Hey Hillary, Elizabeth Warren is coming for you!!!

Speaking of Single Payer:

Vermont’s Single Payer Washout
The left’s health-care ideal implodes over punishing tax rates.

Believe it or not, there really are liberals disappointed that ObamaCare does not involve more taxation and central planning of medicine. So be grateful for the state laboratories of federalism and in particular Vermont, where the purest progressive version of ObamaCare has imploded.

Last week, in a reversal that deserves more attention, Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin announced that Vermont would no longer create America’s first statewide single-payer health system. Vermont was seeking a waiver from the Affordable Care Act to abolish what’s left of the nominally private insurance market by 2017, but Mr. Shumlin’s budget gremlins concluded the plan was too expensive and would damage the state economy.

As crises of faith go, this is Mikhail Gorbachev circa 1991 territory. Mr. Shumlin ran in 2010 on an explicit single-payer platform in the most liberal state east of California, and the plan was conceived as a model for other states. He called his retreat “the greatest disappointment of my political life so far.” May there be others.

***
Single payer is the polite term for socialized medicine and the ultimate goal of the political left. President Obama has often extolled such a system as his ideal, were the politics not so messy; and many Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reidfrequently aver (or threaten) that ObamaCare is a way-station toward uniform government coverage for everyone and tax dollars replacing premiums as payment for doctors and hospitals.

The Vermont plan was far more developed than such bumper-sticker sentiments. Health and Human Services bestowed a $45 million grant for planning, and since 2011 Mr. Shumlin’s team has worked closely with HHS, the Treasury and White House budget office.

They hired William Hsiao of Harvard and Jonathan Gruber of MIT as policy architects. The former economist created Medicare’s price controls in the 1980s and as for the latter, well, he’s the guy who famously thinks you’re stupid.

Under the Vermont plan, all 625,000 state residents were to be automatically enrolled in the government plan, with the same benefits for all. As with Medicare, employers would be subject to a payroll tax that would reduce wages, and workers would pay a premium based on a sliding income scale.

Though businesses were allowed to continue to sponsor insurance or buy more generous supplemental benefits, in practice few could have afforded to do so.

If Mr. Shumlin would give to each according to his need, he would take from each far more than his ability to pay. The state accountants estimated that his plan required an 11.5% tax on worker payroll, with no exceptions.

Individuals, meanwhile, would have paid as much as 9.5% of earnings, which would have applied to everyone making more than four times the poverty level, or $102,220 for a family of four—hardly the 1%. The full $2.59 billion in necessary funding would roughly double current state revenues (about $2.85 billion today).

Even Mr. Shumlin called such a tax wallop “in a word, enormous” and “the risk of economic shock is too high at this time to offer a plan I can responsibly support.” Vermont already collects a top income tax rate of 8.95% that is the country’s seventh highest, as well as a 6% sales tax and 8.5% on corporate income.

Vermont is growing more slowly than projections, meaning that “every percent of tax raises fewer dollar than we anticipated, requiring higher tax rates than we had hoped to fund this system,” Mr. Shumlin added.

The promise of single payer is that governments can save money by eliminating the profit motive and administrative costs. Messrs. Hsiao and Gruber assured Vermonters that these efficiencies could cut costs by between $870 million and $1.35 billion in 2019, rising to as much as $2.1 billion by 2025, or by 25.3%. Yet Mr. Shumlin’s accountants concluded these gains are “not practical to achieve.”

***
This surrender is all the more remarkable because the Green Mountain People’s Republic is the ideal socialist laboratory. Beyond the Democratic supermajorities in the legislature, Vermont’s small size and population make regulation easier to impose. There are only 14 hospitals, and providers are already divided into nonoverlapping “service areas” meant to reduce competition. The nonprofit Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont controls 80% of the commercial insurance market.

Then again, maybe Vermonters are smarter than their politicians. Republican Scott Milne ran for Governor against single payer this fall and lost by 2,095 votes. Had Mr. Shumlin disclosed the true costs before the election, he’d have been turned out.

At least the Governor deserves credit for admitting failure. His ideological comrades are rarely dissuaded by the prospect of economic damage, as ObamaCare proves. But Mr. Shumlin has succeeded in making Vermont a national model: By admitting that single payer will make health care both more expensive and less efficient, he has shown other states what not to do. (WSJ)

On this Christmas Eve, eve, I have two observations to make. The first is that If you look at total, lifetime, medical care costs in the U.S., on average you find that almost all the cost is in the last few weeks of a persons life. Our dual arrangement of private insurance covering the healthy years and Government, via our medicare entitlement contributions, covering from age 65 on, is an interesting arrangement. It should be extremely profitable for private insurance, regardless of whether they can slip into the "non-profit" category. If not, something has gone very wrong.

We pay into medicare both throughout our entire working lives and throughout all of our retired years. Simultaneously, we pay directly, or indirectly via our employers, for private insurance, during our healthy, working years. When we put these numbers together for a family of four making 102,000 , we find that the projected Vermont costs are not much different from what the average cost of medical care is now for a similar family, depending on how medicare would be handled in the Vermont plan. But that's obviously not good enough! What is the point of the Vermont plan unless it results in significant savings? Again, something is wrong.

The second observation is that the entire industrialized world outside of the United Sates is able to provide better medical care to all its citizens at no more than half the average per citizen cost -- and mostly less than half -- than that fraction of U.S. citizens that can afford medical care can provide for themselves. This is not crazy nor inexplicable, this is pathetic! Unless, of course, in the national psyche, profits are more important than access to medical care. Then medical care in the U.S. makes perfect sense, and the other 13 industrialized nations are the pathetic ones.
 
Last edited:
you making a distinction on this issue without a difference.
so let me break it down... clearly.

your side had the votes to pass obamacare in any form they wished.

going back now and saying they were too corrupted by insurance companies to pass single payer or the public option is not an excuse... its the fricken point. (period)



Jem, You're a good man, or woman!, but you are so politically naive sometimes that it astounds me. Obama, Pelosi and Reid wanted what they thought they could get passed through both houses. It is as simple as that young man. They represented the party's leadership and their job is to get legislation through a cantankerous Congress. The only thing you will see presented for public consumption is what their strategy is calling for at the moment. Early on there was some push for the public option, particularly from his nibs. That's because the public option is code for "single payer". But once it was recognized that that would be impossible to get through both houses, that feature was abandoned. It was recognized from the outset that single payer would have zero chance, so let's try it by the back door and call it the "public option". We are against single payer but for a public option! This is just politics, pure politics!

The only way you will ever truly find out what these leaders really would have preferred is to read it in their autobiographies long after they have retired! Neither of us is privileged to know what is said behind closed doors. On the other hand those members not in a leadership position, not responsible for pushing legislation through, and serving a small focused constituency may speak with much greater candor. So we have the Paul Ryans, the Rand Pauls, and the Elizabeth Warrens.
 
pie, the problem is that you often don't know it's the last few weeks of a person's life. Then you get into agonizing questions about is it worth it to provide a few more months or maybe even years?

It's funny how often liberals point to the "profit motive" as the reason for high costs in medicine. Our experience in every other sphere of life however that it is the absence of the profit motive that usually characterizes slovenly service and excess costs, eg pretty much anything run by the government. Somehow liberals have this almost childlike faith that health care will be different.

One can argue on ethical grounds that access to health care should not depend on personal wealth. To argue that taking away competition and profit incentives will improve efficiency however is beyond naive.
 
pie, the problem is that you often don't know it's the last few weeks of a person's life. Then you get into agonizing questions about is it worth it to provide a few more months or maybe even years?

It's funny how often liberals point to the "profit motive" as the reason for high costs in medicine. Our experience in every other sphere of life however that it is the absence of the profit motive that usually characterizes slovenly service and excess costs, eg pretty much anything run by the government. Somehow liberals have this almost childlike faith that health care will be different.

One can argue on ethical grounds that access to health care should not depend on personal wealth.
Beltway, you've stated that "to argue that taking away competition and profit incentives will improve efficiency is beyond naive". And I agree! However I was making some observations Re the U.S. medical care "system", not some competitive market where either the buyer or seller can walk!

It is a matter of fact, numerous independent studies have been published, that the U.S system of healthcare is the most inefficient, by whatever measure you select, among all industrialized countries! U.S. medicine essentially operates as a Government protected Cartel. This is the antithesis of the competitive business model. The buyer does not have walking as an option, and the Government, via strict regulation, assists in locking out those areas of non-emergency care where competition might otherwise conceivably enter. I am not advocating anything in particular. I'm just attempting to get us to discard the conventional rhetoric and start thinking in new directions.

Why don't we simply forget the political rhetoric and just copy what has already been shown, by numerous independent studies, to work much better?, assuming that access, cost and outcome are the important criteria. I have asked myself this question. I'm guessing, that in the opinion of many, none of the reasonable answers to this question will shine a very favorable light on the U.S.
 
you making a distinction on this issue without a difference.
so let me break it down... clearly.

your side had the votes to pass obamacare in any form they wished.

going back now and saying they were too corrupted by insurance companies to pass single payer or the public option is not an excuse... its the fricken point. (period)

Jem, first let me make this very clear, the folks that passed the affordable care act were NOT "my side". My side, which consists of one person, wanted the public option and repeal of McCarran Ferguson!

Second, this tiresome statement of yours is meaningless and therefore pointless, viz., "[the democrats] had the votes to pass obamacare in any form they wished." Duh. I think that's why they vote, Jem, to determine what they collectively want.
 
you making a distinction on this issue without a difference.
so let me break it down... clearly.

your side had the votes to pass obamacare in any form they wished.

going back now and saying they were too corrupted by insurance companies to pass single payer or the public option is not an excuse... its the fricken point. (period)


No they didn't. No matter how many times you say it. The reason it could not pass was because of the GOP. Try reality some time. All that was needed was few GOP to vote for it and NONE of them would. None. Blaming the dems because all of them would not for it while NONE of the GOP would is typical of your dishonest nature.
 
Jem, first let me make this very clear, the folks that passed the affordable care act were NOT "my side". My side, which consists of one person, wanted the public option and repeal of McCarran Ferguson!

Second, this tiresome statement of yours is meaningless and therefore pointless, viz., "[the democrats] had the votes to pass obamacare in any form they wished." Duh. I think that's why they vote, Jem, to determine what they collectively want.

But, if we had a true democracy not this bullshit representative gov, obamacare would have never passed.
 
You took the words out of my mouth, this kind of thinking happens all the time in the stock market where people make quotes on parabolic charts like "2/3rds of the move comes in the last month" and when you are looking at an incomplete chart, that sounds fine and dandy, until it keeps going for 2 more months. Look at the chart of Tesla below where people are saying this thing looks way to overextended. The thing is no one knows if its over extended until you can look at the chart in hind sight. In hindsight Tesla would have been a fantastic buy at 80 bucks, but it looks ridiculous at the time. I dont want some government lacky deciding when my life has topped.

pie, the problem is that you often don't know it's the last few weeks of a person's life. Then you get into agonizing questions about is it worth it to provide a few more months or maybe even years?


tsla-multi-year-chart.png
 
Last edited:
pie, the problem is that you often don't know it's the last few weeks of a person's life. Then you get into agonizing questions about is it worth it to provide a few more months or maybe even years?

It's funny how often liberals point to the "profit motive" as the reason for high costs in medicine. Our experience in every other sphere of life however that it is the absence of the profit motive that usually characterizes slovenly service and excess costs, eg pretty much anything run by the government. Somehow liberals have this almost childlike faith that health care will be different.

One can argue on ethical grounds that access to health care should not depend on personal wealth. To argue that taking away competition and profit incentives will improve efficiency however is beyond naive.
Well that's another problem altogether, not germane to my point which is that statistically we hand the insurance companies the healthy and the government the old and dying. (Not being able to tell if we are truly dying is not germane here. The statistics hold regardless.)

We might affect those statistics to a slight extent were we to have, in every State, the right to die when we want to . At the moment, we have that right in only a couple States. (I have serious doubts that nursing homes, which are a member of the cartel of course, are enthusiastic about giving everyone the legal right to die when they want to.)

The take away here is that medical care, being a rather poor fit to a competitive business model, may be one of those areas, like national defense, where government belongs. The U.S. experience seems to be saying that loud and clear, if we would only listen. Or are we happy to go on forever with medial costs being the number one cause of personal bankruptcies.

Many dead set against the mere thought of socialized medicine, love the VA to the point of wanting to strengthen it by improving VA medical care! -- a pure, socialized delivery of medical care. I'm having trouble recalling the last time i heard a politician, or an ordinary citizen, call for privatizing the VA!!!

If our private cartel is so much better and more efficient at delivering medical care at much lower cost than the government can do it, then why on Earth don't we want those benefits of the cartel for our worthy Veterans? Why do we insist on saddling them with socialized medicine?

I hope I have made my point clear.
 
Last edited:
I see your point but question its relevance. Medicare isn't comparable to private health insurance. You are forced to pay into it your whole working life, so it clearly isn't a case of the old and unhealthy being dumped on the government's doorstep by greedy insurance companies.

Moreover, medicare involves excessive cross subsidies, just as obamacare does. Seniors who go on medicare and have family--not personal but family--income above certain fairly low thresholds pay a significant surcharge. If you do the responsible thing and get private Part D drug insurance, you are also hit with another surcharge. A medicare beneficiary with a working spouse can easily end up paying over $500 in premiums. There are also various incentives to force people to go on medicare and Part D as soon as they are eligible.

The concept that medicare is basically free and not already means tested is totally false.
 
Back
Top