healthcare.

Everything I've read comes down to the taxes necessary to fund it were too high for the progressive residents of Vermont to accept.

If an ideal state like Vermont couldn't make it work, how will anyone make it work nationally?

Because scale is also a key part of single-payer which Vermont does not have. And because the current costs to compare against are obscured, no one likes extra taxes even if it means lesser costs in the long run.
 
Vermont is one of the healthiest states in the country. It's also one of the most progressive states. The state itself is small and homogeneous being 95% white. You couldn't ask for a better environment to implement single-payer healthcare.

One of the very worst environments because population is 627,180.
Insurance is based on risk pools and a risk pool of just over half a million is absurdly small, so small that they should never have tried going it alone.
 
One of the very worst environments because population is 627,180.
Insurance is based on risk pools and a risk pool of just over half a million is absurdly small, so small that they should never have tried going it alone.

California has over 30 million people and they couldn't make it work either. Iceland has 360,000 people and they have a universal healthcare system funded by taxes.
 
If an ideal state like Vermont couldn't make it work, how will anyone make it work nationally?

It's substantially easier to pass terrible and unpopular legislation at the federal level than at the state level. There's hardly any comparison, at the legislative stage anyway.
 
One of the very worst environments because population is 627,180.
Insurance is based on risk pools and a risk pool of just over half a million is absurdly small, so small that they should never have tried going it alone.

There are firms a lot smaller than that that self-fund to cover their employees' health expenses, so the scale argument isn't all that convincing.

Vermont's primary problem (aside from ERISA, which prevents it from regulating self-funded employer plans) was that even with its current Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA subsidy funding available to finance single-payer, converting its current private sector premium revenue into tax revenue wasn't feasible. Small state, big state, the United States, that's going to be a challenge at any scale.
 
California has over 30 million people and they couldn't make it work either. Iceland has 360,000 people and they have a universal healthcare system funded by taxes.

When did California implement single payer?
I live in Whittier so I'd know if they tried. Let's see if you really understand what's happening or if you're just being your normal self.
 
aociswundumho does not get that 32 of 33 industrialized nations have working national health care.

That right question, other than countering VT with MA, is why does not the US have a better working national health care.
 
Read much? I said "California has over 30 million people and they couldn't make it work either."

Both The California Universal Healthcare Act and The Healthy California Act failed.

They did not fail, the governor REJECTED The California Universal Healthcare Act because it was crappy law, poorly written.
The Healthy California Act will be revisited. The version sent to committee ALSO was poorly written.

Read thoroughly.

Date Action
11/30/18 From Assembly without further action.
11/30/18 Died at Desk.
06/01/17 In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
06/01/17 Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 23. Noes 14. Page 1399.) Ordered to the Assembly.
05/26/17 Published May 26 at 2 p.m.
05/26/17 Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
05/26/17 From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 1187.) (May 25).
05/23/17 Set for hearing May 25.
05/22/17 May 22 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
05/16/17 Set for hearing May 22.
04/27/17 From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 886.) (April 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
04/18/17 Set for hearing April 26.
04/17/17 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
04/05/17 Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
03/29/17 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
03/02/17 Referred to Com. on RLS.
02/21/17 From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23.
02/17/17 Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

It will be rewritten and reintroduced.

PS: California has nearly 40 million people, and you're not one of them.
 
That right question, other than countering VT with MA,

MA just forces residents to buy private insurance policies. The law went into effect over 10 years ago and it did not reduce total healthcare spending.

is why does not the US have a better working national health care.

The biggest in the NHS which cover 80 million people and is in constant need of "reform" and of course, more and more money. There are no systems on the planet that cover 300 million people. Socialism works worse the bigger it gets.
 
They did not fail, the governor REJECTED The California Universal Healthcare Act because it was crappy law, poorly written.

What you are describing is called "failure."

The Healthy California Act will be revisited. The version sent to committee ALSO was poorly written.

Tell me, why are all these progressive bills "poorly written"?

It will be rewritten and reintroduced.

California has been trying for 25 years. If they haven't done it by now, then they're not going to do it. The situation gets worse every year, not better.
 
aociswundumho sliced up my comments. MA's insurance covered millions who were not, and that is a very good thing.

He notes that the NHS is in constant need of reform. Hint: all government programs are in need of reform and improvement.

"Socialism works worse the bigger it gets" is a statement without qualification or support. He also asks without answering "why are all these progressive bills 'poorly written'"?

All of this is merely his opinion that means nothing, because 32 industrialized nations have national health care that does work. The US can have one that works as well. aociswundumho should know that government is about providing services, and it can be done far better than the mashup the Trump administration has been making of ACA.
 
What you are describing is called "failure."



Tell me, why are all these progressive bills "poorly written"?



California has been trying for 25 years. If they haven't done it by now, then they're not going to do it. The situation gets worse every year, not better.

Okay if you say so.
 
aociswundumho sliced up my comments. MA's insurance covered millions who were not, and that is a very good thing.

He notes that the NHS is in constant need of reform. Hint: all government programs are in need of reform and improvement.

"Socialism works worse the bigger it gets" is a statement without qualification or support. He also asks without answering "why are all these progressive bills 'poorly written'"?

All of this is merely his opinion that means nothing, because 32 industrialized nations have national health care that does work. The US can have one that works as well. aociswundumho should know that government is about providing services, and it can be done far better than the mashup the Trump administration has been making of ACA.

Maybe he can show us where TrumpCare is, because tens of millions of Americans can't seem to find it.
Hooboy, talk about failure!
 
Trump failure indeed!

Look, everyone knows single payer is tricky to implement but as a California resident with a disabled son, I can guarantee you I am watching developments very carefully.

Cali has NOT been trying seriously for single payer for twenty-five years.
Serious efforts only happened after the Dems earned their legislative majorities.
An earlier effort was passed but vetoed by Governor Schwarzeneggar, which may be one reason he did not win reelection, but no one can be 100% sure.

Rest assured, Healthy California will become a reality, and pretty soon.
 
MA just forces residents to buy private insurance policies. The law went into effect over 10 years ago and it did not reduce total healthcare spending.

Well Mass has the lowest marketplace premiums, the best hospitals in the country, the lowest uninsurance rate, and consistently ranks among the best-performing health systems in the country. It passed cost containment reform legislation almost eight years ago, after its coverage expansions had already taken effect, and it's largely been meeting its statewide health spending targets under that legislation in recent years. Other states are beginning to follow the Mass example: Fourth state adopts health care cost growth target

Meanwhile, after its single-payer push failed, Vermont turned to amping up its existing efforts to reform its health care delivery system and launched an ambitious statewide experiment: Can Vermont's 'all-payer' health care model deliver on its promises?

States are doing plenty of interesting things short of single-payer and Mass and Vermont are still on the cutting edge of it.
 
Green, the best hospitals in the country that serve everyone have consistently been Johns Hopkins in Maryland, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. The best hospital in Massachusetts is Boston Children's Hospital so it is great for kids but not the best state for adults.
 
Green, the best hospitals in the country that serve everyone have consistently been Johns Hopkins in Maryland, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. The best hospital in Massachusetts is Boston Children's Hospital so it is great for kids but not the best state for adults.

MGH is generally considered one of the best hospitals in the world. Try again.
 
Back
Top Bottom