Single-Payer Health Care: As Goes Canada, So Goes Vermont

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Single-Payer Health Care: As Goes Canada, So Goes Vermont

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Amused to Death posted:

No, because the federal money in no way would be enough to cover it, states would have to raise taxes be quite a bit, and that's always unpopular. Also Vermont is white as snow with a very low and rural population, normal rules of American politics don't apply.

Also Obamacare has a clause which states that the unique state plan can not add to the federal deficit beyond current spending:

quote:

Also, before Green Mountain Care is allowed to launch, state law requires Vermont to define the benefits in the program, provide a three year budget that costs less than current health care expenditures, and to acquire the federal waiver

# ¿ Apr 26, 2014 02:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:41

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

HBNRW posted:

For what it's worth, this is essentially what Canada does. Technically the companies that run the health authorities in a region are not owned by the government. However, since the government is the only entity that pays them, they effectively are. Doctors are all private and they simply bill the government for the cost of the procedure as basically Canada just acts as a gigantic health insurance company.

It's also the system that Vermont picked after evaluating different options including a NHS style government built and run healthcare system system.

However after evaluating the large of amount of pre-built private medical infrastructure that state decided it would be better to do something similar to Canada.

Basically the government provides insurance for everyone regardless of income but pays private doctors/hospitals for all the medical care.

quote:

Option 1: As laid out by the requirements of Act 128, the first option would create "a government-administered and publicly financed single-payer health benefit system decoupled from employment which prohibits insurance coverage for the health services provided by this system and allows for private insurance coverage only of supplemental health services."The proposal considered this option to be the easiest path to single-payer, but was critical of the "complex and inefficient process" of proof of residency needs.
Option 2: As laid out by the requirements of S 88, the second option would create "a public health benefit option administered by state government, which allows individuals to choose between the public option and private insurance coverage and allows for fair and robust competition among public and private plans." The commission noted that this option did not provide universal coverage on its own or the enforcement mechanism in place for any possible mandates put in place to achieve more coverage.[
Option 3: Act 128 allowed the commission to design a system that met the various principles outlined in Section 2 of the Act. The commission's design ultimately sought out an "approach to Option 3... by combining three studies to ascertain what type of universal health insurance, what methods of financing, and what type of single payer system is most likely to be politically and practically viable for Vermont

# ¿ Apr 26, 2014 19:04

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Fat Ogre posted:

How does this keep people with horribly expensive diseases from just moving to Vermont when diagnosed and sticking the state government with the bill?

Then when treatment is over you leave the state....

Or just selling postage stamp sized lots to be considered a resident of Vermont. So that you then just bill your out of state doctor to Vermont and laugh all the way to the bank?

Because it will be linked to basic residency requirements just like being able to vote or register a car in-state.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2014 19:26

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Joementum posted:

It is illegal in Vermont for a company to sell a product with "maple" in its name unless it contains real maple.

If you go to a McDonalds in Vermont and order the Fruit & Maple Oatmeal breakfast you can ask for a side of real maple syrup and they have to give it to you, thanks to a case that went to the Vermont Supreme Court.

They take their maple syrup seriously

# ¿ May 1, 2014 23:37

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Mooseontheloose posted:

From working in MA I Can tell you they think they are about a decade away from a single payer system. There is a push from the more liberal parts of the state to move forward.

Well the have lots of hoops to jump through such as the hard to meet criteria on how the plan must be budget neutral to the federal government.

# ¿ May 2, 2014 02:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:41

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Y-Hat posted:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/the-neoliberal-turn-in-american-health-care/

I don't know if this article was posted here, but in case any of you are wondering why healthcare has taken such a rightward turn in this country since World War II, give it a read. Among other things, it does a great job in refuting the "healthcare as a consumer good" talking point that was successfully (and sadly) used as academic proof that universal healthcare can't work in America.

What are the chances that Vermont will actually implement this with the OK from the Obama administration? I can't help but feel some paranoia over them actually letting Vermont go ahead.

The biggest challenge is getting over the funding hurdle since the waiver requires the plan to be deficient neutral to the federal government,

# ¿ May 11, 2014 21:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Single-Payer Health Care: As Goes Canada, So Goes Vermont