single payer healthcare moving forward in VT

[JSt0rm]

http://www.thirdage.com/news/vermon...-care-closer-to-becoming-a-reality_05-22-2011

So what will happen if it is shown to be more effective in providing care then our current system? Will we move the country forward towards single payer?

 

[matt0611]

If it turns out so great I would want my state to adopt it as well.

What will happen if its not shown to be more effective?

Something I don't get though, I thought single payer meant no private health insurance? That article says the state will compete with other insurers. What am I missing?

 

[JSt0rm]

If it turns out so great I would want my state to adopt it as well.

What will happen if its not shown to be more effective?

Something I don't get though, I thought single payer meant no private health insurance? That article says the state will compete with other insurers. What am I missing?

I think they will be saving 8 to 9 cents on the dollar outright. Plus all medical providers will know all tests done so as not to perform the same ones again. So while private insurance will try and compete I don't think they will be able to.

I also think this will be a big bonus for companies moving into the state. Business should not be burdened with health care costs when they need to compete globally with companies in other countries that don't have to pay those costs.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It probably won't be less expensive simply because of the moral hazard-type of problem. Healthy well-to-do people are liable to emigrate out of the state and sick people are liable to immigrate. In contrast, if it were implemented on a national scale that sort of problem wouldn't come up, provided that we end illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration.

 

[nonlnear]

It probably won't be less expensive simply because of the moral hazard-type of problem. Healthy well-to-do people are liable to take emigrate out of the state and sick people are liable to immigrate. In contrast, if it were implemented on a national scale that sort of problem wouldn't come up, provided that we end illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration.

Look at the moral hazard situation from a political strategist's point of view... This presents a great opportunity for right-wing billionaires to polish their image and accomplish a political coup. All they need to do is start opening the most awesome homeless shelters in the world all over Vermont, and give away Greyhound tickets to the indigent of the northeast. That's bi-winning!

 

[Patranus]

If it turns out so great I would want my state to adopt it as well.

And that is the proper solution.
State solutions to state problems.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I think they will be saving 8 to 9 cents on the dollar outright. Plus all medical providers will know all tests done so as not to perform the same ones again. So while private insurance will try and compete I don't think they will be able to.

I also think this will be a big bonus for companies moving into the state. Business should not be burdened with health care costs when they need to compete globally with companies in other countries that don't have to pay those costs.

The money has to come from somewhere. It won't come out of thin air. So directly or indirectly businesses and/or individuals will still pay for it, via increased or added taxes.

 

[JSt0rm]

The money has to come from somewhere. It won't come out of thin air. So directly or indirectly businesses and/or individuals will still pay for it, via increased or added taxes.

Yes. And they will get more for their dollar.

 

[Fear No Evil]

So the debate is over?

 

[SparkyJJO]

Yes. And they will get more for their dollar.

That remains to be seen. I have my doubts.

At least it is at the state level, so it may not be as bad. But government getting involved almost always mucks things up worse.

 

[manlymatt83]

A new payroll tax eh? So people will pay for it anyway. And no one will complain. Because it isn't the "big" insurance companies charging the extra money (3% profit margin.... wow. So big...)

I'm okay with this because it's being done by a state, not the fed. But I won't be living in Vermont anytime soon.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Look at the moral hazard situation from a political strategist's point of view... This presents a great opportunity for right-wing billionaires to polish their image and accomplish a political coup. All they need to do is start opening the most awesome homeless shelters in the world all over Vermont, and give away Greyhound tickets to the indigent of the northeast. That's bi-winning!

Yup. That's why what Vermont is doing could actually backfire.

In the end though, I think that the health care situation in this country will get worse and worse and that it will become increasingly expensive and inaccessible to people. That's already the current trend.

The question, as with the state of our nation's economy in general, is, will we advance towards being like the Western European nations or will we allow free market mechanisms to devolve our economy and society into third world nationhood?

I actually predict that we'll become a third world country since it's already well on its way to happening and the populace doesn't seem to have any idea what to do about it. When you have a nation where millions of retarded people believe that the world is going to end on a certain day and that God will take them to Heaven, there just isn't much hope for your country. It's difficult to maintain a first world standard of living without the underlying philosophical prerequisites (such as reason).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The money has to come from somewhere. It won't come out of thin air. So directly or indirectly businesses and/or individuals will still pay for it, via increased or added taxes.

That's true, but it isn't as though businesses and individuals aren't already paying for health insurance--in fact--far more than people in any other country. (Ever head of something called insurance premiums?) It's thus possible that the increased taxes will end up being less expensive than the health insurance premiums. (Does it really make a difference if you write a check to an insurance company or to the government if the check to the government is significantly smaller?)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

That remains to be seen. I have my doubts.

At least it is at the state level, so it may not be as bad. But government getting involved almost always mucks things up worse.

Well, if you compare the U.S. to other industrialized first world nations that have real socialized medicine it looks like this:

U.S.A.

• 17% of GDP spent on health care (and also highest in dollars per capita)
• Tens of millions of people unemployed or underemployed.
• Hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies each year.
• A terrified populace.
• Businesses and an economy burdened by health insurance costs and concerns.

Nations with socialized medicine:

• Far less % of GDP spend on health care (13% on down)
• 100% coverage (!!!) (They're spending less and have 100% coverage!)
• Zero medical bankruptcies
• A more contented populace. (They aren't clamoring for the American system)
• Businesses and an economy unburdened by health insurance issues.

You should read these two articles and watch the video:

Article: Health Care: Costs and Reform (Forbes)

Article: OECD Health Data 2010

Video: Sick Around the World (PBS Frontline)

From the Forbes article:

According to the OECD, the U.S. spends 5% of GDP more on health than France, the nation with the second highest level of health spending among the 30 wealthy countries in the organization. The average for all OECD countries is 8.9% of GDP.

We spend $7,290 per person on average versus $2,964 among all OECD countries. Norway, the nation with the second most expensive health system on a per capita basis, spends $4,763. (Currency conversions based on purchasing power parity.)

---------------

Even more significant is the fact that despite spending vastly more on health than any other country, the U.S. has little to show for it in terms of key measures of health resources. For example, we have fewer physicians per capita than most other OECD countries: 2.43 per 1,000 population versus an OECD average of 3.1. Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway all spend at least a third less of GDP on health than the U.S. yet have almost four doctors per 1,000 population.


Only four OECD countries have fewer acute care hospital beds per capita than the U.S. We have 2.7 per 1,000 population versus an OECD average of 3.8. Japan has 8.2 acute care beds per 1,000 population despite spending half as much of its GDP on health as the U.S. does.

 

[senseamp]

Countries with single payer health care have more doctors per capita than US? Surely you jest, we heard many times that doctors will flee and become house flippers or something if we have a single payer system.

 

[Zebo]

It probably won't be less expensive simply because of the moral hazard-type of problem. Healthy well-to-do people are liable to emigrate out of the state and sick people are liable to immigrate. In contrast, if it were implemented on a national scale that sort of problem wouldn't come up, provided that we end illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration.

This. I always wonder if these aren't agent provocateur type moves just to show us nationally how bad it fails on a state basis. Probably sponsored by the Koch brothers.

Additional taxes/levies only work when you can't run to something better. California is finding that out as business continues it's migration to Midwest and mountain states. Obviously every country who has UHC , 67 of them BTW, instituted it on a nationwide basis.

 

[Zebo]

Oh and another just little thing. All the UHC nations control costs too. If you give someone monopoly power (patents, licenses, etc) you have right to control that monopoly. We don't, VT won't and thus it will fail too.

 

[Double Trouble]

Yes. And they will get more for their dollar.

Not if history is any indicator. I'm guessing more than likely you're going to see an explosion in expenses, a rise in red tape and all that fun stuff. I'm fine with it though, if that's what the people of Vermont want, they have the right to do it.

 

[Craig234]

Not if history is any indicator. I'm guessing more than likely you're going to see an explosion in expenses, a rise in red tape and all that fun stuff. I'm fine with it though, if that's what the people of Vermont want, they have the right to do it.

Yes, the massive red tape paperwork of a system filled with different forms for each of hundreds of private insurance who fight claims to try to save money and spend something like 30% of their health care dollars on that red tape IIRC is far more efficient that the single payer system, like Medicare which spends a fraction as much on red tape - though it has had a problem with corruption, partly as Republicans refuse to fund the enforcement against it.

 

[Nebor]

Yes, the massive red tape paperwork of a system filled with different forms for each of hundreds of private insurance who fight claims to try to save money and spend something like 30% of their health care dollars on that red tape IIRC is far more efficient that the single payer system, like Medicare which spends a fraction as much on red tape - though it has had a problem with corruption, partly as Republicans refuse to fund the enforcement against it.

I think he's just saying this is likely to fail due to similar systems in other states failing.

I know I certainly wouldn't vote for medicare fraud enforcement.

 

[her209]

Can neighboring states send/encourage their uninsured to seek medical treatment in in VT?

 

[JSt0rm]

Can neighboring states send/encourage their uninsured to seek medical treatment in in VT?

You probably need to be a resident of vt

 

[fskimospy]

Can neighboring states send/encourage their uninsured to seek medical treatment in in VT?

I'm going to guess that this is quite similar to how services work in other states in that you need to establish a residency requirement of a certain number of years in order to be eligible.

 

[MotF Bane]

I'm going to guess that this is quite similar to how services work in other states in that you need to establish a residency requirement of a certain number of years in order to be eligible.

Otherwise in a year or two we'd be hearing "Vermont broke! $100 billion deficit!"

 

[JSt0rm]

Otherwise in a year or two we'd be hearing "Vermont broke! $100 billion deficit!"

and that just shows you how big the problem actually is.