Vermont Puts Single Payer On Hold
Click here for reuse options!Shumlin faced deep skepticism that lawmakers could agree on a way to pay for his ambitious goal and that the feds would agree to everything he needed to create the first state-based single-payer system in 2017.
And that was all before Shumlin, a Democrat, almost lost reelection last month in one of the country’s most liberal states. And it was before MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, the now notorious Obamacare consultant who also advised Vermont until his $400,000 contract was killed amid the controversy, became political poison.
Shumlin had missed two earlier financing deadlines but finally released his proposal. But he immediately cast it as “detrimental to Vermonters.” The model called for businesses to take on a double-digit payroll tax, while individuals would face up to a 9.5 percent premium assessment. Big businesses, in particular, didn’t want to pay for Shumlin’s plan while maintaining their own employee health plans.
“These are simply not tax rates that I can responsibly support or urge the Legislature to pass,” the governor said. “In my judgment, the potential economic disruption and risks would be too great to small businesses, working families and the state’s economy.”…
Advocates of a single-payer plan said Shumlin should not be able to cast aside Act 48, the 2011 law that called for the creation of Green Mountain Care, without repealing it. A group planned to hold a rally in front of the statehouse on Thursday to protest his decision.
“The governor’s misguided decision was a completely unnecessary result of a failed policy calculation that he pursued without Democratic input,” the group Healthcare Is a Human Right Campaign said in a statement.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
22 responses to Vermont Puts Single Payer On Hold
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tiredoftea December 18th, 2014 at 11:22
Single payer for a primarily rural state with a relatively small population is a tough nut to crack. A national single payer plan is another story. It could easily start with expanding Medicare/Medicaid to all citizens.
Wayout December 18th, 2014 at 12:23
The size of the entity does not matter. You go national and then it’s 300 million plus people that will have to be paid for and the cost would be astronomical. Plus, as an added bonus the quality of care will go down. I have seen with my own eyes the Canadian single payer system. While it covers emergencies and minor things in a fairly good manner, everything else is poor.
But don’t worry, now that the Cubans are our new best friends we will start sending them money and they will use it to prop up their failing single payer health care system.
tiredoftea December 18th, 2014 at 14:21
As usual, you are wrong. Go back to whichever fringe rightie site you get your inspiration from and dazzle them with your incompetence.
OldLefty December 18th, 2014 at 14:48
. I have seen with my own eyes the Canadian single payer system
__________
So have I.
My husband and I have worked in healthcare for 30 years.
The care is the same for the middle and upper income people and better for everyone else.
arc99 December 18th, 2014 at 15:17
Every western industrialized nation on the planet has some form of universal health insurance whether it is single-payer as in Britain or a partnership between the government and the private sector as in Japan, Israel and Australia among others.
Right wingers never hesitate to claim that our financial difficulties will turn us into Greece, a country with 11million people. But when it comes to health care, comparisons to other countries are suddenly not valid because we are so much larger. It is an argument of convenience to be sure, and totally unconvincing as well.
Japan, with its population of 125million people has national health insurance. It is nonsense to argue that the United States cannot do the same. No wonder you guys have to rely on BS arguments like death panels and IRS agents kicking down your door.
The truth blows your arguments out of the water.
fahvel December 18th, 2014 at 17:03
you know nothing. National health care is complete and extremely effective all throughout the world. Sometimes when ignorance speaks, “I’ve seen with my own eyes…..’, it just reveals the limits an individual has. And to stay true to form and not be too polite, you are and eternal dope.
tiredoftea December 18th, 2014 at 12:22
Single payer for a primarily rural state with a relatively small population is a tough nut to crack. A national single payer plan is another story. It could easily start with expanding Medicare/Medicaid to all citizens.
Wayout December 18th, 2014 at 13:23
The size of the entity does not matter. You go national and then it’s 300 million plus people that will have to be paid for and the cost would be astronomical. Plus, as an added bonus the quality of care will go down. I have seen with my own eyes the Canadian single payer system. While it covers emergencies and minor things in a fairly good manner, everything else is poor.
But don’t worry, now that the Cubans are our new best friends we will start sending them money and they will use it to prop up their failing single payer health care system.
tiredoftea December 18th, 2014 at 15:21
As usual, you are wrong. Go back to whichever fringe rightie site you get your inspiration from and dazzle them with your incompetence.
OldLefty December 18th, 2014 at 15:48
. I have seen with my own eyes the Canadian single payer system
__________
So have I.
My husband and I have worked in healthcare for 30 years.
The care is the same for the middle and upper income people and better for everyone else.
arc99 December 18th, 2014 at 16:17
Every western industrialized nation on the planet has some form of universal health insurance whether it is single-payer as in Britain or a partnership between the government and the private sector as in Japan, Israel and Australia among others.
Right wingers never hesitate to claim that our financial difficulties will turn us into Greece, a country with 11million people. But when it comes to health care, comparisons to other countries are suddenly not valid because we are so much larger. It is an argument of convenience to be sure, and totally unconvincing as well.
Japan, with its population of 125million people has national health insurance. It is nonsense to argue that the United States cannot do the same. No wonder you guys have to rely on BS arguments like death panels and IRS agents kicking down your door.
The truth blows your arguments out of the water.
fahvel December 18th, 2014 at 18:03
you know nothing. National health care is complete and extremely effective all throughout the world. Sometimes when ignorance speaks, “I’ve seen with my own eyes…..’, it just reveals the limits an individual has. And to stay true to form and not be too polite, you are and eternal dope.
Red Eye Robot December 18th, 2014 at 19:36
Vermont has a median household income nearly 2x the national average, and is 18th overall. Wealthy Vermont couldn’t afford single payer? How can that be?
OldLefty December 18th, 2014 at 19:49
Because often wealthy people don’t want to pay for it.
arc99 December 18th, 2014 at 19:54
Exactly. Single payer can and does work. The United Kingdom has over 64million people and the NHS is a single payer system.
In my own personal situation, I have an excellent plan through my employer that costs me $218 per month in pre-tax dollars.
I would gladly replace that with $218 per month in taxation for a national single payer health plan. Meanwhile ideologues like RER have no ideas or alternatives, just BS sarcasm and the idiotic approach of doing absolutely nothing.
Red Eye Robot December 18th, 2014 at 23:28
They voted for it, The Democrat governor killed it
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 06:42
Who voted for it? The wealthy?
Meanwhile, Physicians for a National Health Program have been critical all along because the program allowed too much involvement for private insurance, which kept the costs high.
What’s “The Democrat governor”??
Red Eye Robot December 18th, 2014 at 20:36
Vermont has a median household income nearly 2x the national average, and is 18th overall. Wealthy Vermont couldn’t afford single payer? How can that be?
OldLefty December 18th, 2014 at 20:49
Because often wealthy people don’t want to pay for it.
arc99 December 18th, 2014 at 20:54
Exactly. Single payer can and does work. The United Kingdom has over 64million people and the NHS is a single payer system.
In my own personal situation, I have an excellent plan through my employer that costs me $218 per month in pre-tax dollars.
I would gladly replace that with $218 per month in taxation for a national single payer health plan. Meanwhile ideologues like RER have no ideas or alternatives, just BS sarcasm and the idiotic approach of doing absolutely nothing.
Red Eye Robot December 19th, 2014 at 00:28
They voted for it, The Democrat governor killed it
OldLefty December 19th, 2014 at 07:42
Who voted for it? The wealthy?
Meanwhile, Physicians for a National Health Program have been critical all along because the program allowed too much involvement for private insurance, which kept the costs high.
What’s “The Democrat governor”??