Vermont bails on single-payer health care


#1

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin on Wednesday dropped his plan to enact a single-payer health care system in his state — a plan that had won praise from liberals but never really got much past the framework stage.

“This is not the right time” for enacting single payer, Shumlin said in a statement, citing the big tax increases that would be required to pay for it.

politico.com/story/2014/12/vermont-peter-shumlin-single-payer-health-care-113653.html


#2

more likely the insurance companies got to his campaign treasure chest.


#3

:rotfl:

More like that fact that single payer health care systems are disasters that lead to long wait times, inferior care and government rationing.

I’d also like to note that Shumlin barely won the election, and for good reason: Vermont, as a state, is in trouble.


#4

Do people in countries where they have this kind of system consider them a disaster? In Canada and Japan, two countries with single payer with which I am somewhat familiar, I would say definitely not and in fact the citizens of those countries consider their system superior to ours. They must be deluded, huh.


#5

while i agree with you, i wonder if our government could avoid eventually turning it into a big bloated pork barrel, costing more than the current system.


#6

Ever lived in one of those countries? A lot of people in those government-health care run "utopias’ pay tens of thousands in euros to come to the USA for treatment. Now, if these governments are so great,caring and compassionate, why would anyone living in such a society need a trans-oceanic flight to see the doc? :confused:

It’s also little different experience when say, you are going into labour or have a serious infection and need the ER and the hospital has the right to refuse you admittance regardless of the situation.

In the USA, that’s not allowed.


#7

:nope:

No chance at the federal level. Almost every single government program passed by Congress and signed into law has cost more than originally projected. ObamaCare was just that—a big bloated pork barrel that gains zero long term benefits for the vast majority.

That sort of cancerous formula is the nature of government when it picks winners and losers in the market.

A more or less decent **state model **would be MinnesotaCare, which is what Minnesota uses, obviously. Getting enrolled in that program is difficult. I’ve seen their application (I think it’s on-line somewhere) and it really is meant for people who need it. That may have changed with the AHA, but it was passed with a Democratic legislature and Republican Governor hammering out a tough deal.


#8

I haven’t lived there but my wife has lived in both countries and she often expresses frustration with our system here in the States.


#9

I lived in Canada for a short while and while routine medical care was not an issue the bigger health issues such as cancer and heart disease were. In those cases those who could afford it would travel to the United States so that they could get medical attention quicker than had they stayed in Canada.

DGB


#10

I married into a Canadian family – my wife grew up in Newfoundland. She’s lived in the US for about ten years now, and she’s still horrified by the US healthcare system. And she comes from what I understand is one of the the poorest regions in Canada (outside of the First Nations reservations), and the least well-served by the healthcare system. And even there, she feels it’s better than the system here.

Everyone has an anecdote. That’s mine. I know anecdotes don’t prove a thing, but I do notice that Canadians in general (and of course there are exceptions) prefer their health care system to ours, by a very wide margin.


#11

my mum in laws 2 year old friend fell on a cruise ship and had emergency spinal surgery by a neurosurgeon in halifax n.s., then they med flighted her back to boston. the surgeon here was quite impressed by the whole affair. more anecdotes.:o


#12

I wish Obamcare had just focused on spreading access to routine medical care, to those without insurance, and excluded the $100k plus procedures.

Canada and the rest of world really love how the US does the pioneer work on new procedures and drugs. They typically only add it to their available treatments after we’ve lowered the costs and proven it out.


#13

Australia has a single user public system and we love it.

We also have a private hospital system alongside it and I think that supplements it perfectly. I’ve had need to use both systems in the past and have never been anything but happy.


#14

Inisfallen notes that people have anecdotal evidence, and I would further that by saying that individuals experiences with a health care system doesn’t really paint an overall picture of the health care system as a whole.

California alone, one American state, has a higher population than Australia. Perhaps you have to take population size into consideration. What may be seen as successful in a country with a certain population size may not work in a country which has a population size which is 10 times bigger.

I don’t think there is any statistical evidence that any country with single payer has overall shorter waiting times than America does, perhaps they do for some procedures, but not when polled generally. Although of course it depends whether you have medicare or insurance but having short as possible waiting times is really important.


#15

we’re human. there is no perfect system, and no way to determine which system is the best. we have what we have, and pray for God’s mercy.


#16

Is that why the doctors’ offices here in Florida are jam-packed with Canadians who pay cash to see a doctor just before the head home for where there’s “free” health care? Every April/May, our waiting rooms are busting at the seems with people who are trying to get their doctor visit in before they head home.


#17

some canaries like their system, some don’t. some americans like our system, some don’t. the world keeps turning…


#18

Many(all?) single payer systems fund abortions.


#19

well, it’s not technically a required by definition, and we already do that…


#20

I’m just noting that single payer healthcare seems to work perfectly fine in other countries. I’m sure there are trade-offs. It kind of bugs me that someone would come along and call them a disaster without presenting any proof of that statement (anecdotal or otherwise).

Why would single payer not work in the U.S. because of our population size? Not sure I follow your logic there.

I’m sure there would be trade offs but I have no reason to think it would be a disaster here, since it’s not a disaster elsewhere.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.