U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2012, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Giethoorn, Netherlands
629 posts, read 1,015,201 times
Reputation: 738

Advertisements

I'm an American who's lived in Australia for 1 year, and I have witnessed single payer working when administered properly. People above a certain income threshold here have a co-pay, those under, don't. Financing is provided by a 1% citizen tax. Finance administered by gov't but health care IS NOT. Practitioners must maintain high standards of patient care to continue participating.

It can work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2012, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Giethoorn, Netherlands
629 posts, read 1,015,201 times
Reputation: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by soreknees View Post
I read somewhere that in Australia, with a strong history of socialized medicene, about 58% of the people buy private insurance to cover the gap between what the government is willing to pay
Boy is this misleading. I just left Australia because I'm applying for a spouse visa to go back.

Most Australians have not been to America, and when they hear stories about Americans "saving" for medical costs, or being bankrupted by illnesses, or arguing with each other about why they "shouldn't pay for some stranger's health", it sounds like Chinese to them. Australians are born, live, and pass away without EVER worrying about health care costs. And yet my wife still earns $22 at target for the same job that pays $7 in America, the house we rent 3 miles from the beach is $1000/month, and we buy 2 pounds of frozen veggies for $1.50.

Most Australians that buy private insurance, do so for *dental*. Those that don't (like me) believe that it's better just to save for yearly cleanings/dental procedures.

Secondly, private insurance is incredibly cheap in Australia *because* of the great public system that covers just about everything. My wife's parents are both in their late 50s and yet their private insurance costs about $50/month, and they have the absolute best coverage you can get (including dental, "alternative" medicine such as acupuncture, etc.)

My wife has had everything from a devastating car accident with 2 weeks of hospitalization+surgeries, to common everyday ailments, and everything in between.

Since I've known her she's probably been to the doctor 20+ times (a beautiful, modern hospital with kind, knowledgeable doctors). She has not paid one cent for any of this care, and her medicine (no matter what kind) is fixed at $5.60.

Take it from an American who was brainwashed his whole life into thinking single payer is an automatic disaster. It isn't.

Last edited by topaz420; 01-06-2012 at 09:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2012, 01:22 PM
 
Location: in a cabin overlooking the mountains
3,079 posts, read 3,709,741 times
Reputation: 2253
As I read it, the proposed single payer system depends on getting millions of dollars from the Fed to finance the startup.

Quote:
What happens if the U.S. Supreme Court shoots down a provision in the federal health-care law that requires every American to have health insurance, a person asked.

“If the (federal) law goes away, we’re in real trouble,” Fisher said.

The state could still forge ahead on its own, but probably wouldn’t get the federal money it needs to start up the program, Fisher said.
Health-care forum draws questions about financing - Stowe Reporter | Celebrating 52 years as Stowe areas hometown newspaper: News: single-payer health-care system, financed, state officials, payroll tax, progressive income tax

To be more precise, $18 million.

New federal, state rules for health care insurance rattle businesses

Now what kind of a state comes up with a plan to "save" money which requires a federal handout? Looks to me like the welfare mentality has set in at the state government level. As in "great idea, let's get someone else to pay for it."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 18,909,415 times
Reputation: 15647
Quote:
Originally Posted by topaz420 View Post
Boy is this misleading. I just left Australia because I'm applying for a spouse visa to go back.

Most Australians have not been to America, and when they hear stories about Americans "saving" for medical costs, or being bankrupted by illnesses, or arguing with each other about why they "shouldn't pay for some stranger's health", it sounds like Chinese to them. Australians are born, live, and pass away without EVER worrying about health care costs. And yet my wife still earns $22 at target for the same job that pays $7 in America, the house we rent 3 miles from the beach is $1000/month, and we buy 2 pounds of frozen veggies for $1.50.

Most Australians that buy private insurance, do so for *dental*. Those that don't (like me) believe that it's better just to save for yearly cleanings/dental procedures.

Secondly, private insurance is incredibly cheap in Australia *because* of the great public system that covers just about everything. My wife's parents are both in their late 50s and yet their private insurance costs about $50/month, and they have the absolute best coverage you can get (including dental, "alternative" medicine such as acupuncture, etc.)

My wife has had everything from a devastating car accident with 2 weeks of hospitalization+surgeries, to common everyday ailments, and everything in between.

Since I've known her she's probably been to the doctor 20+ times (a beautiful, modern hospital with kind, knowledgeable doctors). She has not paid one cent for any of this care, and her medicine (no matter what kind) is fixed at $5.60.

Take it from an American who was brainwashed his whole life into thinking single payer is an automatic disaster. It isn't.
Interesting post. How do you get to be an Australian citizen? Is it the same with healthcare in New Zealand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 07:45 AM
 
Location: in a cabin overlooking the mountains
3,079 posts, read 3,709,741 times
Reputation: 2253
Campaign for Vermont has cited this assessment of Shumlin's proposal for single payer healthcare.

Quote:
Instead of restructuring the individual and small group health insurance market and forcing insurers to actively compete on service, cost and coverage, our Governor and legislature intend to choose one or two carriers, design a single plan for us (with a choice of deductibles only), and prohibit the sale of any other plans to individuals and small businesses.
Further, our leaders want to apply these rules to all employers from 1 to 100 employees. This means that any employer of that size will have no choices except what is offered through the Exchange, and will be charged the same community rate, rather than a rate based upon the employer’s own experience, wellness and incentive programs, etc.; something businesses with 50-100 employees now benefit from.
The result: the Exchange would be the only venue to purchase insurance for 98% of Vermont businesses and 65% of Vermont employees, and their only choice will be between two levels of deductible.
http://campaignforvermont.org/cms-as...e-exchange.pdf

I really wonder sometimes what there is left for Montpelier to come up with to make Vermont a poor choice to have a business. Well that is if you actually have a real business here in the state. At the same time as Montpelier is trying to sell the elimination of choice in health coverage and forcing small businesses to dance to whatever tune Putney Pete is whistling, Vermont is selling itself as the "go to" location (competing with Bermuda (!)) for captive insurance.

Vermont Captive : Home

Yep that's right, Vermont is the premiere location for big corporations that prefer to set up their own insurance rather than purchase insurance from major carriers. Makes for a nice commercial tax bse in Montpelier, none of the employees even have to get their hands dirty - just the type of business that Vermont strives for. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in this?

Gee I wonder if Vermont businesses wil be allowed in on this. I mean, can they opt out of the single payer plan if they set up their own captive insurance in Vermont? Probably not, huh? Not big enough to play with the Fortune 500 corps that Vermont has successfully courted. Or not the "Vermont way."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 10:53 AM
 
1,135 posts, read 2,045,231 times
Reputation: 1486
I would support a nationwide single-payer system similar to the ones in Australia or France. But, I do not believe Vermont can pull off a system on its own.

For one, half the population is on Medicare or Medicaid. Would they pay into the system? Probably not. So, the rest of the population will be taxed up the you-know-what.

Secondly, the gov says it wouldn't be tied to employment. However, most experts (including the ones leading the statewide VPIRG forums) project that it will be paid for by an employer tax. This is a contradiction. What would happen if you lost your job and employer contribution.

Third, we have a team of five people, most not medical experts, deciding what should be covered and how much providers should be paid. That's the scariest part in my opinion. The life-saving surgery I need may not be covered and my doctors may leave Vermont b/c suddenly they won't be earning enough to pay off their student loans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Rutland, VT
1,822 posts, read 4,521,503 times
Reputation: 772
Those are reasonable concerns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaMc46 View Post
Secondly, the gov says it wouldn't be tied to employment. However, most experts (including the ones leading the statewide VPIRG forums) project that it will be paid for by an employer tax. This is a contradiction. What would happen if you lost your job and employer contribution.

There's no contradiction. If (as is likely) an employer tax is one of the ways the new system will be funded, employers would pay that tax regardless of who is employed there. In other words, funding sources (such as employer taxes) would be funding everyone covered by the system. A particular company's employer tax would not be directed toward coverage for the particular employees of that company.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaMc46 View Post
Third, we have a team of five people, most not medical experts, deciding what should be covered and how much providers should be paid. That's the scariest part in my opinion. The life-saving surgery I need may not be covered and my doctors may leave Vermont b/c suddenly they won't be earning enough to pay off their student loans.

Although two members of the Green Mountain Care Board are doctors, the board itself is not deciding all those things. They're coordinating the process for experts (medical, financial, etc.), policy-makers, government agencies, and the public to decide these things.


Along with requirements for other expert input, Act 48 specifies:
It is the intent of the general assembly to achieve health care reform through the coordinated efforts of an independent board, state government, and the citizens of Vermont, with input from health care professionals, businesses, and members of the public.
and
The board shall establish a consumer, patient, business, and health care professional advisory group to provide input and recommendations to the board.
The process is public. I urge everyone who is a current or potential future consumer of Vermont's medical services to voice your concerns and be part of the process. The healthcare system affects me, my spouse, and everyone I know. I'm doing whatever it takes to make the time to participate.

Home | Healthcare

Last edited by Sherylcatmom; 01-27-2012 at 11:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Winter Springs, FL
1,789 posts, read 4,057,353 times
Reputation: 925
One thing we can't do in the US is pick what system we want to replicate and go down that path. It looks good on paper but the reality is it doesn't work unless the healthcare quality is similar. Australia has very good quality healthcare. In reality the US does not. We are ranked 40th in the world for healthcare. If anyone thinks that having a single payer system is the cure, they are sadly mistaken. The issues with the US system is multiple. An organisation I work with is involved not only in the improvement of healthcare, but also how to provide high quality cost effective healthcare (this is not US based, it is a worldwide collaborative). There are many who are much more qualified than myself who have testified in front of Congress about this. The American way is always the quick fix. As we know, we rarly get it done correct the first time around. The changes that need to take place will have to take time. Doctors, hospitals, healthcare workers, etc are not going to change the way they practice overnight. It's a known fact that protocol driven practices are the first step to improve care. This not only improves care but it reduces costs. An example of how the system works now is a person is diagnosed with a hospital acquired pneumonia, the hopital is paid extra money to fix an issue the hospital caused. This isn't good practice, but things like this happen in all aspects of healthcare. Protocols that are put in place to prevent these issues is the smarter way to start. We don't buy new tires for a car going to the junk yard, why are we trying to fix a broken healtcare system if we don't take care of the root cause?
I'm sure most people know we already have a singlepayer system in place. It's called Medicaid/Medicare. That system is failing badly. What makes anyone think a singlepayer system in place now will give everyone better healthcare? The same issues exist in practices in our healthcare and this has a huge part of why it's failing. I'm not saying singlepayer is a bad thing. We have to improve the quality in order to make the system efficient. Thats the bottom line.
Vermont is in a tough boat. Having businesses taxed to help pay for the system is a double edged sword. I can see several things happen. Typically what businesses do when they have increased costs is they pass that down to the consumer. It doesn't sound like a bad idea, but for a state with extreamly low incomes to start with, we are putting more stress on everyones pocketbook. It could also hurt business. If people can get the same product online, NH, NY etc. cheaper. they may do it. We have seen this already on boarder towns because of taxes. The other thing is people may even do without more if the cost will be significant. We are also relying on the Fed for a significant chunck of change. This money may not be available in years to come.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2013, 11:06 AM
 
Location: in a cabin overlooking the mountains
3,079 posts, read 3,709,741 times
Reputation: 2253
It looks like the rates have been published. In case you can't see the BFP article, here is an excerpt which contains the links to where you can see the rates.

Quote:
The Department of Financial Regulation has posted the rates at its website (http://bit.ly/16rsa9x) and provided examples of family situations and how prices compared to what they are paying now and would pay on the exchange, at http://bfpne.ws/YqAEf2.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...yssey=obinsite

All I can say is I am so grateful that I do not live in VT. Also I made sure not to expand my business in order to stay under the radar of VT policies. My husband and I would not be allowed to keep our high deductible insurance but would be forced to pay more to have a deductible that is lower than we currently have. And looking at the rates, it appears that the final cost of health insurance for low-income Vermonters only decreases because of subsidies from Federal and State Assistance. I wonder where all that money is supposed to come from to allow the few health insurance companies their cartel in VT. So far only BCBS and MVP health appear to be in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 01:45 PM
 
Location: in a cabin overlooking the mountains
3,079 posts, read 3,709,741 times
Reputation: 2253
Sorry to monopolize the thread, but I ran across this and thought it was worth updating.

Aside from the actual $100 mil to start up the VT Health Exchange, there is apparently even more money involved.

Quote:
The state will spend more than $100 million to launch Vermont Health Connect, an insurance program that promises to “touch a quarter-million Vermonters in 2014.”

But first, its leaders will roll out a nearly $7 million advertising and awareness campaign to alert the majority of the public that so far is unaware of what’s coming.
...
The state also will spend $2 million to pay for “navigators” — people trained to provide free in-person assistance — before setting up a $4 million call center and starting its VermontHealthConnect.gov site.
Ads target majority unsure of Vt. health changes *:*Rutland Herald Online

I'm not sure reading this whether the $2 mil and $4 mil are part of the first $7 mil, or in addition to, or part of the $100 mil startup cost, but I do wonder where all this money is coming from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top