Beats me how single payer system could be privatized without the creation of a corporate monopoly, unless it had to be re-bid every so often or something.

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

Technically it is possible. Except then it would cost more. The nature of administrative costs has to be continually beaten down. Just by nature otherwise they tend to grow continuously. Making a living or better from sick people other than by the medical personal doing the work is and has been ethically questionable in my mind.

Monopoly is another word that seems to have lost any useful meaning. We are surrounded by monopolies and nobody seems to care.

If you have two main players in a market and they both are financed, insured, supplied, serviced and largely owned by the same entities it functions economically as a monopoly even if it is a duopoly. Competition is just a show.

As it is now the hospitals are largely owned by the same entities who own the insurance companies and pharm companies, etc. Shake the box and the pieces fall right back together even if they look a little different.

True that.
Call me an optimist but I still haven't given up on HR 676

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

It is just good something somewhere in the current American health care system has started to change. I was not expecting the Vermont type move at this time.

The acts changes in Washington were so confusing. That alone I thought brought time against any really signifigant change. No American should underrate the signifigance of the Vermont move either.

It is equivelant to an earthquake. I did not think it was really on the horizon by anyone at this time. If Vermont can make it work other states will. Still it is 2017 as a target total implementation date by Vermont.

Yes, the 2017 date is a problem. It gives the insurance companies time to amass their forces against the change. There will be a huge influx of insurance $$ into Vermont elections over the next few years. Vermont needs to act fast to resist that.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Fortunately, VT has a generally educated, civilized, literate public (average IQ 103.8, baby!) who's not easily swayed to vote for stupidity. The insurapigs and their hired pimps may be in for a rude awakening. Remember that 1 Jan 2014 is only three years and a month off, about the same timeline as implementation of AHCA.

I see the insurance companies response as fighting fires as other states start to talk about it as well. There is little doubt some of them will. The propaganda should be interesting.

I see Vermont almost as a floodgate opening. Someone had to be first. This again to me was a surprise or unexpected move at this time. Possibly at the federal level as well.

Also to me it does not really matter how much money the insurance industry pumps in. Once a public is informed it is on it's way any political machine trying to derail it would be history.

Contrary to public opinion a population can only be manipulated so much. This is one area where they really can and will react to protect something.

At the federal level if I were an involved republican I would be concerned or at least starting to by now. I really do not think they were smart enough to realize what consequences of their behaviours lay ahead. It will take time to see if what I think may happen..

Even in Canada the opposition was far more careful not to present an image of it not being a good thing long ago I remember. They did argue about costs and affordability to some extent. That was reasonable.

Attempting to stop it would have been suicidal. That is in effect still. Modest changes are okay but fundamentally they have to keep their hands off it.

The costs of any health care system for the consumer will always be high in one way or another. Just does not have to be a form of extortion in nature.

Now all Vermont needs is $2b a year in new taxes to pay for it (the state budget is currently $4b and their taxes are already some of the highest in the country). Only 4% if Vermont's population is uninsured or ineligible more Medicaid. Another brilliant government solution.

Still, I'd rather see a State solution than a Federal one.

__________________
- Brian


1989 500SEL Euro
1966 250SE Cabriolet
1958 BMW Isetta 600

Considering residents of Vermont will NOT be paying $2 billion (or more, since $2 billion is only $3000 per person in VT) per year to the private insurance companies, they may be able to manage. I'd far rather pay $3000/yr to the government than to some private insurance parasites which don't even have contracts with 80% of the doctors in my state.

The big losers here won't the the good people of Vermont. The losers will be the private insurance companies, and good riddance to bad criminals. The losers will ALSO be the fearful Republican-dominated states which will remain stuck in the Dark Ages as far as health care.

Vermont will KEEP having low unemployment, stable home prices, relatively high incomes, good schools (highest average AP test scores in the county, BABY), an educated public, lack of retarded Bible-thumper mouthbreathers, and generally good governance. This thing is making me love Vermont more and more -- I'm actually tempted to pick up a rental property or two there (buy-rent ratio is very good, despite no drop in home prices) with the view of eventually opening a business and moving there.

It takes a while to grasp it. Previous propaganda by private health care and politicians has been underway for years. Propaganda does work over time.

A publically owned system is always a lot less costly. Todays health care costs in the states are damaging the countries economy . I expect there may even be a very expensive social cost as well. Certainly Canadians complain a little about this and that relating to our system as that is the nature of humans.

If public ownership did not work we would have competing private sector providers here in Canada. Or want to get rid of the public system. Under the national health care system we do not. In fifty years under the system I have never heard anybody say they want what was before.

In a utopian situation we could have all we want. The reality is north America is not doing that well and the road ahead may present some pretty serious potholes.

If those times and situations arrive you all will have health coverage if you have public plans. If the private sector premiums became unbearable in a serious economic upset for some they would have no coverage.

We in Canada will also experience some really difficult times as well if they occur. Of course a simple person like myself does not have a crystal ball.

Another way to consider this area. Nine of the ten most developed countries in the world have a citizen run health system. If a person cannot figure out why this is so it may be the propaganda. Nine out of ten being wrong are unlikely odds.

It is not a case of who is and who not is insured or underinsured. It is a matter of security for the citizen administered in a way that makes sense and can be afforded. Try to consider what things may be like for your children and grandchildren in the future.

Usually it is also total coverage for all. More dollars will be spent on many if not most individuals in their last year or so of life. So if they leave medicade intact and they will I suspect for seniors. The citizens of Vermont could land up with less direct actual costs than even in Canada.

Up here our province pays all the medical and hospital bills until we expire. I do mean all of them with no exceptions I can think of. Ambulances and air transport included.

Another change to save money that is not possible under a private for profit system is real preventatlive medicine. This is just starting to get well underway in Canada over the last two years. I suspect it will grow fast. This approach is going to really further increase the mortality differance between Canada and the United States in my opinion. It to has to be the way of the future.

I think a lot of people would have less of an issue with single payer if it were done at the state level. It might actually work, too. Nationally it sure seems too unwieldy. At least going from where we are to that. (I still think that's why the "fix" was designed to fail from the start.)

Keep in mind that VT only has a population of 626,000. Roughly half that of it's similar sized neighbor to the east, NH. Heck, RI has 1,050,000 in an area 1/9th the size. But it's less complicated (I won't necessarily say easier) to implement individual systems to cover 626K/3.5MM/12MM/36MM than it is for one to 313MM. Especially when political expedience rules the day and you have competing interests.

__________________

1980 300TD-China Blue/Blue MBTex-2nd Owner, 107K (Alt Blau) OBK #15
'06 Chevy Tahoe Z71 (for the wife & 4 kids, current mule) '03 Honda Odyssey (son #1's ride, reluctantly) '99 GMC Suburban (255K+ miles, semi-retired mule) 21' SeaRay Seville (summer escape pod)

You of course are right. Canada has only 33+ million people and the system is run by each separate province. The central government does control the amounts of money handed to each province to manage their systems. Plus provincial money is added. Otherwise accountability would be a joke.

Kerry surprised me a long time back when he said his daughter had a premium of fifty dollars a month when going to school. This by her even currently I believe in British Columbia Canada.

Although she has 100 percent hospital and medical coverage I think. Up till that time I thought all the provinces handled the system about the same. Still there appear to be some regional differences. The sooner the states starts to catch up in a few areas the better for their citizens overall. With so many American citizens effectively brainwashed it is going to be a contensious thing until people see it really can work and does the job better and cheaper.

As early as five years after it is established. A lot of people will question their own beliefs and where they were derived from with the old system is an absolute certainty. I was also wondering about the amount of money it will release into the general economy. First though Vermont has to get it up and running and some other states may not play the wait and see game until it is hopefully.

Interesting. Does this sort of work like a public utility, in a way? Everyone participates in the same system at assured rates? Insurance gone from this completely?

Oops: answered my own question.
"In exchange, there will be no more premiums, deductibles, copay’s, hospital bills or anything else aimed at making insurance companies a profit. Further, all hospitals and healthcare providers will now be nonprofit."

sounds like a great idea, if it can work. I detest insurance companies.