Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin abandons single-payer health care over ‘enormous’ costs

Government, Healthcare One comment

Imagine that; costs are real😛

Vermont’s governor has abandoned his single-payer health coverage model because it is too costly for people and business, just as New York debates a plan to make a similar shift.

Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, recently posted an online blog explaining why he abandoned his plan for universal government-run health insurance in Vermont.

Remember these numbers the next time someone mentions a single-payer health plan!

The main reason?

“The cost of that plan turned out to be enormous,” Shumlin wrote.

That enormous cost included an 11.5 percent payroll tax on all Vermont businesses, and a public premium assessment of up to 9.5 percent of individual Vermonters’ income.

via Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin abandons single-payer health care over ‘enormous’ costs – Albany Business Review.

One comment

  1. Long ago, in 2006 I believe, I went to a government-sponsored session that was funded by the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. The sessions were part of an initiative that was called “Health Care That Works for All Americans”. They did focus groups in 10 or more cities, maybe allowing 500 or more people to be seated 10 to a round table. When you watched the voting, it was clear what people wanted … the same thing they want today … “I want the best health care coverage YOUR money will buy”!

    Think about it. They say that health care spend is 18% of GDP. OK, say that is so. Back in ECON 101, macroeconomics, I learned that GNP (yes I am that old) was the value of all goods and services produced by our economy. Today, they use GDP. An economist would define this as: GDP = C + G + I + NX. When I took ECON 101, they confirmed there were three ways to measure GNP, now GDP – and that they should all come up to the same amount (with statistical anomalies). So, the second method is called the income approach: Compensation of employees (total remuneration of employees in return for their work) plus taxes on production and imports less subsidies plus net operating surplus + consumption of fixed capital. In 2012, compensation was $8.6T out of $16.2T GDP.

    So, if health care is 18% of GDP, and if compensation of employees is only about half of GDP, it suggests that health care is > 18% of our incomes and may approach 25% or 30% or more. Do you have a deduction from your income for health coverage that exceeds 18% of your total remuneration? I do – but it doesn’t say “health care”- it says FITW (for Medicaid, Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D), SITW (for Medicaid), FICA-Med (Medicare Part A), employer-sponsored coverage (my contribution and that of my former employer, for my HSA-qualifying HDHP retiree medical coveage) and the FICA-med equivalent amount that comes from my current employer (Medicare Part A).

    And, because many Amerians don’t pay 18% of income, it means that some of us must pay more.

    Simply, most individuals can’t identify the true costs of health services. It the true pricetags were placed on this stuff, few would be willing to part with that significant portion of their income to pay the true costs of this stuff. But, progressives, such as those in Vermont, have no problem spending YOUR money.

    Lucky they found that out in Vermont before it was implemented. And, of course, thanks to Professor Gruber, we find out that Massachusetts health reform “success” came because they expanded Medicaid (before it became part of PPACA) and they sourced federal funds for other coverage expansion through the “Connector” – yes, you and I who don’t live in Massachusetts funded their “success”.

    Simply, Vermont found out that they could not shift enough of the cost to the federal govenment.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply