Have Liberals Learned from the Failure of Vermont's Single-Payer Health Care Plan?

[Greenbeard]

You obviously aren't aware of the fact that Vermont dropped its single payer system because the taxpayers couldn't afford it.

No kidding. That's why they're now getting ready to implement the all-payer system referenced in the post above.

 

[bripat9643]

You obviously aren't aware of the fact that Vermont dropped its single payer system because the taxpayers couldn't afford it.

No kidding. That's why they're now getting ready to implement the all-payer system referenced in the post above.

Single payer was supposed to be cheaper and it turned out to be more expensive. How does "all-payer" save any money? It looks to have all the disadvantages of single-payer with none of the advantages.

 

[Greenbeard]

Single payer was supposed to be cheaper and it turned out to be more expensive. How does "all-payer" save any money? It looks to have all the disadvantages of single-payer with none of the advantages.

Single-payer isn't "more expensive," it requires substantially higher taxes because virtually all health services get paid for via tax revenue (not money collected via private insurance premiums). Raising taxes that much, even if the increase is offset by the complete lack of health insurance premiums, is a political non-starter.

Their all-payer system is based on what already exists. If you're in private coverage, you're still in private coverage. If you're on Medicaid or Medicare, you still are. The difference is that all of those payers start to pay health care providers the same way--a way that allows the state's hospitals and doctors to function more efficiently and deliver better care in a more sustainable way.

One of the advantages of a single-payer system is that health care providers get a consistent signal from the health insurance industry--because there's only one health insurer. In Vermont's all-payer system, providers will still get a consistent signal because all of the payers will be sending the same one.

 

[mikegriffith1]

No, we've learned from the success of single payer plans all over the world.

Really? "Success"? Then why do people come from all over the world to get medical care in the U.S.? And, by the way, I lived under three of those supposedly "successful" plans when I was in the military: Greece, England, Israel. Greece's and England's were quite bad. Israel's was quite good. However, Israel is the size of a small U.S. state, with a population of only about 8 million.

We knew several Brits in our church group who had been waiting for months to get specialized testing and/or surgery. One of them had a stomach condition that was regularly painful but was judged to be not immediately life threatening. He had been waiting for over six months to get the surgery needed to fix the problem--the last time we talked to him shortly before we left, he still had not been able to get the surgery.

 

[HenryBHough]

Ah single payer!

I recently had need for some serious eye surgery to head off a condition that would have left one eye blind without fast treatment. It was done within a couple of weeks.

A relative in Lancashire (England) had the same condition in both eyes about a year ago. He was put on a waiting list to have one eye repaired - in six months provided the doctors were not on strike. The other eye? They deemed the sight of one eye sufficient so no treatment was scheduled for the other.

Fortunately he was able to have both eyes saved by fleeing The National Health.

But if you like single payer....well.....can you keep your doctor? Can you keep your eyesight? Can you keep both hands?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Ah single payer!

I recently had need for some serious eye surgery to head off a condition that would have left one eye blind without fast treatment. It was done within a couple of weeks.

A relative in Lancashire (England) had the same condition in both eyes about a year ago. He was put on a waiting list to have one eye repaired - in six months provided the doctors were not on strike. The other eye? They deemed the sight of one eye sufficient so no treatment was scheduled for the other.

Fortunately he was able to have both eyes saved by fleeing The National Health.

But if you like single payer....well.....can you keep your doctor? Can you keep your eyesight? Can you keep both hands?

And liberals never talk about the draconian tort laws that have come along with those single-payer systems, in addition to the severe rationing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Look at the responses from libs on this thread. Deflection, denial.
No, libs never learn. Their standard responses to failure are: We didnt do it enough. We didnt spend enough on it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Medicare is single payer and Americans love Medicare.

Are you crazy? I have medicare and most of the time I still have to pay a private doctor. I may as well not even have it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Have Liberals Learned from the Failure of Vermont's Single-Payer Health Care Plan?"

Clearly conservatives haven't learned that their threads fail when predicated on a loaded question fallacy – this thread being one of many examples.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Have Liberals Learned from the Failure of Vermont's Single-Payer Health Care Plan?"

Clearly conservatives haven't learned that their threads fail when predicated on a loaded question fallacy – this thread being one of many examples.

Are you disputing that Vermont's attempt at single payer was a failure?

 

[bripat9643]

Single payer was supposed to be cheaper and it turned out to be more expensive. How does "all-payer" save any money? It looks to have all the disadvantages of single-payer with none of the advantages.

Single-payer isn't "more expensive," it requires substantially higher taxes because virtually all health services get paid for via tax revenue (not money collected via private insurance premiums). Raising taxes that much, even if the increase is offset by the complete lack of health insurance premiums, is a political non-starter.

Their all-payer system is based on what already exists. If you're in private coverage, you're still in private coverage. If you're on Medicaid or Medicare, you still are. The difference is that all of those payers start to pay health care providers the same way--a way that allows the state's hospitals and doctors to function more efficiently and deliver better care in a more sustainable way.

One of the advantages of a single-payer system is that health care providers get a consistent signal from the health insurance industry--because there's only one health insurer. In Vermont's all-payer system, providers will still get a consistent signal because all of the payers will be sending the same one.

"Raising taxes that much, even if the increase is offset by the complete lack of health insurance premiums, is a political non-starter."

Why should that be a non-starter? The answer is because the middle class was going to get socked paying for the healthcare for all the deadbeats.

What they get with single payer is a signal that there's no incentive to cut costs or innovate their procedures, and it's consistent.

What is this "same way" that all health care providers are supposed to pay? What's the "same" about it? That's so vague as to be absolutely meaningless.

 

[Greenbeard]

What is this "same way" that all health care providers are supposed to pay? What's the "same" about it? That's so vague as to be absolutely meaningless.

I'm not going to waste time giving you a lesson in health policy that won't make sense to you and you don't give a shit about anyway.

Vermont wants to encourage accountable care organizations to cut costs and improve care. That's only going to work if every insurer is supporting providers in that goal, not paying in the old-fashioned fee-for-service way. Hence the all-payer model. They've already got a successful all-payer model for primary care (called the Blueprint for Health), now they're stepping up to the broader health system.

 

[Claudette]

Yeah. The only winners are the freeloaders everyone else will be paying for.

These freeloaders will pay for nothing and the taxpayers will be stuck with the tab.

Sounds like a real great plan. For the freeloaders that is.