Skip to comments.Obamacare’s Vermont Fail
Posted on 10/22/2013 5:16:44 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Vermonts health-care exchange website may be even a bigger mess than the federal-run HealthCare.Gov. And health care in Vermont may be headed for a unique train wreck due to its efforts to become the first state in the country to implement a single payer plan.
One of the presidents key selling points of the ACA was the promise that if you liked your plan, you could keep it. Were learning thats often not the case as Obamacare is implemented across the country. And in Vermont, there has been no pretense of such assurance.
As of January 1, 2014, in Vermont, the ability for individuals or employers with 50 or fewer employees to purchase health insurance from private insurance companies ceases to exist. As for policies already covering those businesses and individuals? Those cease to exist, as well. In other words, in Vermont, a good percentage of its population will have no choice but to buy health insurance through the state exchange.
As this great health insurance experiment proceeds, Vermont bears watching. If this small, healthy state cant make Obamacare work to a high degree of satisfaction, it doesnt bode well for more difficult challenges.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
The essence of Federalism: let individual states adopt particular ideas. If the idea fails, then perhaps other states will avoid it. If the idea succeeds, then perhaps other states will adopt it.
Of course, modern America believes in one-size-fits-all national solutions, and the concept that "sure, it didn't work last time, but now we have smarter people (me) and I'll get it right. Trust me.".
Yep. Train Wreck. But, it’s the train wreck the folks in Vermont chose when they elected their government officials.
Suffer Marxist Pigs!!!
The sad thing here is if the Republicans had stood up a simple plan where there was a $4k deductible, a subsidized tax credit for those who couldn’t make the payment situations, allowed for cross-state-border insurance situations, and limited legal action against doctors and hospitals to $100,000 for most everything except extreme cases....then we would never have required some 2,000 page lost-in-space law (one-size fits all mentality).
Once they politicized health care....it was doomed for failure. The same would be true for politicizing business, farming, nutrition, or entertainment. This is one of the reasons why National Parks are now being viewed closely as ‘money-losing’ operations. Same for education reform, and fracking.
$500.00 deductible,$1500.00 out of pocket to $13,200.00 total out of pocket and deductible. This basically means the most expensive catastrophic care plan on the planet, for a population with a mean income average of $33,000.00.
Combine that with the most liberal welfare policies in New England and do the math. Total collapse of this state is nigh.
Oh wait, it gets better, single payer Green Mtn.Care has been passed an due to be implemented in 2016, but the funding scheme has yet to be worked out. Implementation requires more than doubling the states raise and appropriations from $5.3 bil. to $11.6 bil. Where are 600,000 residents supposed to come up with that, well by a new payroll tax of course,6% to 18%. On top of the outrageous property taxes we pay. The exodus tsunami is about to go from cat.5 to cat infinity. Good times.
My belief is that laws should be very short (10 pages?) if they become long then that is good evidence that they are simply efforts at social engineering. The people who think 2000-page laws are a good idea are the same people who think the legislature can alter human nature.
Social Security....written in 1936...was around sixty-six pages. A high school graduate could read it in four hours, and comprehend it enough to pass or fail it.
Once you go past one hundred pages....there’s virtually no Senator (living), that I think would be able to read it. Some senators....I don’t think.....have read anything over the past decade, and are lucky to just remember their office telephone number, their brand of scotch, and who their chief of staff is. It’s a bad sign where the republic is headed, and frustrating to see how far we’ve fallen.
Let's hope everyone remembers who brought us the UnAffordable Healthcare Act and it makes Dems unelectable for the next forty years!
Not just states, but also nations.
There are numerous nations with national health care systems so you can examine those and see how they work.
In the US, Medicare is a single payer system and supposedly Medicare gets the cheapest price for medical care.
OTOH, the US also has the VA that delivers health care in which VA(the govt) owns the hospital and employs the doctors, etc. Similar to Britain.
Most Americans(60%) are insured by employer group policies and this is totally unique to the US.
Nothing more needs to be said.
Meh, they’re all loaded on dope in VT these days so what do they care?
Hey, Vermonters: Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Eat the sandwich of your choice.
You are quite correct. The republicans had years and years where they could have taken the lead on this subject, but they seemed to think it would just....go away.
well, it didn’t and now we have this unholy mess.
Its not a good idea to bring up Churchill/Britain in a discussion of national healthcare systems because Britain’s healthcare system is the most socialist of all the nation’s healthcare system.
Not because of Churchill.
When will the geese that lay the golden eggs (called second home owners) abandon the state ?
Their policies are extraordinarily expensive. The lowest cost for a middle aged family of four is over $1200 per month with a $10,000 deductible and they don't offer any coverage for providers outside of their network.
Their network is very small and doesn't even include every hospital in New Hampshire. So if you have a heart attack and end up at, for example, Parkland Medical Center in Derry, you can't be admitted there if you want your insurance to pay your expenses. You'll have to get transported to one of the few hospitals Anthem will actually pay for.
Even more astonishing, if you or your children are really sick, and you need expert care at some place like Children's Hospital, or Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston the only insurance you can buy under Obamacare's exchange in New Hampshire doesn't cover anything. Not one dollar, so at those hospitals you don't have health insurance.
Even knowing what liars the liberal Democrats are, nobody would have predicted that they would stoop so low as to cut off all insurance for New Hampshire families with seriously ill children.
I never saw where Churchill or Thatcher objected to or tried to dismantle it?
Churchill was busy; he had a war to fight. But, basically, Churchill considered Socialism to be incompatible with human liberty. There is a quotation many use to suggest that he supported the National Healthcare Service, but it is taken from his tribute to the Royal College of Physicians on 2 March, 1944. Conditions in bombed-out Britain in 1944 were different (more critical) than conditions in the USA in 2009. Also, in 1944, the words national health service did not necessarily mean what the Labor government created after the war.
Thatcher’s least successful reforms were with the NHS, but that does not mean she didn’t try. She made efforts to introduce a marketplace within the system to deal with costs, particularly for prescriptions, to make hospitals self-managing trusts with their own budgets, to give tax credits to people who has private insurance, etc. People in Britain, despite the 3 to 4 year waits they often have for surgeries, are rather addicted to “free” Medical care and always express fears about it in their elections, including mid-term elections against Thatcher. On this battlefront, the headwinds facing her were pretty strong, and she had to be politically expedient, but I do not doubt her true intentions.
Which is why it has to be stopped NOW!!!!! Once it’s in place there is no turning back.
If you go back to the early 1970s....Nixon (before the troubles)...had the idea of some type of national healthcare policy for the lesser of the nation to sign onto. It would have been cheap....but also limit your options and rely upon high deductibles.
Carter also brought this up about half-way through his four years....only to find Kennedy all disturbed and upset about it not being his pet project. It never went anywhere.
Excellent point. The problem is that these days the states can only adopt ideas that are within strict federal guidelines. So much for the 10th amendment.
Don't blame me, I hate this place. Voting anything but Socialist here is pointless, and very frustrating on election day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.