Vermont one step closer to universal healthcare

[glenn1]

I fully support this move, let's see how this works out on a small scale.

It will also be interesting to see how many unhealthy people move there to take advantage of the "free" healthcare. Heck, if I were the governor of another state I'd be giving those folks a check in order to accept a one-way bus ticket there and let Vermont deal with them.

Http://www.reformer.com/locales/ci_17962302

 

[Jaskalas]

I fully support this move, let's see how this works out on a small scale.

:thumbsup: Agreed.

 

[Vette73]

Usually to use states benifits you have to be a resident of that state. So chances are you can;t just move there and use it. Like me, a US citizen, going to Canada for free health care.

 

[sunzt]

Usually to use states benifits you have to be a resident of that state. So chances are you can;t just move there and use it. Like me, a US citizen, going to Canada for free health care.

If you have a job there or have a permanent domicile, you pretty much are considered resident in most states.

 

[Brainonska511]

Usually to use states benifits you have to be a resident of that state. So chances are you can;t just move there and use it. Like me, a US citizen, going to Canada for free health care.

If you have a job there or have a permanent domicile, you pretty much are considered resident in most states.

Resident for tax purposes is easier to get than resident for state services.

For example, in Illinois, for tax purposes, you only had to be there half the year. For in state tuition purposes, you needed to be fully self-supported for one year in the state prior to enrollment.

 

[glenn1]

Resident for tax purposes is easier to get than resident for state services.

For example, in Illinois, for tax purposes, you only had to be there half the year. For in state tuition purposes, you needed to be fully self-supported for one year in the state prior to enrollment.

So what if they aren't an "official" resident? If the person is there and shows up for medical treatment, is the state of Vermont going to turn them away? It would be terrible PR, and even if they tried the person could go to the emergency room where they must by law receive treatment. The entire premise of universal healthcare is that treating people before they require emergency care saves money, so that would make no sense.

 

[Vette73]

So what if they aren't an "official" resident? If the person is there and shows up for medical treatment, is the state of Vermont going to turn them away? It would be terrible PR, and even if they tried the person could go to the emergency room where they must by law receive treatment. The entire premise of universal healthcare is that treating people before they require emergency care saves money, so that would make no sense.

As you said emergency care is all that is required by law, that is for every state. They then would be billed for it.

Same if I went to Canada and went to their hospital. I am sure I would get a bill. Or should Canada treat me for free as well?

 

[glenn1]

As you said emergency care is all that is required by law, that is for every state. They then would be billed for it.

Same if I went to Canada and went to their hospital. I am sure I would get a bill. Or should Canada treat me for free as well?

I'm predicting people will be coming to Vermont exactly because they can't afford healthcare where they live currently. So bill them for it, how do you think that VT is ever going to collect from their broke asses?

 

[Brainonska511]

I'm predicting people will be coming to Vermont exactly because they can't afford healthcare where they live currently. So bill them for it, how do you think that VT is ever going to collect from their broke asses?

Then they'll just put a restriction into the law that says you must live in the state for x months before you qualify for the state paying for stuff. The people that need emergency care w/o any sort of insurance will still abuse emergency rooms, regardless of where they are.

 

[glenn1]

Then they'll just put a restriction into the law that says you must live in the state for x months before you qualify for the state paying for stuff. The people that need emergency care w/o any sort of insurance will still abuse emergency rooms, regardless of where they are.

Still a good deal. If I have a chronic condition that requires expensive ongoing care (perhaps for the rest of my life), move to Vermont and in a few months have the state pay for it forever after that, or as long as they have universal healthcare. Having to wait is an annoyance but not a downside so long as the patients are currently having to pay for care themselves. Heck, what's a few months if you have AIDS/HIV and need thousands of dollars of drugs a month for the rest of your life, or have a special-needs child who will need ongoing care for decades?

 

[PingSpike]

Usually to use states benifits you have to be a resident of that state. So chances are you can;t just move there and use it. Like me, a US citizen, going to Canada for free health care.

You don't even have to be a citizen of the country. Our moron legislature has basically only decided that they want illegal aliens to have access. Boring side issues like how the fuck to pay for it and how the fuck it will work are "to be determined".

We aren't one step closer to anything besides ruin.

I'd even be open to the idea of single payer health care, if it was drafted by some one who wasn't using an overripe cantaloupe as a substitute brain.

 

[Infohawk]

I think Vermont's success will all depend on their demographics. Do they have a solid middle class? Will that middle class have to support an immigrant underclass? I wish them luck.

 

[OCGuy]

I fully support this move, let's see how this works out on a small scale.

Yes, let us take a look at how this works out......


Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care

(AP) Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the United States just seven months after it launched.

Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program.

A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/17/health/main4527996.shtml

 

[Schadenfroh]

I applaud states rights in action here. This is how all morality and social welfare should be enacted, at the state level.

 

[Zedtom]

Vermont uses funds to support their state Medicaid system with money dispersed to the states from the federal government. Medicaid is the safety net that provides health care to the indigent and elderly who are in need of care but have no resources or insurance.

The citizens of Vermont may think they are being generous in looking out for the health of their citizens, but when the bill comes due and there is no money, the costs will be payed for by you and me.

 

[Infohawk]

Yes, let us take a look at how this works out......


Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care

(AP) Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the United States just seven months after it launched.

Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program.

A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/17/health/main4527996.shtml

Isn't Hawaii a pretty wealthy state? That's not a good sign for universal health care in America if so.

 

[Throckmorton]

Yes, let us take a look at how this works out......


Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care

(AP) Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the United States just seven months after it launched.

Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program.

A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/17/health/main4527996.shtml

It was a waste of money because the state was paying a PRIVATE health insurance company to insure children.

 

[Throckmorton]

Isn't Hawaii a pretty wealthy state? That's not a good sign for universal health care in America if so.

Hawaii has a lot of poverty. Salaries don't match cost of living, so even though it may seem rich if you look at the numbers and compare to other states, in reality wealth is very stratified with the rich at the top inflating property values (vacation homes) and *average* salaries.

 

[Zebo]

I thought Obama already gave us universal health care?.. Okay I'm trolling but this will never work on a state level because you can escape paying by moving and get benefits by moving. Math won't work as assets flee and liabilities immigrate..

Social welfare depends on large pool to draw from and small pool who consumes.

 

[techs]

Uh, people are missing the point of what Vermont is doing.
Check your facts.

And, there is the expectation in Vermont that all states will cover almost all people as the Obama plan kicks in. Which should eliminate people going to Vermont for health care. Already one of Vermonts neighbors, Massachusettes has gotten the uninsured way down.

 

[Kanalua]

i don't think people realize that most conservative favor the states deciding their own health care coverage law, not a federal mandate (it's more 10th Amendment stuff). Though Conservatives may not agree with the law, the place to make that decision is on the state level, not the federal level.

And yes, Hawaii's experiment here was a spectacular failure. And that's on a isolated model with little ability for individuals, or families, to move into the state to take advantage of the system.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I thought Obama already gave us universal health care?.. Okay I'm trolling but this will never work on a state level because you can escape paying by moving and get benefits by moving. Math won't work as assets flee and liabilities immigrate.

Exactly, which is why it may not work. It needs to be done on a federal basis without any variations between the states. If it were implemented on a federal scale the wealthy could still move, but they'd have to relocate to other countries and surrender their U.S. citizenship. (Where they would go, I don't know, probably not to other first world countries that also have socialized medicine.) However, the free market dogmatists will be certain to completely ignore that fact. They already ignore that it works well in other first world nation's at a lower percentage of GDP and in absolute dollars.

One of the problems with a state doing it is the issue of how they will acquire the hospitals and other health care infrastructure. They might have a very difficult time using eminent domain.

 

[Throckmorton]

i don't think people realize that most conservative favor the states deciding their own health care coverage law, not a federal mandate (it's more 10th Amendment stuff). Though Conservatives may not agree with the law, the place to make that decision is on the state level, not the federal level.

And yes, Hawaii's experiment here was a spectacular failure. And that's on a isolated model with little ability for individuals, or families, to move into the state to take advantage of the system.

How is it a spectacular failure? It cost too much, because people preferred public funded insurance from a private company to buying their own. If anything it proves that real public insurance, with no middleman, funded by taxpayers makes more sense than employer insurance.

 

[theeedude]

I fully support this move, let's see how this works out on a small scale.

It will also be interesting to see how many unhealthy people move there to take advantage of the "free" healthcare. Heck, if I were the governor of another state I'd be giving those folks a check in order to accept a one-way bus ticket there and let Vermont deal with them.

Http://www.reformer.com/locales/ci_17962302

That's why it needs to be implemented on a national scale. The out of state free-loader problem. Maybe they should add a provision that requires living in Vermont for 5 years to qualify for this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Uh, people are missing the point of what Vermont is doing.
Check your facts.

And, there is the expectation in Vermont that all states will cover almost all people as the Obama plan kicks in. Which should eliminate people going to Vermont for health care. Already one of Vermonts neighbors, Massachusettes has gotten the uninsured way down.

Woohoo! When I retire I can move back to VT and get free healthcare. Thanks!