Vermont one step closer to universal healthcare

[PokerGuy]

I'm all for this, let VT show everyone (like MA and HI have) what a spectacular failure socialist healthcare is, perhaps we can learn from it.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm all for this, let VT show everyone (like MA and HI have) what a spectacular failure socialist healthcare is, perhaps we can learn from it.

Hawaii has some of the lowest health care costs in the nation despite having one of the highest costs of living in most other areas, you idiot. So if by 'spectacular failure' you mean 'among the best in the US', sure.

Do you even bother to expend the slightest amount of effort learning about these things before you open your mouth?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm all for this, let VT show everyone (like MA and HI have) what a spectacular failure socialist healthcare is, perhaps we can learn from it.

Vermont is like Pakistan in some ways, disparate groups within one border. The natives are generally "leave me alone and I'll do the same". Some years ago Burlington had a huge influx of people working for IBM and a few other corporations who were pretty much Progressive Californians, and the number grew. Eventually they became the largest political force by far, which in turn took over Montpelier, the state capital. It is they which drive this, and it's been going on for a long time. I lived there so I knew both types, the immigrants and the traditional Vermonters, who had a saying "The nice thing about Burlington is that it's so close to Vermont"

 

[PokerGuy]

Hawaii has some of the lowest health care costs in the nation despite having one of the highest costs of living in most other areas, you idiot. So if by 'spectacular failure' you mean 'among the best in the US', sure.

Do you even bother to expend the slightest amount of effort learning about these things before you open your mouth?

Hey moron, in case you hadn't checked THEY decided to stop their "universal health care for all children" program BECAUSE IT COST TOO MUCH. They don't have universal health care for everyone else. So as usual you're a big mouth idiot with little understanding of what you're talking about. Typical blowhard lib.

 

[fskimospy]

Hey moron, in case you hadn't checked THEY decided to stop their "universal health care for all children" program BECAUSE IT COST TOO MUCH. They don't have universal health care for everyone else. So as usual you're a big mouth idiot with little understanding of what you're talking about. Typical blowhard lib.

No, Hawaii dropped it because of revenue shortfalls caused by the recession, not due to some excessive costs incurred by the program. Furthermore, since Hawaii has an insurance mandate for all employers, while there were only 2,000 children in the program total, according to the state many of them were coming from families that were already insured otherwise.

Hawaii mandates insurance coverage for all employed people (basically), providing it with near universal health coverage. Once again, it looks like you read a story on a right wing website and just parroted it because it told you what you wanted to hear.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, Hawaii dropped it because of revenue shortfalls caused by the recession, not due to some excessive costs incurred by the program. Furthermore, since Hawaii has an insurance mandate for all employers, while there were only 2,000 children in the program total, according to the state many of them were coming from families that were already insured otherwise.

Hawaii mandates insurance coverage for all employed people (basically), providing it with near universal health coverage. Once again, it looks like you read a story on a right wing website and just parroted it because it told you what you wanted to hear.

That's wonderful spin. They really dropped it because they spent everything they had during the good times and never thought there would be bad.

This is also a good example of why the nonsense notion of paying down the debt is just that. Like crack addicts the government will spend every cent and then some while mandating that someone else bear the responsibility.

 

[fskimospy]

That's wonderful spin. They really dropped it because they spent everything they had during the good times and never thought there would be bad.

This is also a good example of why the nonsense notion of paying down the debt is just that. Like crack addicts the government will spend every cent and then some while mandating that someone else bear the responsibility.

Sure it is. There's no evidence that the costs of the program ran outside of projections, therefore saying it was dropped because it cost too much is dishonest. (not to mention that only 2,000 people were enrolled in it anyway)

I'm not sure what the federal debt has to do with this, but regardless of that what you wrote was nonsensical rambling.

 

[PokerGuy]

No, Hawaii dropped it because of revenue shortfalls caused by the recession

Do you have evidence of that? Did they not think there would EVER be a recession when they implemented it? ..... or, more likely, it turned into a money pit with little benefit and it got axed. Nice try at spin though.

Hawaii mandates insurance coverage for all employed people (basically), providing it with near universal health coverage.

I have no problem with employers providing health care coverage, I have a problem with government run health care coverage, especially at the federal level. If the people of one state decide to do something dumb (like in VT and MA), that's up to them.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you have evidence of that? Did they not think there would EVER be a recession when they implemented it? ..... or, more likely, it turned into a money pit with little benefit and it got axed. Nice try at spin though.

I have no problem with employers providing health care coverage, I have a problem with government run health care coverage, especially at the federal level. If the people of one state decide to do something dumb (like in VT and MA), that's up to them.

Dropping it due to revenue shortfalls caused by the recession is the stated reason by the Hawaii government. (I'm going to guess you will declare this to be nothing but lies and cling to your explanation for no particularly good reason) Of course they didn't think that there would never be a recession, but they didn't bank on the most severe recession since the great depression. Shouldn't that be obvious?

Hawaii doesn't just have employers providing health care coverage, they have a government imposed mandate on employers that forces them to provide it to everyone. It's quite similar to the individual mandate, just on business instead of people.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sure it is. There's no evidence that the costs of the program ran outside of projections, therefore saying it was dropped because it cost too much is dishonest. (not to mention that only 2,000 people were enrolled in it anyway)

I'm not sure what the federal debt has to do with this, but regardless of that what you wrote was nonsensical rambling.

It's nonsense to you because it has to be. I never said anything about exceeding projections. If an individual had a variable income and knew it but decided to commit to spending at the upper limit they would be a fool. When that idiotic concept is practiced by government then "well shucks folks how could anyone see this coming" is your effective response.

This applies to state and federal. Please, run up all your credit to the limit and buy that new shiny bauble, but don't attempt to justify it if you knew your income was almost certainly going to be cut at some point.

That to is probably also beyond your capacity to understand.

 

[fskimospy]

It's nonsense to you because it has to be. I never said anything about exceeding projections. If an individual had a variable income and knew it but decided to commit to spending at the upper limit they would be a fool. When that idiotic concept is practiced by government then "well shucks folks how could anyone see this coming" is your effective response.

This applies to state and federal. Please, run up all your credit to the limit and buy that new shiny bauble, but don't attempt to justify it if you knew your income was almost certainly going to be cut at some point.

That to is probably also beyond your capacity to understand.

States cannot and should not base their budgets upon being ready for the worst recession in almost a century at all times. Not only would it be politically impossible, but it would be inefficient as well. This is probably beyond your capacity to understand.

If they did what you recommend you would be shrieking for tax cuts instead and talking about how the state was just sitting on all of our money.

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm all for this, let VT show everyone (like MA and HI have) what a spectacular failure socialist healthcare is, perhaps we can learn from it.

They were only failures because they were implemented on a state level and not a federal level. You need a much larger pool to pull money from then what 1 state can afford. Plus you have other issues like beuacracy and the way the programs are set up in the first place.

UHC can be done right if people wanted it that way. But when you have companies lobbying politicians they get what they want and the program becomes a flop because it doesnt work.

 

[PokerGuy]

Dropping it due to revenue shortfalls caused by the recession is the stated reason by the Hawaii government.

The articles I read simply said "due to budget shortfalls", which can be any combination of income/cost/value/benefit/other reasons. Either way, when forced to make decisions because of budget shortfalls, they axed the program. So it's a failed program, no way to twist that.

Hawaii doesn't just have employers providing health care coverage, they have a government imposed mandate on employers that forces them to provide it to everyone.

I have no problem with this either. For one, it's at the state level so each state can decide what makes sense for their people. Second, neither the insurance nor the coverage management is run by the government, they simply mandated that employers provide coverage. That leaves it up to the private sector to figure out how best to do it. Less government = better, as always.

 

[fskimospy]

The articles I read simply said "due to budget shortfalls", which can be any combination of income/cost/value/benefit/other reasons. Either way, when forced to make decisions because of budget shortfalls, they axed the program. So it's a failed program, no way to twist that.

I have no problem with this either. For one, it's at the state level so each state can decide what makes sense for their people. Second, neither the insurance nor the coverage management is run by the government, they simply mandated that employers provide coverage. That leaves it up to the private sector to figure out how best to do it. Less government = better, as always.

Obama's plan doesn't manage the coverage either, nor is the insurance run by the government. Unless you're talking about how it regulates the insurance industry, of course. In that case, Hawaii does exactly the same thing.

You also have a bizarre definition of 'failed program'.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

States cannot and should not base their budgets upon being ready for the worst recession in almost a century at all times. Not only would it be politically impossible, but it would be inefficient as well. This is probably beyond your capacity to understand.

Well hells bells, we're fucked. The government will continually add new programs and continually have to take more and more as a result. When things turn south they can just take more. When things get better they can just take more to spend on more programs. When they go south you become the apologist.

I understand now.

If they did what you recommend you would be shrieking for tax cuts instead and talking about how the state was just sitting on all of our money.

Would I now? Interesting, you not only know how to justify malfeasance you read minds!

I do have ideas, but you are far too clever to fall for anything which might be constructive.

 

[Tom]

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

The problem is universal health care won't work unless it's "universal". What happens otherwise is the people who need healthcare the most overburden the system and people who don't need healthcare at the moment can opt-out.

 

[quest55720]

They were only failures because they were implemented on a state level and not a federal level. You need a much larger pool to pull money from then what 1 state can afford. Plus you have other issues like beuacracy and the way the programs are set up in the first place.

UHC can be done right if people wanted it that way. But when you have companies lobbying politicians they get what they want and the program becomes a flop because it doesnt work.

This government can't do anything right. It would be just another disaster like everything else this governement does. It just be another fraud plagued program that is going bankrupt like medicare.

 

[Throckmorton]

Hawaii has some of the lowest health care costs in the nation despite having one of the highest costs of living in most other areas, you idiot. So if by 'spectacular failure' you mean 'among the best in the US', sure.

Do you even bother to expend the slightest amount of effort learning about these things before you open your mouth?

Well the short lived universal child health insurance experiment didn't cause us to have the lowest healthcare costs.

 

[soulcougher73]

This government can't do anything right. It would be just another disaster like everything else this governement does. It just be another fraud plagued program that is going bankrupt like medicare.

I know it would. But so many seem to over look that and just assume UHC could not work at all. It can work. But it has to be done by people who know what they are doing and not bought off by lobbyist to screw it up. We need to over throw the government first and then we can talk UHC.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's a shame this country has created the monster of private health insurance... Ironically through government imposed wage limits.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm all for this, let VT show everyone (like MA and HI have) what a spectacular failure socialist healthcare is, perhaps we can learn from it.

How do you explain the fact that all of the other first world nations have socialized medicine and that it costs much less than the U.S. system while having 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, a more contented populace, and businesses that aren't burdened by health care concerns? The U.S. is spending about 17% of its GDP on health care but these other nations are spending far less of their GDP on health care and also fewer dollars per capita on health care (and often have the same amount of doctors per capita).

Do you find it at all telling that people in these other nations are not protesting and clamoring for American-styled health care? They think our system is retarded.

Definitely check out these two links:

Health Care: Costs And Reform - Forbes.com

FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

As mentioned earlier in this thread, it's very possible that a state system could fail simply because it would encourage sick people to move in while chasing health rich people out. You can't judge socialized medicine in that sort of an environment; it needs to be done on a national scale.

 

[sMiLeYz]

I love how the right wingers when it comes to Universal healthcare just shut their ears and go 'lalalalala' at the suggestion of Universal healthcare.

Universal healthcare for advanced economies like Japan, Germany, Canada, Britain has proven to hugely successful while actually costing far less than the private insurance based model.

Other countries don't have medical bankruptcies or people dying of lack of healthcare, while the United States standard of living decline and baby mortality rate increased.

State based Universal Healthcare wouldn't be nearly as successful or cost effective as a federal plan.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Universal healthcare for advanced economies like Japan, Germany, Canada, Britain has proven to hugely successful while actually costing far less than the private insurance based model.

The insurance I currently receive through the company where I work costs less than what was shown in this link with the exception of the UK (However, how much are they taxed for this free healthcare?) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

 

[CanOWorms]

I love how the right wingers when it comes to Universal healthcare just shut their ears and go 'lalalalala' at the suggestion of Universal healthcare.

Universal healthcare for advanced economies like Japan, Germany, Canada, Britain has proven to hugely successful while actually costing far less than the private insurance based model.

Other countries don't have medical bankruptcies or people dying of lack of healthcare, while the United States standard of living decline and baby mortality rate increased.

State based Universal Healthcare wouldn't be nearly as successful or cost effective as a federal plan.

People die in countries with universal healthcare because of lack of healthcare all the time. One of the common features of those systems is limited number of standardized healthcare options, longer wait times, etc. You mention Britain, but it has a cancer survival rate of a third world nation because the time to treatment is extremely long. Being denied cancer treatment for months obviously kills.

No realistic system will be free of people dying from lack of healthcare.

The US is also #4 in the UN Human Development Index.

None of this means that the US shouldn't reform its system, but if we reform without understanding the plagues of the other system and pretend that they are perfect, we just replace an inferior system with another inferior system.

 

[Throckmorton]

The insurance I currently receive through the company where I work costs less than what was shown in this link with the exception of the UK (However, how much are they taxed for this free healthcare?) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

How much would your insurance cost if you were 75?