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

[Mr. Shaman]

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

SLAMMER!!!!​

​

Massachusetts Miracle or Massachusetts Miserable: What the Failure of the "Massachusetts Model" Tells Us about Health Care Reform<Cato Insitute...

"The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the oil conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV6R1TkcSts]YouTube - Kieth Olbermann Discusses the Koch Brothers and Their Extremist Corporate Agenda[/ame]​

 

[The T]

SLAMMER!!!!​

​

Massachusetts Miracle or Massachusetts Miserable: What the Failure of the "Massachusetts Model" Tells Us about Health Care Reform<Cato Insitute...

"The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the oil conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States."

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV6R1TkcSts"]YouTube - Kieth Olbermann Discusses the Koch Brothers and Their Extremist Corporate Agenda[/ame]​

 

[Trajan]

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?

As of right now, the single-payer system in the bill passed by the Vermont house wouldn't go into effect until sometime around 2017 because it's contingent upon receiving an ACA waiver, which they can't get before 2017 (if the Wyden-Brown proposal to amend the ACA to make state innovation waivers available earlier were adopted, that would change).

So they need a waiver….humm. ACA prevents states from doing their own thing.

Q- BUT only until 2017…why was that date chosen?

And this is only also- IF the state covers as many people as the original law would and at the same cost? Is that correct?

In the meantime, the bill provides for the establishment of an ACA-friendly health benefits exchange in which private insurance is available, with the aim that this exchange ultimately provide the infrastructure for the single-payer system a few years down the line. What's interesting is that the bill calls for a "unified, simplified administration system" for insurers offering plans through the exchange (the system to which they refer includes "claims administration, benefit management, billing, or other components"). So they're already looking to streamline the administrative side of (private) insurance, completely independent of the single-payer phase of the plan.

And when the single-payer part finally goes into effect, there's still a role for the private sector on the paper-pushing front (namely, they'll probably be doing most of it):

§ 1826. ADMINISTRATION; ENROLLMENT

(a)(1) The agency may, under an open bidding process, solicit bids from and award contracts to public or private entities for administration of certain elements of Green Mountain Care, such as claims administration and provider relations.​

There are other possible (reduced) roles for private insurers, such as offering supplemental coverage beyond the single-payer's benefit package, though the legislature has kicked the can down the road a bit on deciding whether or not to allow private insurers to offer coverage (the bill calls for recommendations to the relevant legislative committees on this point by 2012).

But will be there be a substantially reduced role for private insurers (and, presumably, few jobs in that industry in the state) in the future? Yes, administrative savings is one of the strong, though probably not among the most important, selling points for Vermont's proposal. But any money saved--money that stays in the consumer's pocket instead of going into the health care system--is going to be coming out of somebody else's pocket. That goes for everything: nationally, if we want our health spending to be less than 17% of GDP, then that likely ultimately means having fewer jobs in the health-related sector and directing those savings into some other sector.

That said, like most single-payer bills, Vermont's does devote some attention to those on the losing side of the administrative savings. Namely, it commits the state government to:

A strategic approach to workforce needs, including retraining programs for workers displaced through increased efficiency and reduced administration in the health care system and ensuring an adequate health care workforce to provide access to health care for all Vermonters.​

So,the single payer system will cover more people, (or at least the same number of people), yet the administrative costs will be less?

The new admin. personnel will be more efficient and/there-fore administrative tasks will be reduced...?

and the state foots the bill for the re-training......job placement too?

 

[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?

As of right now, the single-payer system in the bill passed by the Vermont house wouldn't go into effect until sometime around 2017 because it's contingent upon receiving an ACA waiver, which they can't get before 2017 (if the Wyden-Brown proposal to amend the ACA to make state innovation waivers available earlier were adopted, that would change).

In the meantime, the bill provides for the establishment of an ACA-friendly health benefits exchange in which private insurance is available, with the aim that this exchange ultimately provide the infrastructure for the single-payer system a few years down the line. What's interesting is that the bill calls for a "unified, simplified administration system" for insurers offering plans through the exchange (the system to which they refer includes "claims administration, benefit management, billing, or other components"). So they're already looking to streamline the administrative side of (private) insurance, completely independent of the single-payer phase of the plan.

And when the single-payer part finally goes into effect, there's still a role for the private sector on the paper-pushing front (namely, they'll probably be doing most of it):

§ 1826. ADMINISTRATION; ENROLLMENT

(a)(1) The agency may, under an open bidding process, solicit bids from and award contracts to public or private entities for administration of certain elements of Green Mountain Care, such as claims administration and provider relations.​

There are other possible (reduced) roles for private insurers, such as offering supplemental coverage beyond the single-payer's benefit package, though the legislature has kicked the can down the road a bit on deciding whether or not to allow private insurers to offer this kind of coverage (the bill calls for recommendations to the relevant legislative committees on this point by 2012).

But will be there be a substantially reduced role for private insurers (and, presumably, few jobs in that industry in the state) in the future? Yes, administrative savings is one of the strong, though probably not among the most important, selling points for Vermont's proposal. But any money saved--money that stays in the consumer's pocket instead of going into the health care system--is going to be coming out of somebody else's pocket. That goes for everything: nationally, if we want our health spending to be less than 17% of GDP, then that likely ultimately means having fewer jobs in the health-related sector and directing those savings into some other sector.

That said, like most single-payer bills, Vermont's does devote some attention to those on the losing side of the administrative savings. Namely, it commits the state government to:

A strategic approach to workforce needs, including retraining programs for workers displaced through increased efficiency and reduced administration in the health care system and ensuring an adequate health care workforce to provide access to health care for all Vermonters.​

In other words, the employees of said insurance companies and the rest of the unemployed are basically screwed. There is actually a synonym for screwed that I would like to use there, but I try to keep that word from coming off my fingertips. Isn't that what I have been saying?

The very lucky few that get hired by the single payer system will keep their jobs, those that aren't so lucky will be out on the streets with the government throwing them a dirty bone and those who are now unemployed will have thousands upon thousands of new competitors in the search for new jobs.

Thanks a whole hell of a lot Democrats!

Please, Democrats, quit pointing at Republicans as the ones that are anti-jobs.

Immie

 

[Greenbeard]

The very lucky few that get hired by the single payer system will keep their jobs, those that aren't so lucky will be out on the streets with the government throwing them a dirty bone and those who are now unemployed will have thousands upon thousands of new competitors in the search for new jobs.

Thanks a whole hell of a lot Democrats!

Please, Democrats, quit pointing at Republicans as the ones that are anti-jobs.

I'm a bit confused. On the other page you said "I have said it dozens of times, I do not trust bureaucrats. I don't want them making my health care decisions. "

But now you're arguing for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy: administrative complexity and disorganization solely so we can keep cutting checks to those pushing the papers around. This particular back-and-forth, however, is a good example of why it's so difficult to find any savings in our health care system.

 

[The T]

The very lucky few that get hired by the single payer system will keep their jobs, those that aren't so lucky will be out on the streets with the government throwing them a dirty bone and those who are now unemployed will have thousands upon thousands of new competitors in the search for new jobs.

Thanks a whole hell of a lot Democrats!

Please, Democrats, quit pointing at Republicans as the ones that are anti-jobs.

I'm a bit confused. On the other page you said "I have said it dozens of times, I do not trust bureaucrats. I don't want them making my health care decisions. "

But now you're arguing for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy: administrative complexity and disorganization solely so we can keep cutting checks to those pushing the papers around. This particular back-and-forth, however, is a good example of why it's so difficult to find any savings in our health care system.

No she isn't.

 

[Greenbeard]

No she isn't.

I'm seeing a blanket argument against any kind of administrative simplification on the grounds that it will by definition streamline the health insurance industry, i.e. cost jobs. That's not even a single-payer-specific line of thought, it applies to simplifying electronic insurance transactions, or Vermont's ideas about consolidating the administrative functions of private insurers using its exchange. That's an argument for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy

 

[Immanuel]

The very lucky few that get hired by the single payer system will keep their jobs, those that aren't so lucky will be out on the streets with the government throwing them a dirty bone and those who are now unemployed will have thousands upon thousands of new competitors in the search for new jobs.

Thanks a whole hell of a lot Democrats!

Please, Democrats, quit pointing at Republicans as the ones that are anti-jobs.

I'm a bit confused. On the other page you said "I have said it dozens of times, I do not trust bureaucrats. I don't want them making my health care decisions. "

But now you're arguing for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy: administrative complexity and disorganization solely so we can keep cutting checks to those pushing the papers around. This particular back-and-forth, however, is a good example of why it's so difficult to find any savings in our health care system.

No, you are wrong, I am arguing that the Democrats are further screwing up the economy.

Private insurers are not bureaucrats.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

The very lucky few that get hired by the single payer system will keep their jobs, those that aren't so lucky will be out on the streets with the government throwing them a dirty bone and those who are now unemployed will have thousands upon thousands of new competitors in the search for new jobs.

Thanks a whole hell of a lot Democrats!

Please, Democrats, quit pointing at Republicans as the ones that are anti-jobs.

I'm a bit confused. On the other page you said "I have said it dozens of times, I do not trust bureaucrats. I don't want them making my health care decisions. "

But now you're arguing for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy: administrative complexity and disorganization solely so we can keep cutting checks to those pushing the papers around. This particular back-and-forth, however, is a good example of why it's so difficult to find any savings in our health care system.

No she isn't.

Um, I thought I already told you, Immie is a he.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

No she isn't.

I'm seeing a blanket argument against any kind of administrative simplification on the grounds that it will by definition streamline the health insurance industry, i.e. cost jobs. That's not even a single-payer-specific line of thought, it applies to simplifying electronic insurance transactions, or Vermont's ideas about consolidating the administrative functions of private insurers using its exchange. That's an argument for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy

No, it is an argument against the Democrats literally wiping out hundreds of thousands of jobs and throwing a few dirty bones to the poor unlucky thousands whom THEY put in the poverty lines.

Immie

 

[Greenbeard]

Private insurers are not bureaucrats.

I guess that about sums it up. As you were.

 

[Immanuel]

Private insurers are not bureaucrats.

I guess that about sums it up. As you were.

Maybe you need to learn English definitions:

bureaucrat - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

bu·reau·crat audio (byr-krt) KEY

NOUN:

1. An official of a bureaucracy.
2. An official who is rigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedure.

Dictionary: Online definitions and pronunciations - Yahoo! Education

bureaucracy bureaucracies
Administration of a government chiefly through bureaus or departments staffed with nonelected officials. The departments and their officials as a group: promised to reorganize the federal bureaucracy....

Note: bureaucrats are government employees. As of the current moment private insurers are not the property of the government.

Now, as you were.

Immie

 

[The T]

The very lucky few that get hired by the single payer system will keep their jobs, those that aren't so lucky will be out on the streets with the government throwing them a dirty bone and those who are now unemployed will have thousands upon thousands of new competitors in the search for new jobs.

Thanks a whole hell of a lot Democrats!

Please, Democrats, quit pointing at Republicans as the ones that are anti-jobs.

I'm a bit confused. On the other page you said "I have said it dozens of times, I do not trust bureaucrats. I don't want them making my health care decisions. "

But now you're arguing for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy: administrative complexity and disorganization solely so we can keep cutting checks to those pushing the papers around. This particular back-and-forth, however, is a good example of why it's so difficult to find any savings in our health care system.

No, you are wrong, I am arguing that the Democrats are further screwing up the economy.

Private insurers are not bureaucrats.

Immie

Hey Greenteeth? ^THIS^

 

[Greenbeard]

b
2. An official who is rigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedure.

Do I have to point out that administrative procedure is precisely the topic of conversation here? Bureaucracy is a function of organization, not your ideology.

Dictionary: Online definitions and pronunciations - Yahoo! Education

bureaucracy bureaucracies
Administration of a government chiefly through bureaus or departments staffed with nonelected officials. The departments and their officials as a group: promised to reorganize the federal bureaucracy....

Your link actually contains a brief discussion of private sector bureaucracy. It's not particularly enlightening, but I'm not here to provide a reading list in organizational theory.

My point stands. You're making a blanket argument against any increase in administrative efficiency in the health insurance sector because then, sadly, we'd be paying less for those functions (ergo we'd be employing fewer folks in that sector). Overhead for the sake of overhead (there, do you prefer that?) is not good medicine and it's not good policy.

 

[Avorysuds]

Whats funny is this thread went nothing like predicted on the first page.

GL to Vermont!

 

[AllieBaba]

Why?

This is a state. This falls squarely under states rights.

fyi; Conservatives fukkin LOVE states rights.

Yeah, that's what they say, anyway. This'll likely put that view to the test. Let's see if they can leave Vermont alone and not try to undermine their efforts.

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?

Because thy'ere idiots and ideagogues. They love the idea and really could care less if it works. If it's a great idea, they will do their best to force everyone to labor under it, regardless of the results.

 

[The T]

Whats funny is this thread went nothing like predicted on the first page.

GL to Vermont!

Veromont WILL become the FIRST autonomous Self-Actuated Socialist State of the Union apart from the Constitution...and a SAD example for the rest.

It means they capitulated having run outta ideas when they signed on to the best idea...of individual Liberty when they helped RATIFY the Constitution as one of the original 13 States...

 

[Immanuel]

b
2. An official who is rigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedure.

Do I have to point out that administrative procedure is precisely the topic of conversation here? Bureaucracy is a function of organization, not your ideology.

Dictionary: Online definitions and pronunciations - Yahoo! Education

bureaucracy bureaucracies
Administration of a government chiefly through bureaus or departments staffed with nonelected officials. The departments and their officials as a group: promised to reorganize the federal bureaucracy....

Your link actually contains a brief discussion of private sector bureaucracy. It's not particularly enlightening, but I'm not here to provide a reading list in organizational theory.

My point stands. You're making a blanket argument against any increase in administrative efficiency in the health insurance sector because then, sadly, we'd be paying less for those functions (ergo we'd be employing fewer folks in that sector). Overhead for the sake of overhead (there, do you prefer that?) is not good medicine and it's not good policy.

So, you want to literally destroy the economy in order to drop administrative expenses by a percent or two? Wow!

Tax revenues will plummet for one thing. Unemployment expenses are going to sky-rocket, but by God we saved a million dollars in administrative expenses by eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant.

Immie

 

[Anachronism]

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.

The company is still based in Vermont, so NO it is not safe for me to eat it. That money would go to citizens of the state of Vermont and put food on their tables after they've voted for people who are doing this stupid crap. Not something I'm interested in supporting.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Massachusetts Miracle or Massachusetts Miserable: What the Failure of the "Massachusetts Model" Tells Us about Health Care Reform<Cato Insitute...

"The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the oil conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States."

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV6R1TkcSts"]YouTube - Kieth Olbermann Discusses the Koch Brothers and Their Extremist Corporate Agenda[/ame]​

5 Worst Things The Koch Brothers Have Done​