President Obama Challenges states to come up with better plan: Vermont does.

[Immanuel]

My question is how many people work in the health insurance industry in Vermont and how many of them will be unemployed by the end of this year? Then, since the state does not actually have to begin funding it until 2013, how many of those insurance industry workers will be unemployed by the end of 2012?

Immie

Why would they be unemployed by the end of this year? And why is it more of a concern that the health insurance industry might go belly-up when business after business, industry after industry across the nation have gone belly-up? It's not as though the insurance industry as a whole is going to die. Those employees will at least have experience to take elsewhere, whereas that's not the case for thousands of laid off workers who will have to be retrained in some other job discipline because the jobs themselves have become obsolete.

Why would they be unemployed at the end of this year? Because the Health Insurance Industry can see the writing on the wall. They will begin cutting staff immediately.

Who said it was more of a concern? It is a concern, period. Do you really want to see more of your neighbors unemployed?

The health insurance industry as a whole will go belly up adding an influx of individuals to the roles of the unemployed, making finding a job for everyone else that much more difficult and the Democrats that drove the sword of death into the heart of the health insurance industry will blame Republicans for that... "where are the jobs you promised?"

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

My question is how many people work in the health insurance industry in Vermont and how many of them will be unemployed by the end of this year? Then, since the state does not actually have to begin funding it until 2013, how many of those insurance industry workers will be unemployed by the end of 2012?

Immie

Depends on how this is implemented. This could be sort of a "catch all" safety net. As in, if you are poor..unemployed..then this is something you are eligible for. HMOs would be an option for people who are employed.

UPS/FEDEX and the United States Postal service all exist together.

Then it would not be "single payer".

"Single Payer" means there will only be one payer and that is probably going to be the State of Vermont. So, they will tax their residents, negotiate with providers... telling providers what they are allowed to charge... um, what happens when a resident of the state of Vermont goes to New Hampshire and gets hurt and the doctor there refuses to accept the 40% of his costs that Vermont agrees to pay?

Immie

What if what if what if...good grief, the bill hasn't even passed the Vermont Senate yet, and probably won't until the new session in 2012, if at all. Please cut a little slack to those trying to formulate this thing, including a FAQ page.

That said, why would a doctor in NH refuse a guaranteed reimbursement by the State of Vermont? And if it's an emergency, the NH hospital would have to take the person under any circumstance.

 

[Immanuel]

Depends on how this is implemented. This could be sort of a "catch all" safety net. As in, if you are poor..unemployed..then this is something you are eligible for. HMOs would be an option for people who are employed.

UPS/FEDEX and the United States Postal service all exist together.

Then it would not be "single payer".

"Single Payer" means there will only be one payer and that is probably going to be the State of Vermont. So, they will tax their residents, negotiate with providers... telling providers what they are allowed to charge... um, what happens when a resident of the state of Vermont goes to New Hampshire and gets hurt and the doctor there refuses to accept the 40% of his costs that Vermont agrees to pay?

Immie

What if what if what if...good grief, the bill hasn't even passed the Vermont Senate yet, and probably won't until the new session in 2012, if at all. Please cut a little slack to those trying to formulate this thing, including a FAQ page.

That said, why would a doctor in NH refuse a guaranteed reimbursement by the State of Vermont? And if it's an emergency, the NH hospital would have to take the person under any circumstance.

A guaranteed payment by the State of Vermont that is only 40% of his cost of doing business will lead to a loss for him. He is not in the business of working for below cost wages.

I am willing to cut them some slack, but damn it, before this goes nationwide, and it will, I want some answers. This idea seems to be an economic nightmare when you look at the millions of jobs that will be lost when it goes nationwide and you and every other liberal I have talked to about this seem to be telling me, those people deserve to lose their jobs! They deserve to lose their jobs? Really? And what about the rest of us that are struggling to find employment in this market?

I simply want to know what the plans are for a SPS, how much my taxes are going to go up and how many people are you expecting to put on the unemployment lines. Shouldn't be all that difficult to explain now should it?

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

Just another reason to never step foot in Vermont or to buy anything from Vermont (including Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream). Truly sad from a state with the best firearms laws in the country.

Please do take your business elsewhere. And B&J is now part of a conglomerate. Cons love those, so it's safe for you to eat it.

 

[MaggieMae]

President Obama Challenges states to come up with better plan: Vermont does.

It's all smoke and mirrors. It sounds like Obama is finally acknowledging that ObamaCare is unworkable, but he's not. He's not lifting the burdensome federal requirements. All he's doing is proposing to move up the date on which states can apply for federal permission to impose a different but equivalent plan to expand health insurance coverage. States can "opt out" of ObamaCare's individual mandate if they cover as many people, with as many benefits, and as many government subsidies, as ObamaCare would.

What's sad is that federal laws are responsible for much of the increases in health care costs, and yet the government is going to come in and save the day! Now ObamaCare forces people to buy expensive health insurance. (Didn't see that coming!) Let's just throw Liberty out the window, eh?

Bullshit.

U.S. Health Care Costs: Background Brief - KaiserEDU.org, Health Policy Education from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, account for a significant share of health care spending, but they have increased at a slower rate than private insurance. Medicare per capita spending has grown at a slightly lower rate, on average, than private health insurance spending, at about 6.8 vs. 7.1% annually respectively between 1998 and 2008. [3] Medicaid expenditures, similarly, have grown at slower rate than private spending, though enrollment in the program has increased during the current economic recession, which may result in increased Medicaid spending figures soon. [4]

 

[MaggieMae]

Ok, and if it fails like it did in Mass. Who will you blame? You seem fully prepared to blame the GOP already for things you think they will do.

Personnally I hope it makes it. And it spreads to other states if they so choose to. But right now, it's a cancer. It's a failed idea that has spread.

So why are all of you cheering an idea that has failed and killed one state economy already?

It's nothing like the Massachusetts plan, and the Mass plan didn't fail.

‘RomneyCare’ Facts and Falsehoods | FactCheck.org

they should first define fail, it is, as their state bureau chief states, a train wreck, they are holding up a punch drunk fighter that should hit the canvass-




According to career state insurance commissioner Robert Dynan, Massachusetts' health care system is in his words "a train wreck," or several of them actually:

As events are now unfolding, the Massachusetts plan couldn't be a more damning indictment of ObamaCare. The state's universal health-care prototype is growing more dysfunctional by the day, which is the inevitable result of a health system dominated by politics.

In the first good news in months, a state appeals board has reversed some of the price controls on the insurance industry that Gov. Deval Patrick imposed earlier this year. Late last month, the panel ruled that the action had no legal basis and ignored "economic realties."

In April, Mr. Patrick's insurance commissioner had rejected 235 of 274 premium increases state insurers had submitted for approval for individuals and small businesses. The carriers said these increases were necessary to cover their expected claims over the coming year, as underlying state health costs continue to rise at 8% annually. By inventing an arbitrary rate cap, the administration was in effect ordering the carriers to sell their products at a loss.

Mr. Patrick has promised to appeal the panel's decision and find some other reason to cap rates. Yet a raft of internal documents recently leaked to the press shows this squeeze play was opposed even within his own administration.

In an April message to his staff, Robert Dynan, a career insurance commissioner responsible for ensuring the solvency of state carriers, wrote that his superiors "implemented artificial price caps on HMO rates. The rates, by design, have no actuarial support. This action was taken against my objections and without including me in the conversation."

Mr. Dynan added that "The current course . . . has the potential for catastrophic consequences including irreversible damage to our non-profit health care system" and that "there most likely will be a train wreck (or perhaps several train wrecks)."

more at-
Massachusetts insurance commissioner: MassCare will be "a train wreck" (Wizbang)

and


Joseph Rago: The Massachusetts Health-Care 'Train Wreck' - WSJ.com

That part is downright hilarious.

 

[MaggieMae]

And lets see if the people of Vermont can leave other states alone when they buracracy of a single payer system tells them they have to wait 4 weeks for a CAT scan, or how many doctors leave vermont when the state gets to set compensation rates (with no appeal of course)

As usual, you people are quick to project something that may not happen at all. How many doctors flee to the United States from the UK just so they can collect higher fees? Some doctors actually still remain faithful to their doctrine: First do no harm. Just because many have an [unframed] doctrine of First Collect Lotsa Money, doesn't mean they're all greedy bastards.

Q- is doing no harm refusing to accept medicaid patients?

Yes.

 

[The T]

While other states are busy crushing unions, denying people healthcare, like Jan Brewer, which resulted in the deaths of two people and cutting taxes on the rich (Can we guess what party or ideology these people embrace), Vermont actually took up Obama's challenge and went with single payer.

About fucking time.

Vt. House Passes Single-Payer Health Care Bill - News Story - WPTZ Plattsburgh

MONTPELIER, Vt. -- After hours of debate, the Vermont House of Representatives approved a bill that would create a single-payer health care system in Vermont.

It passed 92-49. In a meeting right after the vote, the house speaker, the governor and others who worked on the bill called it a historic moment for Vermont.

"Become the first state in the country to make the first substantive step to deliver a health care system where health care will be a right and not a privilege," said Gov. Peter Shumlin.

They are WELCOME to Socialism of their OWN accord. Fine and dandy...many of the rest of the Several States say FUCK YOU and your Socialist tendancies.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's all smoke and mirrors. It sounds like Obama is finally acknowledging that ObamaCare is unworkable, but he's not. He's not lifting the burdensome federal requirements. All he's doing is proposing to move up the date on which states can apply for federal permission to impose a different but equivalent plan to expand health insurance coverage. States can "opt out" of ObamaCare's individual mandate if they cover as many people, with as many benefits, and as many government subsidies, as ObamaCare would.

What's sad is that federal laws are responsible for much of the increases in health care costs, and yet the government is going to come in and save the day! Now ObamaCare forces people to buy expensive health insurance. (Didn't see that coming!) Let's just throw Liberty out the window, eh?

No they are not.

What's responsible for health care increases..actually has absolutely nothing to do with Health Care. HMOs went public..that was the first thing that screwed things up. Because then the focus becomes profit as opposed to providing care. So HMOs start doing things like authorizing needless testing on healthy people..and kicking sick people out of the plan. The second thing that happened was HMOs started playing the market with the profits. The downturn..and profit loss was passed on to customers.

Thanks for making my point. HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates.

--> The present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law.

And they soon learned how to gouge their patients anyway. Imagine that.

 

[MaggieMae]

.....Like if you'd moved-down (a little-farther) and read:

Outcomes

LOL!!!!!!

Do you have to write your posts like that..?

Don't bother... we all have. It only encourages him. I pretty much have learned not to read his posts unless he directly addresses me.

Immie

Me too, and it's unfortunate because I think the guy probably has some good information.

 

[MaggieMae]

If solving the health care COST crisis means calling me a Marxist, then be my guest. I prefer to believe that the framers had in mind the inclusion of health of its citizens when it used the words "...promote the general welfare..." After all, what are people without their health?

Promoting it doesn't mean paying for it.

James Madison was very clear about not extrapolating the meaning of general welfare clause.

The Preamble has never succeeded in a USSC test case, but it probably will if and when Obamacare gets rescinded and it is appealed. They'll have to make a decision based on interpretation of that clause.

 

[Immanuel]

Do you have to write your posts like that..?

Don't bother... we all have. It only encourages him. I pretty much have learned not to read his posts unless he directly addresses me.

Immie

Me too, and it's unfortunate because I think the guy probably has some good information.

I agree.

He seems extremely partisan but that doesn't translate to stupid. He can come up with some good posts, but they are simply not aesthetically pleasing and thus not something I stop to read, typically.

I keep waiting for him to grow out of it.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

My question is how many people work in the health insurance industry in Vermont and how many of them will be unemployed by the end of this year? Then, since the state does not actually have to begin funding it until 2013, how many of those insurance industry workers will be unemployed by the end of 2012?

Immie

Why would they be unemployed by the end of this year? And why is it more of a concern that the health insurance industry might go belly-up when business after business, industry after industry across the nation have gone belly-up? It's not as though the insurance industry as a whole is going to die. Those employees will at least have experience to take elsewhere, whereas that's not the case for thousands of laid off workers who will have to be retrained in some other job discipline because the jobs themselves have become obsolete.

Why would they be unemployed at the end of this year? Because the Health Insurance Industry can see the writing on the wall. They will begin cutting staff immediately.

Who said it was more of a concern? It is a concern, period. Do you really want to see more of your neighbors unemployed?

The health insurance industry as a whole will go belly up adding an influx of individuals to the roles of the unemployed, making finding a job for everyone else that much more difficult and the Democrats that drove the sword of death into the heart of the health insurance industry will blame Republicans for that... "where are the jobs you promised?"

Immie

I may have some sympathy for people who might lose their jobs, but I will never sympathize with the operations of the health insurance industry. Many employers (one of my own at one time) choose to self-insure because they continue to unjustifiably raise their rates year after year.

 

[MaggieMae]

Then it would not be "single payer".

"Single Payer" means there will only be one payer and that is probably going to be the State of Vermont. So, they will tax their residents, negotiate with providers... telling providers what they are allowed to charge... um, what happens when a resident of the state of Vermont goes to New Hampshire and gets hurt and the doctor there refuses to accept the 40% of his costs that Vermont agrees to pay?

Immie

What if what if what if...good grief, the bill hasn't even passed the Vermont Senate yet, and probably won't until the new session in 2012, if at all. Please cut a little slack to those trying to formulate this thing, including a FAQ page.

That said, why would a doctor in NH refuse a guaranteed reimbursement by the State of Vermont? And if it's an emergency, the NH hospital would have to take the person under any circumstance.

A guaranteed payment by the State of Vermont that is only 40% of his cost of doing business will lead to a loss for him. He is not in the business of working for below cost wages.

I am willing to cut them some slack, but damn it, before this goes nationwide, and it will, I want some answers. This idea seems to be an economic nightmare when you look at the millions of jobs that will be lost when it goes nationwide and you and every other liberal I have talked to about this seem to be telling me, those people deserve to lose their jobs! They deserve to lose their jobs? Really? And what about the rest of us that are struggling to find employment in this market?

I simply want to know what the plans are for a SPS, how much my taxes are going to go up and how many people are you expecting to put on the unemployment lines. Shouldn't be all that difficult to explain now should it?

Immie

Unknown answers right now. That's why projecting is like spinning your wheels. So here we go all over again. Which is more cost-effective overall? The same basic question, mired with all kinds of what-ifs that occurred for a solid year over Obamacare. And my opinion remains the same. It is completely irrational to expect people to just go without health care because they cannot afford it. What kind of future does the country have when half of its people are sick when they don't need to be? I don't really care HOW we get there, just that we do.

 

[Immanuel]

Why would they be unemployed by the end of this year? And why is it more of a concern that the health insurance industry might go belly-up when business after business, industry after industry across the nation have gone belly-up? It's not as though the insurance industry as a whole is going to die. Those employees will at least have experience to take elsewhere, whereas that's not the case for thousands of laid off workers who will have to be retrained in some other job discipline because the jobs themselves have become obsolete.

Why would they be unemployed at the end of this year? Because the Health Insurance Industry can see the writing on the wall. They will begin cutting staff immediately.

Who said it was more of a concern? It is a concern, period. Do you really want to see more of your neighbors unemployed?

The health insurance industry as a whole will go belly up adding an influx of individuals to the roles of the unemployed, making finding a job for everyone else that much more difficult and the Democrats that drove the sword of death into the heart of the health insurance industry will blame Republicans for that... "where are the jobs you promised?"

Immie

I may have some sympathy for people who might lose their jobs, but I will never sympathize with the operations of the health insurance industry. Many employers (one of my own at one time) choose to self-insure because they continue to unjustifiably raise their rates year after year.

I don't sympathize with the companies either, but I am very worried about what I perceive to be the implications of a SPS. Note, I say perceive, because I am not predicting this to happen, but it is the outcome that I think will ultimately happen.

Personally, I think an SPS would make our lives much easier. But, I am very concerned about the economic effects of taking out such a large industry. I am concerned about how this is going to be paid for? What will it cost me in tax dollars? What will it cost my employer in premiums?

I have said it dozens of times, I do not trust bureaucrats. I don't want them making my health care decisions. Nor do I want them being the ones that decide how much I WILL pay for my coverage.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

Why would they be unemployed at the end of this year? Because the Health Insurance Industry can see the writing on the wall. They will begin cutting staff immediately.

Who said it was more of a concern? It is a concern, period. Do you really want to see more of your neighbors unemployed?

The health insurance industry as a whole will go belly up adding an influx of individuals to the roles of the unemployed, making finding a job for everyone else that much more difficult and the Democrats that drove the sword of death into the heart of the health insurance industry will blame Republicans for that... "where are the jobs you promised?"

Immie

I may have some sympathy for people who might lose their jobs, but I will never sympathize with the operations of the health insurance industry. Many employers (one of my own at one time) choose to self-insure because they continue to unjustifiably raise their rates year after year.

I don't sympathize with the companies either, but I am very worried about what I perceive to be the implications of a SPS. Note, I say perceive, because I am not predicting this to happen, but it is the outcome that I think will ultimately happen.

Personally, I think an SPS would make our lives much easier. But, I am very concerned about the economic effects of taking out such a large industry. I am concerned about how this is going to be paid for? What will it cost me in tax dollars? What will it cost my employer in premiums?

I have said it dozens of times, I do not trust bureaucrats. I don't want them making my health care decisions. Nor do I want them being the ones that decide how much I WILL pay for my coverage.

Immie

Fair enough. Gotta go now. Enjoy your weekend!

 

[Immanuel]

What if what if what if...good grief, the bill hasn't even passed the Vermont Senate yet, and probably won't until the new session in 2012, if at all. Please cut a little slack to those trying to formulate this thing, including a FAQ page.

That said, why would a doctor in NH refuse a guaranteed reimbursement by the State of Vermont? And if it's an emergency, the NH hospital would have to take the person under any circumstance.

A guaranteed payment by the State of Vermont that is only 40% of his cost of doing business will lead to a loss for him. He is not in the business of working for below cost wages.

I am willing to cut them some slack, but damn it, before this goes nationwide, and it will, I want some answers. This idea seems to be an economic nightmare when you look at the millions of jobs that will be lost when it goes nationwide and you and every other liberal I have talked to about this seem to be telling me, those people deserve to lose their jobs! They deserve to lose their jobs? Really? And what about the rest of us that are struggling to find employment in this market?

I simply want to know what the plans are for a SPS, how much my taxes are going to go up and how many people are you expecting to put on the unemployment lines. Shouldn't be all that difficult to explain now should it?

Immie

Unknown answers right now. That's why projecting is like spinning your wheels. So here we go all over again. Which is more cost-effective overall? The same basic question, mired with all kinds of what-ifs that occurred for a solid year over Obamacare. And my opinion remains the same. It is completely irrational to expect people to just go without health care because they cannot afford it. What kind of future does the country have when half of its people are sick when they don't need to be? I don't really care HOW we get there, just that we do.

Two years ago, my employer was paying approximately $1,300/month to cover a families health insurance. If that goes to $3,900/month there are going to be a lot of business going under.

You say, "That's why projecting is like spinning your wheels", but that is no different that Nancy Pelosi telling us, "we have to pass it so that they can know what is in it". I'm sorry, but that is not good enough. That kind of thinking is what gets us into trouble all the time. Once it is passed, there is NO GOING BACK. We simply can't afford that again.

Immie

 

[Sallow]

Thanks for making my point. HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates.

--> The present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law.

Doesn't make your point at all. Initially Nixon was going to require that all American corporations provide healthcare to their employees. The HMO idea was one brought by "free marketeers" and they pointed out that there would be a profit motive that would make them viable.

What we have now is something that cannot be sustained. One of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in this country is catastrophic illness. Add in emergency room care is an extreme expense to tax payers. I, for one, don't agree with Obamacare/Romneycare. It should be single payer. But it's far better then what we had before.

Oh brother. Ted Kennedy was the sponsor of the 1973 HMO Act.

A Timeline of Kennedy's Health Care Achievements And Disappointments - Kaiser Health News

As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws.

And? What's your point about old Teddy..

 

[The T]

Thanks for making my point. HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates.

--> The present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law.

Doesn't make your point at all. Initially Nixon was going to require that all American corporations provide healthcare to their employees. The HMO idea was one brought by "free marketeers" and they pointed out that there would be a profit motive that would make them viable.

What we have now is something that cannot be sustained. One of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in this country is catastrophic illness. Add in emergency room care is an extreme expense to tax payers. I, for one, don't agree with Obamacare/Romneycare. It should be single payer. But it's far better then what we had before.

Oh brother. Ted Kennedy was the sponsor of the 1973 HMO Act.

A Timeline of Kennedy's Health Care Achievements And Disappointments - Kaiser Health News

As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws.

And ~NEVER~ Do they subject themselves to what they foist on those that elected them...they forget where the real POWER lies...

 

[Sallow]

Doesn't make your point at all. Initially Nixon was going to require that all American corporations provide healthcare to their employees. The HMO idea was one brought by "free marketeers" and they pointed out that there would be a profit motive that would make them viable.

What we have now is something that cannot be sustained. One of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in this country is catastrophic illness. Add in emergency room care is an extreme expense to tax payers. I, for one, don't agree with Obamacare/Romneycare. It should be single payer. But it's far better then what we had before.

Oh brother. Ted Kennedy was the sponsor of the 1973 HMO Act.

A Timeline of Kennedy's Health Care Achievements And Disappointments - Kaiser Health News

As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws.

And ~NEVER~ Do they subject themselves to what they foist on those that elected them...they forget where the real POWER lies...

Blah blah blah..rauuugh...Freeeeeeddoooommmmm...