Vermont governor abandons single-payer health care plan

[Listening]

I am not even going to go into how the problem has not been defined...so the solution is never clear.

My point in posting this is that they are looking at it and they should learn some things.

Obama would have done well to look at Tenncare which has been around a long long time.

Now....

If Mass has Romneycare....

Tenn has Tenncare......

Vermont gets something.....

Are not the states doing the will of the people......

And if the will of the people in a state is that they don't want it......

Then let's scrap this mess they call Obamacare.

Glad you came around to state level health care for the people.

Good for you. And the people have ACA who can't or won't do through the state.

Shut up Jake....

I've always been for states having that conversation. That does not mean they have to do it....it's up to them.

F**k that ACA.

Got that trip to Omaha rescheduled ?

It's good to see that you are moderating.

So is Antares. That is smart of him. And you, too.

You are full of shit.

When was that Omaha trip ?

Starks is a full out liar and he doesn't have the balls to admit when he is wrong, he twists words and has no values, I see no purpose in putting any weight into what he says.

Your post reminded me of a conversation I had with someone the other day.

She reminded me that we only have so much time to spend on this stuff.

For that reason I am putting JakeTheFake on ignore.

Note: It was amazing how much better the thread reads without his crap.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Insults and deflecting reveals Listening has yet again lost her own thread.

Normally putting another person on ignore because Listening can't defeat me in debate is a sign of failure. In this case, it is definitely so for her.

 

[Greenbeard]

It fails in Massachusetts as well since it was implemented in 2006, with reports of half of family practices not accepting new patients. It doesn't end there as bogged down wait times are an increasing problem.

Boston has a much higher ratio of physicals to population over any other metropolitan area in that state, yet patients had to wait 66 days to see a family physician.

Massachusetts doesn't have a single-payer system--people there have several private insurers to choose from.

But that stat you quote does get at an important point. Boston has so many doctors--including primary care physicians--that even when you adjust for their much higher insurance rates, they still have more docs per capita available than pretty much anyone else. And yet the medical associations continually point to long wait times. Why would a place with more doctors per (insured) capita have longer wait times? The answer is that the question doesn't have much to do with the coverage side of the equation, it's a delivery system organization issue. How is the local health care system set up to use the resources that it has?

Once again, we have a system in the works.

As I mentioned....Tenncare underwent some pretty radical changes in it's evolution. In the end, they wound up trimming a lot of people off the roles.

But my point is that we should be able to get numbers. We should be able to analyze things like costs, total spending, all that. It almost seems like NOBODY really wants the data because of what it says.

One big problem is when you start collecting data AFTER you make a change. You have no baseline and what the data tells you is up for political grabs.

The problem that proposals like Vermont's have isn't the total spending--that will generally be lower under a single payer system. It's the allocation of the financing. If you shift from payment through monthly premiums (on the part of employees and employers) to one in which payment is handled through the tax system, then your tax burden will go up even if your spending on health insurance goes down. You may pay a higher payroll tax, but the premium contribution you and your employer were making each month disappear.

Ideally, anyway. Most people with employer-sponsored insurance are in self-insured ERISA plans that a state like Vermont has no control over. Which means their system wasn't really going to be single-payer anyway.

I don't think anyone's ignoring data and projections on costs and spending. Both are looked at and discussed ad nauseam and in fact they're what just ended Vermont's pseudo-single payer push.

 

[Listening]

It fails in Massachusetts as well since it was implemented in 2006, with reports of half of family practices not accepting new patients. It doesn't end there as bogged down wait times are an increasing problem.

Boston has a much higher ratio of physicals to population over any other metropolitan area in that state, yet patients had to wait 66 days to see a family physician.

Massachusetts doesn't have a single-payer system--people there have several private insurers to choose from.

But that stat you quote does get at an important point. Boston has so many doctors--including primary care physicians--that even when you adjust for their much higher insurance rates, they still have more docs per capita available than pretty much anyone else. And yet the medical associations continually point to long wait times. Why would a place with more doctors per (insured) capita have longer wait times? The answer is that the question doesn't have much to do with the coverage side of the equation, it's a delivery system organization issue. How is the local health care system set up to use the resources that it has?

Once again, we have a system in the works.

As I mentioned....Tenncare underwent some pretty radical changes in it's evolution. In the end, they wound up trimming a lot of people off the roles.

But my point is that we should be able to get numbers. We should be able to analyze things like costs, total spending, all that. It almost seems like NOBODY really wants the data because of what it says.

One big problem is when you start collecting data AFTER you make a change. You have no baseline and what the data tells you is up for political grabs.

The problem that proposals like Vermont's have isn't the total spending--that will generally be lower under a single payer system. It's the allocation of the financing. If you shift from payment through monthly premiums (on the part of employees and employers) to one in which payment is handled through the tax system, then your tax burden will go up even if your spending on health insurance goes down. You may pay a higher payroll tax, but the premium contribution you and your employer were making each month disappear.

Ideally, anyway. Most people with employer-sponsored insurance are in self-insured ERISA plans that a state like Vermont has no control over. Which means their system wasn't really going to be single-payer anyway.

I don't think anyone's ignoring data and projections on costs and spending. Both are looked at and discussed ad nauseam and in fact they're what just ended Vermont's pseudo-single payer push.

Oh, I am quite sure THEY have the data.

And I am sure they made the decision based on the data (not the decision they wanted to make....but the one they had to make). The real issue is how this gets boiled down to where we can understand it so we can see what they might be trying differently.

Then other states can follow.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It fails in Massachusetts as well since it was implemented in 2006, with reports of half of family practices not accepting new patients. It doesn't end there as bogged down wait times are an increasing problem.

Boston has a much higher ratio of physicals to population over any other metropolitan area in that state, yet patients had to wait 66 days to see a family physician.

Massachusetts doesn't have a single-payer system--people there have several private insurers to choose from.

But that stat you quote does get at an important point. Boston has so many doctors--including primary care physicians--that even when you adjust for their much higher insurance rates, they still have more docs per capita available than pretty much anyone else. And yet the medical associations continually point to long wait times. Why would a place with more doctors per (insured) capita have longer wait times? The answer is that the question doesn't have much to do with the coverage side of the equation, it's a delivery system organization issue. How is the local health care system set up to use the resources that it has?

Once again, we have a system in the works.

As I mentioned....Tenncare underwent some pretty radical changes in it's evolution. In the end, they wound up trimming a lot of people off the roles.

But my point is that we should be able to get numbers. We should be able to analyze things like costs, total spending, all that. It almost seems like NOBODY really wants the data because of what it says.

One big problem is when you start collecting data AFTER you make a change. You have no baseline and what the data tells you is up for political grabs.

The problem that proposals like Vermont's have isn't the total spending--that will generally be lower under a single payer system. It's the allocation of the financing. If you shift from payment through monthly premiums (on the part of employees and employers) to one in which payment is handled through the tax system, then your tax burden will go up even if your spending on health insurance goes down. You may pay a higher payroll tax, but the premium contribution you and your employer were making each month disappear.

Ideally, anyway. Most people with employer-sponsored insurance are in self-insured ERISA plans that a state like Vermont has no control over. Which means their system wasn't really going to be single-payer anyway.

I don't think anyone's ignoring data and projections on costs and spending. Both are looked at and discussed ad nauseam and in fact they're what just ended Vermont's pseudo-single payer push.

Oh, I am quite sure THEY have the data.

And I am sure they made the decision based on the data (not the decision they wanted to make....but the one they had to make). The real issue is how this gets boiled down to where we can understand it so we can see what they might be trying differently.

Then other states can follow.

That's fine, but let's use all of the data through this year and not cherry pick the evidence that aids one position while ignoring other that does not.

 

[Listening]

First Casualty of GruberGate Vermont Governor Abandons Single-Payer Health Care Plan - Breitbart

Enjoyed reading this one.

I don't agree with the premise of the title...but the following was informative.

*******************************
In July 2014, the state of Vermont signed a $280,000 contract with Gruber to conduct some of the financial modeling for Green Mountain Care, the state’s proposed single-payer health care system authorized by the Vermont Legislature in 2011, conditional upon the presentation by the governor of a viable financial plan.

*************************************
But the Shumlin administration missed the 2013 deadline. That tardiness, combined with the administration’s lack of transparency about the process by which the plan was being developed, prompted Democratic State Representative Cynthia Browning to file a lawsuit designed to force the administration to release documents related to that process.

Though the Shumlin administration’s claims of executive privilege were backed up by a Superior Court judge’s decision last week rejecting Browning’s request, a potential appeal of that decision to the State Supreme Court was under consideration at the time Shumlin dropped his political bombshell.

As recently as December 3, all indications were that Governor Shumlin was still on target to introduce a single-payer system. On that date, the governor announced that the plan would be unveiled on December 29 or December 30.

But on Wednesday, Shumlin pulled the plug on the Green Mountain Care single-payer system, at least for 2015.

 

[MaxGrit]

Glad you came around to state level health care for the people.

Good for you. And the people have ACA who can't or won't do through the state.

Shut up Jake....

I've always been for states having that conversation. That does not mean they have to do it....it's up to them.

F**k that ACA.

Got that trip to Omaha rescheduled ?

It's good to see that you are moderating.

So is Antares. That is smart of him. And you, too.

You are full of shit.

When was that Omaha trip ?

Starks is a full out liar and he doesn't have the balls to admit when he is wrong, he twists words and has no values, I see no purpose in putting any weight into what he says.

Your post reminded me of a conversation I had with someone the other day.

She reminded me that we only have so much time to spend on this stuff.

For that reason I am putting JakeTheFake on ignore.

Note: It was amazing how much better the thread reads without his crap.

Yep. Ignore the idiots and the trolls. It is the best time saving tactic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Listening abandons her OP in the beginning for "abandonment", which she supported whole heartedly to "delay", which is a step of maturity. Good for her.

 

[Listening]

Vermont for Single Payer

Look the line in the article that says...it's immoral.

Love how the left does not like to use government to enforce morality......

Unless it is their morality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both sides to such with a vengeance.