Vermont House passes single-payer health care bill

[Skgoa]

Vt. House passes single-payer health care bill
By Dave Gram
Associated Press / March 24, 2011

MONTPELIER, Vt.—Every Vermonter could sign up for state-financed health insurance under a bill passed by the House on Thursday that would put the state on a path to a single-payer health care system by the middle of this decade.

"This bill takes our state one step closer to a system that ensures that all Vermonters have access to the care they deserve and contains costs," House Speaker Shap Smith said shortly after the House passed the bill 92-49.

The measure now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass, but with some possible changes.

Gov. Peter Shumlin, who made single-payer health care a centerpiece of his gubernatorial campaign last year, also praised the legislation. He said it would make Vermont "the first state in the country to make the first substantive step to deliver a health care system where health care will be a right and not a privilege, where health care will follow the individual, not be a requirement of the employer, and where we'll have an affordable system that contains costs."

Costs are an open question. The bill sets up a five-member state board to design a benefit package to be called Green Mountain Care, but doesn't require the governor to propose a way to pay for it until 2013. That drew fire from minority Republicans in the House, who said the hard part of reform -- paying for it -- won't be tackled until after Shumlin campaigns for a second two-year term in 2012. They also said the bill would create too much uncertainty for businesses in the state.

"Creating a health care system based on theory and campaign promises is not good policy," said House Minority Leader Don Turner, R-Milton.

Rep. Thomas Burditt, R-West Rutland, went further, arguing that government should sharply reduce, not increase, its role in the delivery of health care.

Burditt quoted V.I. Lenin, leader of the Russian Revolution and founder of the Soviet Communist Party, as saying "medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism," adding, "I believe those who are promoting 'universal coverage' via government-run and government-controlled medicine know this. What they hope is that the public won't find out the truth. There is nothing compassionate about socialism. "

That drew a rebuke from Rep. Paul Poirier, I-Barre, a supporter of the bill. "I take offense at the remarks ... that we're socialists, that we're communists," he said. "I ask all members to respect other people's points of view."

Poirier spoke of profit-driven insurance companies denying coverage to people who should have it had coming, and, before Vermont passed laws to bar the practice, "cherry-picking" young and healthy subscribers who would pay into their coffers without being costly to cover.

Despite the Republicans' complaints, majority Democrats largely held together with their leadership to pass the bill. A similar outcome is expected in the Senate, though that chamber's president pro tem, Sen. John Campbell, said members would do their "due diligence" on the bill and might seek some changes.

The bill outlines a four-year timeline leading to establishment of the statewide, publicly funded system. It begins by setting up the Green Mountain Care Board on July 1 with a budget of $1.2 million to begin planning the new system. It then creates a health insurance marketplace -- or "exchange," of the sort required by last year's federal health care legislation. And it then calls for converting the exchange to the Green Mountain Care system.

The Shumlin administration and supporters of the bill need to address numerous uncertainties as the process goes forward. One concerns the more than 100,000 Vermonters who get health coverage from employers who are self-insured, meaning they assume the financial risks of coverage, and are chartered under federal law.

The House defeated a proposed amendment to allow those employers, among them the state's largest, like IBM, to be exempt from paying taxes to support Green Mountain Care. Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, said that would leave them in a similar situation to parents who send their children to private schools, but pay taxes to support public ones.

source: http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermon ... care_bill/

Wow, might we actually see universal health care in america IN OUR LIFETIME? If this gets momentum and the medicare thing kepps on being an albatros arounf the GOP's neck, this might go somewhere in/after 2012.

[Broomstick]

God, I hope so - universal healthcare for the US was proposed as far back as Nixon, maybe even earlier.

Doing it state-by-state would eliminate objections by the right wing that the Federal government doesn't have the authority (which, arguably, it doesn't). The states certainly have that authority. While a system truly universal across the US would, in my mind, be preferable doing it by state would still be an improvement over the current mess.

[The Romulan Republic]

God, I hope so - universal healthcare for the US was proposed as far back as Nixon, maybe even earlier.

Doing it state-by-state would eliminate objections by the right wing that the Federal government doesn't have the authority (which, arguably, it doesn't). The states certainly have that authority. While a system truly universal across the US would, in my mind, be preferable doing it by state would still be an improvement over the current mess.

Its pretty much the way gay marriage is being done as well. Its slow, but yeah, its something.

[Dave]

Costs are an open question. The bill sets up a five-member state board to design a benefit package to be called Green Mountain Care, but doesn't require the governor to propose a way to pay for it until 2013. That drew fire from minority Republicans in the House, who said the hard part of reform -- paying for it -- won't be tackled until after Shumlin campaigns for a second two-year term in 2012.

It seems like this is a currently-unfunded or poorly-funded mandate.

[Simon_Jester]

Interesting use of a Lenin quote from the Vermont Republicans:

Burditt quoted V.I. Lenin, leader of the Russian Revolution and founder of the Soviet Communist Party, as saying "medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism," adding, "I believe those who are promoting 'universal coverage' via government-run and government-controlled medicine know this. What they hope is that the public won't find out the truth. There is nothing compassionate about socialism. "

Lenin also said "Communism is socialism plus electrification." Does that mean electricity is now communist and we should go back to gas lamps?

[PeZook]

Lenin also said "Communism is socialism plus electrification." Does that mean electricity is now communist and we should go back to gas lamps?

Well, in the black and white world of US Republican nutters, everything socialist is evil. They also like to quote people selectively, so what else is new?

Pointing out one of your greatest allies had an evil socialist health care system for decades and didn't turn red is, of course, lost on those types of people.

[LaCroix]

Vt. House passes single-payer health care bill
*snip
The measure now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass, but with some possible changes.
*snap *

I can't help, but when I read this, my skin crawls.

Is it really possible that the senate takes a motion that has passed the house, rewrites it and then passes it?
They could turn it around by 180° without any check if this is true...

Anyway, welcome to the 20th century, Vermont. About time someone made the first step.

[LaCroix]

Pointing out one all of your greatest allies had an evil socialist health care system for decades and didn't turn red is, of course, lost on those types of people.

Corrected for you

[Serafina]

Pointing out one of your greatest allies had an evil socialist health care system for decades and didn't turn red is, of course, lost on those types of people.

Just ONE? Seriously, practically all actual allies (instead of "dictator who does our bidding as long as we pay him") have socialized health care. Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Japan etc. all have socialized health care at varying degrees - certainly far more than the USA ever had.

Edit: Darn, LaCroix beat me to it. But seriously, i can't think of any US-ally that wasn't a bought dictatorship that did not have socialized health care for a long time.

[Beowulf]

Vt. House passes single-payer health care bill
*snip
The measure now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass, but with some possible changes.
*snap *

I can't help, but when I read this, my skin crawls.

Is it really possible that the senate takes a motion that has passed the house, rewrites it and then passes it?
They could turn it around by 180° without any check if this is true...

Anyway, welcome to the 20th century, Vermont. About time someone made the first step.

Uh, you obviously don't know anything about how American style bicameral legislatures work. Either house can pass a piece of legislation, which goes to the other house, which can make changes. It then goes back to a committee from both houses to align the versions together, then has to pass both houses again, but without any changes allowed. If it passes both houses again, it'll go to the executive branch for approval. If it doesn't change between the two houses, then they don't need a conference committee to align them, and you don't need to have it be repassed.

[LaCroix]

Uh, you obviously don't know anything about how American style bicameral legislatures work.

No I didn't. Now I do. I thought it would be that way, but the way it was written in the article made me wary. Alas, you never know what kind of loopholes exist, it's not as if there wasn't any precedent for such a thing to happen (*cough*Bush*cough*signing*cough*)

[TheHammer]

Interesting use of a Lenin quote from the Vermont Republicans:

Burditt quoted V.I. Lenin, leader of the Russian Revolution and founder of the Soviet Communist Party, as saying "medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism," adding, "I believe those who are promoting 'universal coverage' via government-run and government-controlled medicine know this. What they hope is that the public won't find out the truth. There is nothing compassionate about socialism. "

Lenin also said "Communism is socialism plus electrification." Does that mean electricity is now communist and we should go back to gas lamps?

"Socialism" doesn't carry the same scare tactic weight that it used to in the U.S. You'll still hear the drum beat from Republicans every now and then, and Faux Noise talking heads, but the younger generations in this country didn't grow up with the "red scare" (SOCIALISM=RUSSIA=BAD) that older generations did. Simply slapping the label of Socialism, or dragging out a quote from Lenin isn't going to affect most people's opinions.

[Surlethe]

God, I hope so - universal healthcare for the US was proposed as far back as Nixon, maybe even earlier.

At least Truman, just after WWII. It was stopped by an out-of-nowhere attack by the AMA, which was worried about pay cuts for doctors.

[Simon_Jester]

"Socialism" doesn't carry the same scare tactic weight that it used to in the U.S. You'll still hear the drum beat from Republicans every now and then, and Faux Noise talking heads, but the younger generations in this country didn't grow up with the "red scare" (SOCIALISM=RUSSIA=BAD) that older generations did. Simply slapping the label of Socialism, or dragging out a quote from Lenin isn't going to affect most people's opinions.

Yes, but on the one hand it serves to mobilize their base of scared old white people, and on the other hand a lot of people in the younger generations think of socialism as a failed system.

They're not afraid of it, but they associate it with collapsed states and assorted forms of tyranny anyway. So instead of thinking "Socialism! Aaaah! RUN!" they think "Socialism, haha, what a naive and exploded notion! We are CAPITALISTS, and we have triumphed, don't you know that?"

Which really isn't all that much better, from the point of view of someone who'd like to see poor people get health insurance some time before he dies.

[TheHammer]

"Socialism" doesn't carry the same scare tactic weight that it used to in the U.S. You'll still hear the drum beat from Republicans every now and then, and Faux Noise talking heads, but the younger generations in this country didn't grow up with the "red scare" (SOCIALISM=RUSSIA=BAD) that older generations did. Simply slapping the label of Socialism, or dragging out a quote from Lenin isn't going to affect most people's opinions.

Yes, but on the one hand it serves to mobilize their base of scared old white people...

Scared old people which they are now alienating by threatening Medicare. Scared old people who will eventually die anyway, and who will take their old school Republican ideals with them when they go.

...and on the other hand a lot of people in the younger generations think of socialism as a failed system.

They're not afraid of it, but they associate it with collapsed states and assorted forms of tyranny anyway. So instead of thinking "Socialism! Aaaah! RUN!" they think "Socialism, haha, what a naive and exploded notion! We are CAPITALISTS, and we have triumphed, don't you know that?"

Which really isn't all that much better, from the point of view of someone who'd like to see poor people get health insurance some time before he dies.

I think they are more likely to laugh at the notion that Republicans call any goverment project that benefits average people to be "socialism". Also, there is a stark contrast to the type of "socialism" seen in the Soviet Union, and "socialized medicine" as we see it in much of Europe and Canada. The younger generations tend to get that more and aren't frightened away by the mention of the word "socialism".

I for one can not wait to live out the rest of my days in the communist paradise some day created by Comrade Obama!

[Simon_Jester]

Scared old people which they are now alienating by threatening Medicare. Scared old people who will eventually die anyway, and who will take their old school Republican ideals with them when they go.

Ham, the youngest generation of people who grew up with the threat of Soviet nuclear attack as a serious possibility are currently in their thirties. It has only been twenty years since the USSR collapsed, and until a very few years before that collapse it was widely accepted among the American people that World War Three could break out at any moment- unlikely, perhaps, but certainly possible.

Do not assume that because you are too young to remember this threat, the only people who remember it are ancient. You will spend most if not all of your working-age life in a world populated by significant numbers of people who remember the Cold War; by the time they die you yourself will be old.

I think they are more likely to laugh at the notion that Republicans call any goverment project that benefits average people to be "socialism".

Perhaps. I'd like to see the poll statistics. Do not assume that because you are young and agree with yourself, all young people agree with you.

I suspect that disdain for "socialism" is fairly common even among historically literate young Americans, because there is a strong vein of it in the short-term historical memory of how the Cold War ended: the narrative reads "and the Soviets fell apart because socialism doesn't work." And some of those people can be, and are, convinced that anything short of a libertarian dream-world is to some extent socialist, and therefore a failure.

They are real, and there are quite a few of them. Where do you think College Republicans come from?

[TheHammer]

Scared old people which they are now alienating by threatening Medicare. Scared old people who will eventually die anyway, and who will take their old school Republican ideals with them when they go.

Ham, the youngest generation of people who grew up with the threat of Soviet nuclear attack as a serious possibility are currently in their thirties. It has only been twenty years since the USSR collapsed, and until a very few years before that collapse it was widely accepted among the American people that World War Three could break out at any moment- unlikely, perhaps, but certainly possible.

Do not assume that because you are too young to remember this threat, the only people who remember it are ancient. You will spend most if not all of your working-age life in a world populated by significant numbers of people who remember the Cold War; by the time they die you yourself will be old.

I'm not as young as you seem to think. I well remember the 80's and the end of the cold war, however by then it wasn't a fear of subversion from within as it was during the McCarthy era. Nor was it "death on our doorstep" as it was with the Cuban Missile Crisis, nor the fear of a global conflict from the Vietnam era. The Red Scare had lost most of its bite. My Grand Parents generation may remember it, and my parents generation to a lesser extent, but even to them the word "socialism" isn't a big scary boogeyman threatening to destroy the American way of life. It is no longer the death sentence for a program to be labled as "socialist" or to associate it with a Lenin quote as it once may have been.

I think they are more likely to laugh at the notion that Republicans call any goverment project that benefits average people to be "socialism".

Perhaps. I'd like to see the poll statistics. Do not assume that because you are young and agree with yourself, all young people agree with you.

I suspect that disdain for "socialism" is fairly common even among historically literate young Americans, because there is a strong vein of it in the short-term historical memory of how the Cold War ended: the narrative reads "and the Soviets fell apart because socialism doesn't work." And some of those people can be, and are, convinced that anything short of a libertarian dream-world is to some extent socialist, and therefore a failure.

They are real, and there are quite a few of them. Where do you think College Republicans come from?

Socialism as a pure abstract form, doesn't work. However, nor does pure capitalism. I can't produce a poll number, and quite frankly I distrust polls because they are easy to spin any way the pollster wants to spin them, and easy enough to skew by being selective as to who you poll. The evidence I will point to is that Obama despite being heavily painted as a socialist from the right was easily elected, and likely will be easily re-elected despite his supposed "socialist" agenda. The over-use of "socialism" as a buzz word for anything Republicans dislike has robbed it of its power.

As to your last question, I assume most college Republicans hope to someday be the rich guy stepping on the backs of the poor. Or they have been sufficiently brainwashed in their youth.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not as young as you seem to think. I well remember the 80's and the end of the cold war, however by then it wasn't a fear of subversion from within as it was during the McCarthy era. Nor was it "death on our doorstep" as it was with the Cuban Missile Crisis, nor the fear of a global conflict from the Vietnam era. The Red Scare had lost most of its bite. My Grand Parents generation may remember it, and my parents generation to a lesser extent, but even to them the word "socialism" isn't a big scary boogeyman threatening to destroy the American way of life. It is no longer the death sentence for a program to be labled as "socialist" or to associate it with a Lenin quote as it once may have been.

Ah. I mistook you for rather younger; I should have checked your listed age. My apologies.

Thing is, I know people who took this a lot more seriously in that same age bracket- it's partly cultural, with some communities and groups having a much more hostile attitude towards anything that smacks even faintly of communism than others, even during the 1980s.

And those same hostile groups still make up much of the Republican base.

Socialism as a pure abstract form, doesn't work. However, nor does pure capitalism. I can't produce a poll number, and quite frankly I distrust polls because they are easy to spin any way the pollster wants to spin them, and easy enough to skew by being selective as to who you poll. The evidence I will point to is that Obama despite being heavily painted as a socialist from the right was easily elected, and likely will be easily re-elected despite his supposed "socialist" agenda. The over-use of "socialism" as a buzz word for anything Republicans dislike has robbed it of its power.

Since its real power lies in its ability to mobilize the Republican base, I'm a bit skeptical of this- it still seems to work, though you are right that "socialist fatigue" will set in sooner or later if it hasn't already.