# Vermont DID IT!



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

> *May 26, 2011*​
> "Last month, the Vermont Senate passed legislation, approved earlier by the House, that would establish a single payer health care system in the state. The legislation would make Vermont the first state in the nation to, as Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) said, make health care a right and not a privilege.
> 
> *The governors office just confirmed for ThinkProgress that Shumlin signed the legislation into law this morning*, making the state the first in American history to pass legislation that will establish a single payer health care system to provide care to all citizens."
> ...


----------



## Jack Fate (May 26, 2011)

Think Progress.  George Soros bootlickers.  How does that boot taste?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 26, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=allQtB3sHVA]YouTube - &#x202a;Elizabeth Kucinich describes HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## American Legacy (May 26, 2011)

Congratulations Vermont!  You're going to be exporting working Americans and importing welfare seekers.  Don't expect the rest of America to bail you out when you start to reap the consequences of this kind of fiscal irresponsibility.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 26, 2011)

Won't be moving to Vermont when I get out of this rat race and my kids are grown and off child support


----------



## xsited1 (May 26, 2011)

Well, Vermont was forced to do it by the Federal Government.  The only way that states can cover as many people as ObamaCare is by using ObamaCare&#8217;s tactic of forcing people to buy exorbitantly costly health insurance.  And if they&#8217;re not going to use an individual mandate, the only remaining option is a single-payer health care system.

Isn't this great?  Federal laws are fueling the relentless growth in the cost of health care and Obama is forcing States to make it even costlier.  I'm sure that makes sense to the mentally challenged.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 26, 2011)

What will the right do when this system proves a great success?


----------



## Jack Fate (May 26, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > Think Progress.  George Soros bootlickers.
> ...



Why don't you shut me up, asswipe.


----------



## del (May 26, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> What will the right do when this system proves a great success?


----------



## Jack Fate (May 26, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> Well, Vermont was forced to do it by the Federal Government.  The only way that states can cover as many people as ObamaCare is by using ObamaCares tactic of forcing people to buy exorbitantly costly health insurance.  And if theyre not going to use an individual mandate, the only remaining option is a single-payer health care system.
> 
> Isn't this great?  Federal laws are fueling the relentless growth in the cost of health care and Obama is forcing States to make it even costlier.  I'm sure that makes sense to the mentally challenged.



They don't care.  When it fails they'll just blame the rich right wingers for not paying their fair share.


----------



## 8537 (May 26, 2011)

American Legacy said:


> Congratulations Vermont!  You're going to be exporting working Americans and importing welfare seekers.  Don't expect the rest of America to bail you out when you start to reap the consequences of this kind of fiscal irresponsibility.



^Knows nothing about Vermont's plan.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 26, 2011)

heres your problem rigthies.

These systems do work and they have worked better than the system we have now in this country.

The facts are that the US spends more than anyone and gets a much lower level of care than other countries who have single payer.

Its not a matter of IF it will work better , It will and has proven over and over again to work better.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 26, 2011)

Single payer is the least expensive system.


----------



## 8537 (May 26, 2011)

and for the record, Vermont did not  pass a single-payer healthcare plan.  We passed a framework proposal to move towards such a system over the next several years.


----------



## Jack Fate (May 26, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> heres your problem rigthies.
> 
> These systems do work and they have worked better than the system we have now in this country.
> 
> ...



Bullshit.  This is what is going to make our level of care decrease.  Peddle that shit elsewhere.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

American Legacy said:


> Congratulations Vermont!  You're going to be exporting working Americans and importing welfare seekers.  Don't expect the rest of America to bail you out when you start to reap the consequences of this kind of fiscal irresponsibility.



I'm sure they thought the same thing, in Canada, until they found-out how well it worked....



> ....*in Saskatchewan**!!!*



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mv252WMsSY]YouTube - &#x202a;Tommy Douglas remembered&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JESqonEPjbg]YouTube - &#x202a;SICKo - Michael Moore Documentary Part 1/13&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]​


----------



## Wacky Quacky (May 26, 2011)

I will be very curious to see how this turns out. But the good kind of curious, not the morbib "how bad is it gonna fail" curious.

I always supported the idea of a state based single payer system. It's god to see that one state is trying it out before the feds shoved a messed up version on the whole county.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

Wacky Quacky said:


> I will be very curious to see how this turns out. But the good kind of curious, not the morbib "how bad is it gonna fail" curious.
> 
> I always supported the idea of a state based single payer system. It's god to see that one state is trying it out before the feds shoved a messed up version on the whole county.


The for-profit health-insurance companies have to be shittin'-themselves, presently!!!!

*BLAME CANADA!! BLAME CANADA!!*


​


----------



## Wacky Quacky (May 26, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > I will be very curious to see how this turns out. But the good kind of curious, not the morbib "how bad is it gonna fail" curious.
> ...



Not at all. This is just one state and it will take a good number of years before an accurate snapshot of the program can be evaluated.

And besides, all of the mandated business that they'll get from Obamacare should keep them afloat for a long time.


----------



## Claudette (May 26, 2011)

Should be interesting to see how it fares in VT. 

I wonder if the legislature decided this or if the taxpayers voted it in??

I'm willing to bet the former is the case.


----------



## grunt11b (May 26, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> > *May 26, 2011*​
> > "Last month, the Vermont Senate passed legislation, approved earlier by the House, that would establish a single payer health care system in the state. The legislation would make Vermont the first state in the nation to, as Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) said, make health care &#8220;a right and not a privilege.&#8221;
> >
> > *The governor&#8217;s office just confirmed for ThinkProgress that Shumlin signed the legislation into law this morning*, making the state the first in American history to pass legislation that will establish a single payer health care system to provide care to all citizens."
> > ...



 Vermont....the next California.
 I am perfectly fine with what vermont did, it can be escaped and it's a 10th amendment states rights issue. I however am not fine with what the federal government did, it cannot be escaped.
 What I dont understand is, will the Obama DOJ go after vermont for making a law similar to the already federal healthcare law? Because if they dont then they need to back off of Arizonas immigration law right?


----------



## grunt11b (May 26, 2011)

It's all a distraction folks, as long as we are on these boards arguing with each other, they "Progressives" are in the shadows destroying our rights and freedoms while we are to preoccupied with bickering.


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 26, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> It's all a distraction folks, as long as we are on these boards arguing with each other, they "Progressives" are in the shadows destroying our rights and freedoms while we are to preoccupied with bickering.



Yeah, ensuring everyone gets health care is a part of the conspiracy to ruin your life and take away your freedoms. Good job Matlock.


----------



## grunt11b (May 26, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > It's all a distraction folks, as long as we are on these boards arguing with each other, they "Progressives" are in the shadows destroying our rights and freedoms while we are to preoccupied with bickering.
> ...



 As long it's in another state and I dont have to pay for it I could care less.


----------



## xsited1 (May 26, 2011)

8537 said:


> and for the record, Vermont did not  pass a single-payer healthcare plan.  We passed a framework proposal to move towards such a system over the next several years.



We see what you did there.  My post explains it more fully:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3685890-post7.html


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 26, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



LOL. So clueless. Go back to sleep.


----------



## 8537 (May 26, 2011)

Claudette said:


> Should be interesting to see how it fares in VT.
> 
> I wonder if the legislature decided this or if the taxpayers voted it in??
> 
> I'm willing to bet the former is the case.



Like all legislation it was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor - but it has fairly wide support throughout the state.


----------



## Claudette (May 26, 2011)

8537 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Should be interesting to see how it fares in VT.
> ...



Good to hear. 

I like it when the citizens approve of whats being done. 

Tell me. If it hadn't had support would the legislature have passed it do you think??


----------



## frazzledgear (May 26, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> > *May 26, 2011*​
> > "Last month, the Vermont Senate passed legislation, approved earlier by the House, that would establish a single payer health care system in the state. The legislation would make Vermont the first state in the nation to, as Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) said, make health care a right and not a privilege.
> >
> > *The governors office just confirmed for ThinkProgress that Shumlin signed the legislation into law this morning*, making the state the first in American history to pass legislation that will establish a single payer health care system to provide care to all citizens."
> > ...



Leftists can scream and insist health care is a "right" all day long but the TRUTH is there is no such thing as a right to the services of another human being.   Your REAL rights only involve acts YOU can do without government arresting you and tossing your ass in jail.  NONE of your real rights involve government DOING anything for you, doesn't involve government GIVING you anything, doesn't place any obligation on other citizens to do something FOR you -and it sure as hell doesn't involve MY money.  When you choose to exercise your REAL rights -it doesn't cost ME a damn cent because exercising your real rights places NO obligation of any kind on ME -either as a citizen or a taxpayer.    Your REAL rights only means government may not punish you for exercising them -and that is actually a VERY big deal especially given the fact that people doing these very same things in other countries can, has and will get them thrown into prison!  Declaring our REAL rights is the way the citizens of this country were PROTECTED from government.  Our rights are not provided by government -EVER.   *Health care is NOT a "right" at all and the use of the word in this way should OFFEND any real American as the deliberate bastardization of the word it is.*  Real rights are NEVER provided by government.  They are claimed by a people who then forbid government from punishing them for exercising them.  Real rights do not come at taxpayer expense either!  Real rights place NO obligation on fellow citizens to provide you the means and ability to exercise them either.  You have a right of free speech -but no right to audience and no right to force taxpayers to pay for a forum for you to exercise that right.  Even government doesn't have to help you exercise your rights -it may only not interfere with you doing so. 

So claiming health care is a right is a deliberate DECEIT that is actually intended to totally destroy the real meaning of the word and delude a population into believing our rights are PROVIDED by government.  It is whatever government GIVES us and whatever we demand government DO for us is then a "right".   Once a population has come to believe they have a "right" to the services of others in this instance because it is now a service they have been encouraged to over value every step of the way, it is much easier to lead them by the nose to believe they also have a right to the goods and services of still others -and then demand government take it over as the best way of providing that "right" to all.  Except government doesn't GIVE rights in the first place.  I won't even go into the deliberate efforts to get people to over value this particular service -even though the vast majority of people actually do not NEED health care at all for most of their lives!  Just because someone chooses to utilize it doesn't mean they NEEDED it.  Those who actually NEED it in order to exist are a tiny minority and its possible to insure they get it without destroying it for the rest of us.  But that won't let the left bastardize the word "right" to one they believe will give them a political advantage as they constantly seek the totalitarian state.  Believing they will of course always be among the ruling elite mind you.

Declaring health care to be a "right" is in reality insisting someone else foot the bill for the goodies YOU want.  It would FORCE me to PAY FOR IT.  Which means it can 't be a "right" after all and in fact your demand that government make me pay for it is just a demand that my government confiscate my money from me in the pretense that others actually have a greater "right" to it than I do!   In other words -pretending health care is a "right" is in reality insisting you have a greater right to my money than I do as the person who worked their ass off for it!  Sorry -but that isn't a right and the founders would be puking at the thought of how the very word "right" is being deliberating BASTARDIZED by the left to a truly MEANINGLESS WORD!  If you have a "right" to the services of particular human beings because of their career choices -it automatically throws wide open the door to simply declaring any goody you want to be a "right".  Why not declare all sorts of stuff we'd like to be a "right" and force taxpayers to foot the bill for it too?  We have never done it with food and shelter -you know, the very things every single person MUST have just to exist -but if we can do it for something all people don't even NEED in order to just exist then why not any other goods or service we want too?  In the name that if we choose to place an inordinate value on it, it becomes a "right" for us to just take and force others to foot the bill for it.    Things like shoes, shampoo and even jewelry?  Don't I have a RIGHT to shoes?  You can't expect me to walk around barefoot can you?  Don't I have a RIGHT to be CLEAN?  You can't expect me to walk around with dirty hair and OFFEND people, can you?  Don't I have a RIGHT to some BLING for pete's sake?    All paid for by someone other than me of course.  

In other words, it bastardizes the word "right" to a totally MEANINGLESS WORD.  One that essentially means nothing more than "a right is whatever we want government to GIVE us" when in reality a REAL right is something the people demand government not interfere with and must respect.  Who benefits by turning it into a word that means nothing but it is whatever we want government to GIVE us -as opposed to what a real right is.  Something people CLAIM for THEMSELVES and order government to not interfere with their exercise of that right.  If you want to exercise ANY of your REAL rights -it doesn't cost ME money!  And insisting health care is a "right" is in fact a declaration that others be forced to foot the bill for desirable goods and services.  And nothing more.    

There is a reason some people would gladly bastardize the word in that way and there is just one side that believes they would politically benefit by that complete bastardization.   Just imagine if US kids are taught in school to believe their real rights involve laying claim to the goods and services of others.  Oh wait -they ARE being taught that already!  While they are incredibly ignorant not only about their real rights -but the value of them too!  Replaced with believing their rights involve laying claims on the goods and services produced by others.   Which is why we have an entire generation of MORONS who don't even understand the meaning of our REAL RIGHTS.  It is in reality  SUICIDE for a nation to bastardize the word "right" to a word that merely means -"I want the goods and services of others".  

90% of ALL medical advancements in the WORLD -originate in the US.  Oh sure, changing our system to the same kind of government provided CRAP that government is only capable of providing, making things equally shitty for all -would actually increase human misery.  Not just for us -but for the entire world.   Government will NEVER provide cheaper and better quality health care to more people -it can only provide poorer quality to more.  I personally prefer a system where as few as possible are getting shitty care -but liberals seem to think its more "fair" the more who are all "equally" miserable.   

If that is your idea of a "right" -I'll pass on that total bullshit.  The justifications for destroying what is still the best health care system in the world and turning it into just one more miserable, underfunded, over-utilized mediocre at best system that will ALWAYS result in everyone sacrificing the quality of their own health care and probably a few years off their life expectancy -is only the dream of one side.   The same side that no matter what the problem their answer is the same old, tired cookie cutter response.  More and bigger and more powerful government.  And let's all pretend if we do it for all sorts of touchy-feely reasons, it somehow guarantees there won't be dire and even disastrous consequences for it.  We already know there will be.

And for those intent on bastardizing the very meaning of the word "rights" -it only PROVES you have no real understanding of the word at all.  Which means you can't value what you don't understand.  Those who don't understand and value their real rights are and always will be the first to voluntarily forfeit them.  The problem with such people is they will insist I forfeit my own with theirs.  Screw that.


----------



## grunt11b (May 26, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



 Do you even know what single payer means? It''s the same thing as an individual mandate, it means I would have to pay for it, even if I don't use it. It also means that my tax dollars would pay for some lazy welfare recipients healthcare, regardless if he/she can work and pay for their own. It's taking tax payer money and redistributing it to those too lazy to do anything for themselves. Noone has a right to my labor, sorry for your luck, like I said, glad it's not my state, and Vermont....like Massachusetts will suffer for it.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 26, 2011)

del said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > What will the right do when this system proves a great success?



Keep in mind no matter what happens, Truth will view it as a success.


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 26, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > > *May 26, 2011*​
> ...



"*Life*, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness". 

I bolded the important part for you. Our country was founded on ensuring life for its citizens.


----------



## daveman (May 26, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;SICKo - Michael Moore Documentary Part 1/13&#x202c;&rlm;


Michael Moore?  Really?  You're really  using a Michael Moore clip to prove something?

Wow.  That's astoundingly stupid.


----------



## 8537 (May 26, 2011)

Claudette said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



No chance.  They're all up for re-election every two years and in a state this small almost everyone knows their representatives on a personal basis.


----------



## 8537 (May 26, 2011)

"90% of ALL medical advancements in the WORLD -originate in the US."

Where did that little gem of a claim come from?


----------



## 8537 (May 26, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



Massachusetts is not single-payer and single-payer  is not the same thing as an individual mandate.


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 26, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



Single payer actually has nothing to do with the mandate. Here's a newsflash and why I said you are clueless. You already do pay for others people healthcare, like it or not. Your insurance premiums (assuming you have insurance) are directly influenced by the costs incurred in our system by those without insurance. Me, you and anyone else who purchases health insurance have our rates increase due to covering the costs of those who can't afford insurance. Once you can grasp and understand that concept we can then continue the conversation. Until then, you'll continue to be clueless as to what healthcare in this country is about.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

Claudette said:


> Should be interesting to see how it fares in VT.
> 
> I wonder if the legislature decided this or if the taxpayers voted it in??
> 
> I'm willing to bet the former is the case.


You formulate an opinion on what you're "willing to bet"*????*


----------



## grunt11b (May 26, 2011)

> What will the right do when this system proves a great success?



 The more important question is, what will the left do when the system collapses, and Americans have no more rights, and they are the ones who led the charge to make it this way? What will the left do when they realize that the Tea Party was right? And all the crap they where fed in college and on msnbc was nothing more then propaganda to get them to be good little minions? 
 Dont worry though, as long as there are true Americans like me out here, we will ensure that your rights will always be there, even if you wont do it for yourself.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > > *May 26, 2011*​
> ...


Fine!! Let that "other human-being" shovel shit, for a living. 

Problem solved!​


----------



## grunt11b (May 26, 2011)

> "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness".
> 
> I bolded the important part for you. Our country was founded on ensuring life for its citizens.


 That was in the declaration of independence, not the constitution. The government is obligated to protect your life, not provide you with one.


----------



## grunt11b (May 26, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



 I know where my taxes and healthcare premiums go to, I dont like it one bit. But that being said, if I am already paying for it, then why do I have to pay for it even more with an individual mandate? Wouldn't that be double dipping on me by the gubment? double jeopardy if you wish?
 I agree I misunderstood the individual mandate and single payer, but what about the whole double dipping part?


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 26, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> > "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness".
> >
> > I bolded the important part for you. Our country was founded on ensuring life for its citizens.
> 
> ...



I'm aware what it's from. Is the declaration of what our country is founded on no longer of importance? And protecting life is not just about blocking bullets.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


.....*AND*, whatever profit-margin......



> .....*inve$tor$* are *expecting/demanding**!!!*


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 26, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



Do you know what the mandate is? All it says is that you need to purchase health insurance. If you do, then you have nothing to worry about. If you don't, you are now being required to so that you can share in the cost that is being pushed to those who do have insurance. So the mandate is a good thing for you, if you already have had insurance. Because it's making more people help carry the load for those that truly can't afford it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 26, 2011)

This is the least expensive system in the country.

It would save *you* money.


----------



## 8537 (May 26, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> > What will the right do when this system proves a great success?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well fake Americans like me would like thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for True Americans (c) like you, brave sir patriot!


----------



## 8537 (May 26, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



You'd pay less if the people for whom you are paying were getting preventative care and using Drs offices instead of going to the ER.

And why do they go to the ER?  Because they have no insurance.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> > What will the right do when this system proves a great success?
> 
> 
> 
> What will the left do when they realize that the Tea Party was right?


I don't think we have to worry about that.

*Teabaggers* aren't what would be considered the most politically-*sophisticated* citizens *in* the U.S. 



*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk]YouTube - &#x202a;SARAH PALIN BOOK SIGNING - Interviews with Supporters&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]​


----------



## Claudette (May 26, 2011)

8537 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...




What part of Vt. do you live in??

I lived in Norhtern NH for 20+ years. Did a lot of horse showing at the Lyndonville Fair. 

Sure mis NE in the Fall especially the County Fairs.


----------



## Mustang (May 26, 2011)

What are conservatives going to say if/when this plan not only doesn't lead to the ruination of Vermont, but the citizens of Vermont, by and large, mostly like how it works?


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

P F Tinmore said:


> This is the least expensive system in the country.
> 
> It would save *you* money.


----------



## 8537 (May 26, 2011)

Claudette said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Oh, that's interesting.  I love Northern NH!  We hike and play in the White Mountains all the time.

We live in the northwest, near Lake Champlain and about 30 miles from the Canadian border.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 26, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> What will the right do when this system proves a great success?



You mean when hell freezes over?

Is this even constitutional for vermont? I mean the Federal Government already has a health care plan in place. Sure, it's not constitutional. But the Supremecy clause clear overrides state action here.

Maybe the states should actually fight for their rights. If the States want to have control over this, and they should, they need to stop the Federal Government from encroaching their power.

Oh, and Shaman, Government doesnt create rights. Nor can you have a right to another persons goods or services. That's called slavery and is blatantly unconstitutional. Though i know the Constitution doesnt matter to any of you.


----------



## 8537 (May 26, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > What will the right do when this system proves a great success?
> ...



Yes, it's constitutional.  Vermont has applied for a waiver just as all states are permitted to do by the HC legislation.  Any state that develops a system with outcomes that meet federal standards is free to get a waiver.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

Mustang said:


> What are conservatives going to say if/when this plan not only doesn't lead to the ruination of Vermont, but the citizens of Vermont, by and large, mostly like how it works?


That's pretty-much what happened, in Canada....it worked better than anyone had expected.​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > What will the right do when this system proves a great success?
> ...


You're an example of the variation they might not....rather, *probably* didn't....have, in *Canada*; a significant portion, of the population, who was in-danger of having an overwhelming emotional-breakdown, upon learning they were wrong about the end-result *they'd* projected. From what I've seen, *Canadians* appear more-mature/less-petty, and were more willing to find a system that would benefit *ALL*....rather than (only) those who were more spiritually-entitled to sufficient health-care.​


----------



## Claudette (May 26, 2011)

8537 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Smack dab in the middle of the White Mountains. Berlin, Gorham area. Beautiful area of the country. 

My dad retired out of Plattsburg AFB in NY. We lived right on Lake Champlain as well. Took the ferry many a time to get from NY to Vt enroute to NH.


----------



## Political Junky (May 26, 2011)

Great news for Vermont. Medicare in Canada began in one province there, too.


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 26, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> heres your problem rigthies.
> 
> These systems do work and they have worked better than the system we have now in this country.
> 
> ...


Do you ever have a friggin' clue?

Here's your problem:.....A cracking Massachusetts bill.

Massachusetts' Obama-like Reforms Increase Health Costs, Wait Times | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary


----------



## Mustang (May 26, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > What are conservatives going to say if/when this plan not only doesn't lead to the ruination of Vermont, but the citizens of Vermont, by and large, mostly like how it works?
> ...


 

I know.  I have some friends in Vancouver, Canada.  About 8-9 years ago, they travelled to Disneyland.  After they returned home, Joe (the husband and father of two) became ill.  At first they thought it was a cold or the flu.  He just got worse and worse until he was hospitalized.  He almost died several times.  As it turns out, he had contracted Legionaires Disease (probably from one of the hotel air conditioner units).

Well, to make a long story short, he eventually recovered.  That was obviously good news.  The other good news is that they weren't at risk of bankruptcy and/or losing their home and their entire life savings which is something that is all too common in the USA.  Even people with health insurance in the US can end up bankrupts due to an unexpected illness or lingering medical conditions. It happens ALL the time here.


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 26, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > heres your problem rigthies.
> ...



What does Massachusetts have to do with Vermont?


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Great news for Vermont. Medicare in Canada began in one province there, too.


*Bingo!!!*

That was even discussed, back during the whole *Reform* battle, that....*eventually*....all it would take is for *ONE STATE* to try it, first*!*






We're *THERE!!!*​


----------



## Mustang (May 26, 2011)

8537 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


 
Sounds like States Rights.  I guess all that talk of a mandatory Federal Gov't takeover of HC was little more than a bunch of hooey.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > heres your problem rigthies.
> ...


*August 27, 2009*










> "*A study conducted by the Urban Institute and released in December 2010 by the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy stated that as of June 2010, 98.1 percent of state residents had coverage.* This compared to 97.3 percent having coverage in the state in 2009 and 83.3 percent having coverage nationwide.
> 
> The state's Secretary of Health and Human Services, JudyAnn Bigby, said, *&#8220;Massachusetts' achievements in health care reform have been nothing short of extraordinary. With employers, government and individuals all sharing the responsibility of reform, we continue to have the highest insurance rate in the nation.&#8221;*
> 
> *Massachusetts Health Care Reform*​








 . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



*Another opportunity to
WHUP SOME TEABAGGER-ASS!!!*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 26, 2011)

American Legacy said:


> Congratulations Vermont!  You're going to be exporting working Americans and importing welfare seekers.  Don't expect the rest of America to bail you out when you start to reap the consequences of this kind of fiscal irresponsibility.



Do working Americans not want health care coverage or something?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 26, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> What will the right do when this system proves a great success?



They won't ever admit it for one thing.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> American Legacy said:
> 
> 
> > Congratulations Vermont!  You're going to be exporting working Americans and importing welfare seekers.  Don't expect the rest of America to bail you out when you start to reap the consequences of this kind of fiscal irresponsibility.
> ...


*"conservatives"* see lack-*of* as some kind o' _soft_-*extermination option*....that it'd be (primarily) minorities that'd suffer the most....and, die-off.

*Paul Ryan*'s *Rand*-reference is......



> ......*useless parasites*.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 26, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > American Legacy said:
> ...



Well its my understanding that Vermont is as white as blanca whitey can get.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 26, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> What will the right do when this system proves a great success?



"To conservatives, Maine proves that government efforts to strictly regulate the nation's health insurance market are doomed.  Many of the reform proposals circulating on Capitol Hill have already been tried in Maine:

	A state-sponsored insurance plan has been capped at fewer than 9,000 because of financing problems, and the most common choice of those buying new plans in the state requires them to spend at least $15,000 a year before the insurer pays anything -- leading many to avoid important medical visits. 

	Maine is one of 17 states that limits how much insurers can charge people for being older, and it does not allow exclusions for previous illnesses -- both policies that are part of national reform proposals. 

	One result is that premiums for younger people are relatively high; although national proposals would require that nearly everyone get coverage or pay a penalty, Maine's Legislature rejected such a mandate so many young people do not or cannot buy insurance -- further skewing the insured pool to sicker and older people and making premiums that much higher.

Another change Maine has tried is to expand its eligibility rules for Medicaid, the government program for the poor.  Nearly a quarter of the state's population participates in the poverty program.  Proposals on Capitol Hill would require similar expansions across the country.

But Maine's poor are among the sickest in the nation, and its Medicaid benefits are relatively generous.  Only Alaska spends more per adult Medicaid beneficiary.  Part of the reason may be that, because premiums in the private insurance market are so high, many go without insurance for years before qualifying for Medicaid, says the Times.
Source: Gardiner Harris, "Maine Finds a Health Care Fix Elusive," New York Times, November 11, 2009.
For text:
http://www.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/health/policy/11maine.html


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 26, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...


Making ignorant fools like YOU look stupid!

Medical News: Primary Care Still Hard to Get in Massachusetts - in Washington-Watch, Reform from MedPage Today


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 26, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


No, I meant *nationally*.....if *"conservatives"* could *force* *for*-*profit* health-care, nationally.​


----------



## Wacky Quacky (May 26, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> American Legacy said:
> 
> 
> > Congratulations Vermont!  You're going to be exporting working Americans and importing welfare seekers.  Don't expect the rest of America to bail you out when you start to reap the consequences of this kind of fiscal irresponsibility.
> ...



You're not looking at it the right way. It's not about healthcare, it's about people being able to do what they want with their own money vs being told what to do with their money. Even if someone already pays for health insurance, and instead would just be paying an equal amount to the single payer system, it's the difference between them _wanting_ to pay for that health insurance vs being _forced_ to pay for a single payer system. Some people value personal liberty and choice above what may be best for them (and, of course, deciding what's best is all subjective). That may very well drive some people away.

And there *will* be people going to VT for free healthcare. Free because they either live right across state lines, or free because they don't work. That will be a drain on the system. 

There are some issues that I hope VT worked out before deciding on this.


----------



## sparky (May 26, 2011)

Christ on a cracker i've never read such an onslaught of outlandish, preconcieved , prejudiced ,contrived scared and or po'd people opining outta thier _backside_ in my life

You people do know that there is a time frame for individual states to opt out of Obamacare _right?_ _(please forgive me those of you who've made salient points here towards this)_

You people do know that all Obamacare amounts to is a fascist _mandate _engineered to make insurance CEO's filthy rich, _right?_

tell you what, lemme know what your legisatures are doing for _you _in _your _state, and how it's going to work out  for ya's.............


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 26, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > heres your problem rigthies.
> ...



Massachusetts has the most expensive, corporate welfare system.

Vermont has the least expensive, single payer system.


----------



## 8537 (May 27, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > heres your problem rigthies.
> ...



Well after reading that Cato hit piece I'm sure glad Vermont isn't attempting anything even vaguely similar to the Romneycare!


----------



## Claudette (May 27, 2011)

Sure hope what happend in MA doesn't happen in Vt. 

Was watching the news the other night and Romneycare was featured. 

Apparantly 95% of the citizens are covered but costs went through the roof. 

Around $500 more if your single and up the $900 more to cover a family. 

Jeeze. I'd be in the poorhouse. 

Hope Vts plan isn't like MA's.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 27, 2011)

Please give us a link to your numbers


----------



## Claudette (May 27, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Please give us a link to your numbers



It was a local new program.

If you doubt the numbers feel free to Google away TDM.

I'm sure there are plenty of sites on Romneycare. 

Have fun.


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 27, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Please give us a link to your numbers


I've already posted those numbers in two seprate articles.....Go back and look.

The cracks in Massachusetts are showing, big time.


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 27, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Please give us a link to your numbers


Here TM, deal with some actual truth for once.

Massachusetts&#039; Obama-like Reforms Increase Health Costs, Wait Times | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary

Medical News: Primary Care Still Hard to Get in Massachusetts - in Washington-Watch, Reform from MedPage Today


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (May 27, 2011)

American Legacy said:


> Congratulations Vermont!  You're going to be exporting working Americans and importing welfare seekers.  Don't expect the rest of America to bail you out when you start to reap the consequences of this kind of fiscal irresponsibility.



The Socialist Republic of Vermont:  that's that little country hanging off the edge of ours isn't it?  Dang.  Thought we nuked that one.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2011)

Claudette said:


> Sure hope what happend in MA doesn't happen in Vt.
> 
> Was watching the news the other night and Romneycare was featured.
> 
> ...



MA and VT are entirely different systems. We are discussing apples and watermelons here.


----------



## Claudette (May 27, 2011)

P F Tinmore said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Sure hope what happend in MA doesn't happen in Vt.
> ...



Can you explain the difference??

I sure hope Vt's is different from the plan in MA. Jeeze. Those folks in MA are paying up the ass for HC.


----------



## signelect (May 27, 2011)

How the concept that we take care of ourself and let the gov leave us the H alone.  Next someone will want the right to own a home instead of actually earning the money and buying one.   Where do the libs think the money come from.


----------



## 8537 (May 27, 2011)

Claudette said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Mass isn't a single-payer system in any way.  It's just a mandatory-insurance system relying on private insurers as the payees.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2011)

Claudette said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



She can say it better than I.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=allQtB3sHVA]YouTube - &#x202a;Elizabeth Kucinich describes HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## sparky (May 27, 2011)

Thank you Mr. Tinmore....


----------



## Publius1787 (May 27, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> > *May 26, 2011*​
> > "Last month, the Vermont Senate passed legislation, approved earlier by the House, that would establish a single payer health care system in the state. The legislation would make Vermont the first state in the nation to, as Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) said, make health care a right and not a privilege.
> >
> > *The governors office just confirmed for ThinkProgress that Shumlin signed the legislation into law this morning*, making the state the first in American history to pass legislation that will establish a single payer health care system to provide care to all citizens."
> > ...



Thats great news. Glad I dont live in Vermont but if single payer healthcare is going to be implemented this is how its done. BY THE STATES! Not the federal government which has absolutly no authority to do so.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2011)

Just think of what this means to small or startup businesses. The owner and all the employees would have health coverage without any additional expense.

The cost of health care for everyone from individuals to GM or GE will experience a decrease in cost.


----------



## Publius1787 (May 27, 2011)

P F Tinmore said:


> Just think of what this means to small or startup businesses. The owner and all the employees would have health coverage without any additional expense.
> 
> The cost of health care for everyone from individuals to GM or GE will experience a decrease in cost.



A shining example of how liberals beleive that if the government provides it then no one pays for it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Just think of what this means to small or startup businesses. The owner and all the employees would have health coverage without any additional expense.
> ...



Nothing is free. But, single payer gives more for less.

Why are you opposed to paying less?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 27, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Just think of what this means to small or startup businesses. The owner and all the employees would have health coverage without any additional expense.
> ...



That's not what liberals believe.

But everyone who isn't a moron realizes that the bigger the pool of patients covered by an insurance program the lower the cost per patient. Duh. Simple economics of scale and statistics.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 27, 2011)

signelect said:


> How the concept that we take care of ourself and let the gov leave us the H alone.


Then people wind up in hospital emergency rooms with no insurance.




> Next someone will want the right to own a home instead of actually earning the money and buying one.   Where do the libs think the money come from.



Not sure what the fuck that comment even has to do with anything.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> What will the right do when this system proves a great success?



Eternity is a long time to wait.


----------



## Polk (May 27, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> What will the right do when this system proves a great success?



Pretend like it's a failure because it doesn't line up with their talking points.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Yeah, ensuring everyone gets health care is a part of the conspiracy to ruin your life and take away your freedoms.



That's exactly right, dipstick.  Every scheme to implement socialism is cloaked in feel good terminology.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> Like all legislation it was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor - but it has fairly wide support throughout the state.



So?


----------



## 8537 (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Like all legislation it was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor - but it has fairly wide support throughout the state.
> ...



Someone asked.  I answered.  you...well...you made an asshole of yourself.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> "*Life*, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness".
> 
> I bolded the important part for you. Our country was founded on ensuring life for its citizens.



What that phrase means is that the state will not kill you or allow anyone else to kill you.  It doesn't mean the state will protect you from mother nature.

Medical care hardly existed when the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence.  Your understand of the term "right to life" absurd.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Single payer actually has nothing to do with the mandate. Here's a newsflash and why I said you are clueless. You already do pay for others people healthcare, like it or not. Your insurance premiums (assuming you have insurance) are directly influenced by the costs incurred in our system by those without insurance. Me, you and anyone else who purchases health insurance have our rates increase due to covering the costs of those who can't afford insurance. Once you can grasp and understand that concept we can then continue the conversation. Until then, you'll continue to be clueless as to what healthcare in this country is about.



That's a justification for eliminating the imposition of such costs on insurance companies, not for increasing them.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> And protecting life is not just about blocking bullets.



yes it is.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> You'd pay less if the people for whom you are paying were getting preventative care and using Drs offices instead of going to the ER.
> 
> And why do they go to the ER?  Because they have no insurance.



There's no reason to go to the ER to get a mamogram or a flu shot.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 27, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...




You think it's that simple?   Sure, bigger pool of payers but also a bigger pool of people wanting care and the same number of doctors and hospitals.    Maybe fewer numbers of doctors as many could leave the state or retire when the price controls for what they can charge drops.   So, longer waits to see a doctor and more visits to the emergency rooms for the sniffles.

I assume the insurance companies will have to provide care for pre-existing conditions, and no caps?    If I ran a health insurance company, I wouldn't be doing business in Vermont.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

Claudette said:


> What part of Vt. do you live in??
> 
> I lived in Norhtern NH for 20+ years. Did a lot of horse showing at the Lyndonville Fair.
> 
> Sure mis NE in the Fall especially the County Fairs.



Did you move there to avoid paying state income taxes?


----------



## 8537 (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > You'd pay less if the people for whom you are paying were getting preventative care and using Drs offices instead of going to the ER.
> ...



LoL.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> Yes, it's constitutional.  Vermont has applied for a waiver just as all states are permitted to do by the HC legislation.  Any state that develops a system with outcomes that meet federal standards is free to get a waiver.



Waivers are unconstitutional.  The Constitution mandates that all laws are to be enforced equally and uniformly.  How does letting some people off the hook comport with that requirement?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> That's pretty-much what happened, in Canada....it worked better than anyone had expected.​



is that why Canadians come to the US in droves to get urgently needed medical care?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> Oh, that's interesting.  I love Northern NH!  We hike and play in the White Mountains all the time.
> 
> We live in the northwest, near Lake Champlain and about 30 miles from the Canadian border.



What is a tic on the ass of society like you doing in a state with no income tax?


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it's constitutional.  Vermont has applied for a waiver just as all states are permitted to do by the HC legislation.  Any state that develops a system with outcomes that meet federal standards is free to get a waiver.
> ...



No one is being let off the hook. Learn what the waivers do.


----------



## Polk (May 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Should be interesting to see how it fares in VT.
> ...



You're trying to explain representative government to them? A brave soul.


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > you'd pay less if the people for whom you are paying were getting preventative care and using drs offices instead of going to the er.
> ...



lol


----------



## 8537 (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it's constitutional.  Vermont has applied for a waiver just as all states are permitted to do by the HC legislation.  Any state that develops a system with outcomes that meet federal standards is free to get a waiver.
> ...



You're not really this stupid, are ya?  There's nothing unconstitutional about allowing states to opt-out of federal programs.  No ones being "let off the hook" with our version of health care reform.

In fact, Vermont has opted-out of the traditional Medicaid program for about five years now.


----------



## Polk (May 27, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



Well, here's your first problem. You think single-payer and an individual mandate are the same thing.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Sounds like States Rights.  I guess all that talk of a mandatory Federal Gov't takeover of HC was little more than a bunch of hooey.



Waivers granted at the whim of some federal bureaucrat are an example of states rights?

The stupidity of left-wingers defies comprehension.


----------



## Polk (May 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> "90% of ALL medical advancements in the WORLD -originate in the US."
> 
> Where did that little gem of a claim come from?



Even if it's true, wouldn't you expect most medical advancements to come from the world's largest developed country?


----------



## Toro (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > That's pretty-much what happened, in Canada....it worked better than anyone had expected.​
> ...



Less than 1% of Canadians come across the border for health insurance.  On the other hand, 80%-90% of Canadians are happy with their medical system, according to different polls.


----------



## QUENTIN (May 27, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> What will the right do when this system proves a great success?



When has what they hate being a great success ever made them stop and think before?

They're _still_ advocating lowering taxes on the rich and deregulating every industry you can name. Reality has no impact on their thought process, no matter how many times what they support proves to be a dismal failure and what they oppose proves to work splendidly. They are wholly unaffected by external stimuli.


----------



## 8537 (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like States Rights.  I guess all that talk of a mandatory Federal Gov't takeover of HC was little more than a bunch of hooey.
> ...



No - waivers granted a_s laid out by the specific criteria in the legislation_ is an example of states rights


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> You're not really this stupid, are ya?  There's nothing unconstitutional about allowing states to opt-out of federal programs.  No ones being "let off the hook" with our version of health care reform.
> 
> In fact, Vermont has opted-out of the traditional Medicaid program for about five years now.



It would only be constitutional if every state that wanted to opt out was allowed to do so.  In this case, the whim of some bureaucrat determines who gets a waiver.  That's preferential treatment of those that have pull with the current administration.

Nothing could be more unconstitutional than that.

I find it amusing that liberals are defending a system we fought a monarchy to escape from.


----------



## Polk (May 27, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > heres your problem rigthies.
> ...



Cato ignored that the Massachusetts bill focused solely on coverage (no cost-containment provisions) and while wait times have increased, they were also increasing before the passage of the bill.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> No - waivers granted a_s laid out by the specific criteria in the legislation_ is an example of states rights



ROFL!  What "criteria" is that?  The administration won't even reveal the reason some were granted waivers and others were not.  In fact, it will not reveal who was denied a waiver.  

The only criteria is that you kiss Obama's ass.  I challenge you to prove otherwise.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 27, 2011)

Polk said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




But grunt11b's basic assertion is correct, the Vermont system will force every employee to pay for healthcare, which means in effect the unemployed are getting redistributed wealth inthe form of free healthcare insurance.   My question:   who pays for the co-pays for those under the poverty line?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> No one is being let off the hook. Learn what the waivers do.




I think the definition of "waiver" is to be left off the hook.

The entire state of Nevada is off the hook.  So are most of Nancy Pelosi's favorite restaurants in San Francisco.

Does anything you post have any connection with facts whatsoever?

It appears to me that you just blurt whatever sounds good.  You haven't got the slightest clue as to whether the stuff you posting is true, do you?


----------



## 8537 (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > You're not really this stupid, are ya?  There's nothing unconstitutional about allowing states to opt-out of federal programs.  No ones being "let off the hook" with our version of health care reform.
> ...


And they are allowed to opt out.

Seriously, learn just an ounce about the topic before you make yourself look stupid.


----------



## 8537 (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > No - waivers granted a_s laid out by the specific criteria in the legislation_ is an example of states rights
> ...



It's laid out clearly in the legislation.  Primarily, states may opt out if they produce a plan that achieves the coverage rates and covered activities that the federal plan achieves.

Not sure why you find that funny.


----------



## Polk (May 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Don't forget it must also do it for the same or lower cost.


----------



## 8537 (May 27, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> But grunt11b's basic assertion is correct, the Vermont system will force every employee to pay for healthcare, which means in effect the unemployed are getting redistributed wealth inthe form of free healthcare insurance.   My question:   who pays for the co-pays for those under the poverty line?



How will Vermont's system require every employee to pay for healthcare?  What funding mechanism are you referring to?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

Toro said:


> Less than 1% of Canadians come across the border for health insurance.  On the other hand, 80%-90% of Canadians are happy with their medical system, according to different polls.



yeah, everyone who doesn't really need it is happy with it.  It's when you get really sick and really need healthcare that you learn to despise the Canadian system.


----------



## Toro (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Less than 1% of Canadians come across the border for health insurance.  On the other hand, 80%-90% of Canadians are happy with their medical system, according to different polls.
> ...



Really?  Canadians despise it when they get really sick, do they?  How do you come to that conclusion?


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > You're not really this stupid, are ya?  There's nothing unconstitutional about allowing states to opt-out of federal programs.  No ones being "let off the hook" with our version of health care reform.
> ...



Which states aren't allowed to apply for a waiver?


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > No one is being let off the hook. Learn what the waivers do.
> ...



How long are the waivers good for?


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > No - waivers granted a_s laid out by the specific criteria in the legislation_ is an example of states rights
> ...



Prove otherwise? You mean like this?

Waiver Denials List


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> It's laid out clearly in the legislation.  Primarily, states may opt out if they produce a plan that achieves the coverage rates and covered activities that the federal plan achieves.
> 
> Not sure why you find that funny.



That has nothing do with the waiver's being discussed here which are granted purely at the whim of some bureaucrat.  What could waivers to restaurants in Nansi Pelosi's district have to do with a state "opt out" provision for providing something even more oppressive and draconian than Obamacare?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > ROFL!  What "criteria" is that?  The administration won't even reveal the reason some were granted waivers and others were not.  In fact, it will not reveal who was denied a waiver.
> ...



There is absolutely no indication as to what that document is.

It also doesn't indicate the reason for the denial.

Thousands of waivers have been handed out, but we're supposed to believe there were only 67 denials?


----------



## TheBrain (May 27, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> > *May 26, 2011*​
> > "Last month, the Vermont Senate passed legislation, approved earlier by the House, that would establish a single payer health care system in the state. The legislation would make Vermont the first state in the nation to, as* Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) said, make health care a right and not a privilege.*
> >
> > *The governors office just confirmed for ThinkProgress that Shumlin signed the legislation into law this morning*, making the state the first in American history to pass legislation that will establish a single payer health care system to provide care to all citizens."
> > ...






How sad that an idiot could be elected to Gov without even knowing the difference between healthcare and healthcare INSURANCE. Pretty sure Vermonters had a right to healthcare before this bill.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> How long are the waivers good for?



Until Obama is reelected.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

QUENTIN said:


> What will the right do when this system proves a great success?



When has any leftwing scheme ever been a great success?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

Toro said:


> Really?  Canadians despise it when they get really sick, do they?  How do you come to that conclusion?



Many of them have said so.  Also, many of them come to the US to get the treatment they need.  Furthermore, in the last election, the conservatives ran on a platform of privatizing large portions of their healthcare system


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Which states aren't allowed to apply for a waiver?



It's who gets the waivers, not who applies for them that matters.

And it isn't just states who get waivers.  It's even individual restaurants.

I think you're intelligence controller is set on terminally stupid.


----------



## Toro (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  Canadians despise it when they get really sick, do they?  How do you come to that conclusion?
> ...



See, I'm a Canadian.  I go back to Canada often.  I've had friends and family get really sick.  Some have died.  And Canadians do not despise their system, even those who get really sick.  And do you know which system Canadians do NOT want to be like?  The American system.  The American system, fair or not, is constantly held up as what could happen if Canadians move away from Medicare.  

So what you believe is not correct.


----------



## Rodack (May 27, 2011)

after Democrat federal overspending and bankrupting state deficits, what is the unemployment Rate today in VT?


LOL


Democrats are prosperity do not mix


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2011)

Toro said:


> See, I'm a Canadian.  I go back to Canada often.  I've had friends and family get really sick.  Some have died.  And Canadians do not despise their system, even those who get really sick.  And do you know which system Canadians do NOT want to be like?  The American system.  The American system, fair or not, is constantly held up as what could happen if Canadians move away from Medicare.
> 
> So what you believe is not correct.



Horseshit.  I was just in Toronto a month ago.  I also know a few Canadians.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > See, I'm a Canadian.  I go back to Canada often.  I've had friends and family get really sick.  Some have died.  And Canadians do not despise their system, even those who get really sick.  And do you know which system Canadians do NOT want to be like?  The American system.  The American system, fair or not, is constantly held up as what could happen if Canadians move away from Medicare.
> ...



I was listening to three ham operators from Canada a few months ago, They were all older men. One of the men, 72, mentioned his recent hip replacement. They talked about health care for a while and all expressed their satisfaction with their health care.


----------



## Rodack (May 27, 2011)

I know a canadian and he loves to be ripped off.


LOL


----------



## Toro (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > See, I'm a Canadian.  I go back to Canada often.  I've had friends and family get really sick.  Some have died.  And Canadians do not despise their system, even those who get really sick.  And do you know which system Canadians do NOT want to be like?  The American system.  The American system, fair or not, is constantly held up as what could happen if Canadians move away from Medicare.
> ...





Hey, you "know" a few Canadians.  You "know" that Canadians "despise" their medical system when they get really sick.

rofl



Ideologues will believe anything if it supports their worldview, no matter how wrong.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 27, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > > *May 26, 2011*​
> ...




All they passed was a framework. they don't how they're going to pay for it, or the details for how it'll work.    I haven't seen squat about whether they cover pre-existing conditions, whether there's a cap on benefits, how do those below the poverty line pay the co-pays.


----------



## Ame®icano (May 27, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> > *May 26, 2011*​
> > "Last month, the Vermont Senate passed legislation, approved earlier by the House, that would establish a single payer health care system in the state. The legislation would make Vermont the first state in the nation to, as Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) said, make health care a right and not a privilege.
> >
> > *The governors office just confirmed for ThinkProgress that Shumlin signed the legislation into law this morning*, making the state the first in American history to pass legislation that will establish a single payer health care system to provide care to all citizens."
> > ...



I'm OK with that. It's within state constitutional right to do so.


----------



## Greenbeard (May 27, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Thousands of waivers have been handed out, but we're supposed to believe there were only 67 denials?



The number is actually about 1300, not "thousands." That list of denied applications is from February, when the total approved was around 700. And yes, that number of denials sounds very much right: see Steven Larsen's February testimony ("As of February 1, 2011, CCIIO has approved 90 percent of waiver applications from employers, insurers, and other applicants.")

Only a small proportion of waiver applications have been denied and the majority of those have been union applications.



> It's who gets the waivers, not who applies for them that matters.



What point are you trying to make here? The first state to receive an MLR adjustment was Maine, a state whose government is now entirely Republican and whose governor publicly told Obama to go to hell.


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 28, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > How long are the waivers good for?
> ...



Incorrect.


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 28, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > See, I'm a Canadian.  I go back to Canada often.  I've had friends and family get really sick.  Some have died.  And Canadians do not despise their system, even those who get really sick.  And do you know which system Canadians do NOT want to be like?  The American system.  The American system, fair or not, is constantly held up as what could happen if Canadians move away from Medicare.
> ...



Obviously making you an expert now. You make me smile.


----------



## RDD_1210 (May 28, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Thousands of waivers have been handed out, but we're supposed to believe there were only 67 denials?
> ...



He has no point, unless you consider hating anything Obama does as being a point.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 28, 2011)

So, does anybody know who pays for the co-pays for the unemployed or people at or below the povety line under the Vermont system?   Only 3 options that I can see:

1.  Nobody, the doctor is required to provide treatment and eat the co-pay himslef.

2.  Patient has to pay or no teatment.

3.  The system pays it and the patient gets totally free medical care at any time.   

Did I miss an option?  I'm guessing option #2 is out, so either the provider or the rest of us cover the co-pay.   I read where it could take years to hammer out the details and implement this thing.   I think we should halt ObamaCare until we see how this works out.   Changes do need to be made, but so far I don't see much that actually holds down costs.


----------



## Greenbeard (May 28, 2011)

Passing the legislation was a first step. There remains significant work to do in filling in the details of the system's design.



> (3) The Green Mountain Care board shall consider whether to impose cost-sharing requirements; if so, whether to make the cost-sharing requirements income-sensitized; and the impact of any cost-sharing requirements on an individuals ability to access care. The board shall consider waiving any cost-sharing requirement for evidence-based primary and preventive care; for palliative care; and for chronic care for individuals participating in chronic care management and, where circumstances warrant, for individuals with chronic conditions who are not participating in a chronic care management program.


----------



## clanthar (May 28, 2011)

I'm moving to Vermont!


----------



## clanthar (May 28, 2011)

I'm retired, does Vermont have death panels now?


----------



## washamericom (May 28, 2011)

State of Vermont Debt Clock

we have 630,000 people. we used to be such a nice conservative state, until the democrats fucked us up.


----------



## 8537 (May 28, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > It's laid out clearly in the legislation.  Primarily, states may opt out if they produce a plan that achieves the coverage rates and covered activities that the federal plan achieves.
> ...



Excuse me?  We're discussing the waiver that the State of Vermont is applying for.  The criteria for that waiver is specifically spelled out in the legislation.

PLease try to stay on topic, will ya?


----------



## The T (May 28, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> > *May 26, 2011*​
> >
> > "Last month, the Vermont Senate passed legislation, approved earlier by the House, that would establish a single payer health care system in the state. The legislation would make Vermont the first state in the nation to, as Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) said, make health care* a right and not a privilege.*
> >
> > ...


 

WRONG on both counts...it is neither right NOR privilege...As usual Vermont Socilists get it wrong...it is an individual _RESPONSIBILITY._


----------



## 8537 (May 28, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Shaman said:
> ...



It will cover pre-existing conditions, there is no cap on benefits and those below the poverty line already get subsidized (free) insurance in Vermont.


----------



## feeblepizza (May 28, 2011)

My condolences to the people of Vermont.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 28, 2011)

Wonder how long it'll be until they ask for a bailout.    I will also predict an acute doctor shortage in that state.    I think I read where some young medical people were going there to support the concept.   Good on 'em, but I wonder how they'll pay off their student loans.


----------



## 8537 (May 28, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Wonder how long it'll be until they ask for a bailout.    I will also predict an acute doctor shortage in that state.    I think I read where some young medical people were going there to support the concept.   Good on 'em, but I wonder how they'll pay off their student loans.



What makes you believe Doctors here will get paid less than doctors anywhere else?


----------



## Polk (May 28, 2011)

washamericom said:


> State of Vermont Debt Clock
> 
> we have 630,000 people. we used to be such a nice conservative state, until the democrats fucked us up.



You realize that link shoots your argument in the foot, right?

Vermont's GDP-to-debt ratio is 19.6%.
Texas's is 22.9%.
Alaska's is 23%.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 28, 2011)

8537 said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder how long it'll be until they ask for a bailout.    I will also predict an acute doctor shortage in that state.    I think I read where some young medical people were going there to support the concept.   Good on 'em, but I wonder how they'll pay off their student loans.
> ...




Cuz your doctors are going to less money for their services.   Only way they can hold down costs is price controls.


----------



## Political Junky (May 28, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...


Perhaps the cost of health care has a lot to do with insurance executive salaries:

Health Insurance Company CEOs Total Compensation in 2008 : HEALTH REFORM WATCH
Ins. Co. & CEO With 2007 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834
Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777
Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823
Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230
Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557
U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529
WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271
L. Glasscock (2006): $23,886,169
Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212
See Nonprofit Health Related CEO Compensation Here.
Update: &#8220;Why WellPoint&#8217;s Angela Braly Deserves A Raise&#8221;
Update: Health Insurance Company CEOs Total Compensation 2009


----------



## sparky (May 30, 2011)

> Vermont has become an incubator for innovative public policy.



Single-Payer in Vermont, A State of Healthy Firsts | Common Dreams


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 30, 2011)

Today, Vermont will boast another first: the first state in the nation to offer single-payer health care, which eliminates the costly insurance companies that many believe are the root cause of our spiraling health care costs. In a single-payer system, both private and public health care providers are allowed to operate, as they always have. But instead of the patient or the patients private health insurance company paying the bill, the state does.

Its basically Medicare for all  just lower the age of eligibility to the day youre born. The state, buying these health care services for the entire population, can negotiate favorable rates, and can eliminate the massive overhead that the for-profit insurers impose.

Vermont hired Harvard economist William Hsiao to come up with three alternatives to the current system. *The single-payer system, Hsiao wrote, will produce savings of 24.3 percent of total health expenditure between 2015 and 2024.*

Single-Payer in Vermont, A State of Healthy Firsts | Common Dreams


----------



## Political Junky (May 30, 2011)

Medicare for all. That's the way to go. Congratulations, Vermont for doing it.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 30, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...




And perhaps it doesn't.   Look, I think they're overpaid too, but it ain't even close to a reason why the cost of health care is rising so fast.   You do realize if you want top talent to run a corporation of this size, you have to pay big bucks, right?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 30, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



I can remember when top CEOs made a few hundred thousand a year. Are they that much better now?


----------



## Wiseacre (May 30, 2011)

P F Tinmore said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



I'd say the job is a lot harder and more complex than it used to be, but no, not that much IMHO.   But it's also relative to the market, what does it take to get a CEO that can do a good job?   To me it's iike paying Peyton Manning or Tom Brady to be your QB, if you want to win you better have a top guy at the helm.


----------



## Political Junky (May 30, 2011)

Answers.com - How much money does the head of medicare make

"He made $145,600 that year."
That was 2003


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

Jack Fate said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > heres your problem rigthies.
> ...



Peddle your bullshit elsewhere, Jack.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4]YouTube - &#x202a;"We&#39;re Number 37" - Paul Hipp&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## shintao (May 30, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> American Legacy said:
> 
> 
> > Congratulations Vermont!  You're going to be exporting working Americans and importing welfare seekers.  Don't expect the rest of America to bail you out when you start to reap the consequences of this kind of fiscal irresponsibility.
> ...




LOL! Pretty good. They have a higher life expectency and a lower mortality rate than we do, using less money and resources.​


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Wonder how long it'll be until they ask for a bailout.    I will also predict an acute doctor shortage in that state.    I think I read where some young medical people were going there to support the concept.   Good on 'em, but I wonder how they'll pay off their student loans.



*It is the liberal states that are supporting the conservative states.*

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed
Monday, September 27, 2004

The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

*Now if you 'Conservatives' would just stop swilling the suds long enough to pass a sobriety test for employment, get out of your single wide, and quit sucking off the federal government's tit, maybe we could work on the deficit.*


----------



## shintao (May 30, 2011)

It is also 50%+ cheaper to get an educational doctorate in Canada than America.

http://higheredstrategy.com/publications/GHER2010_FINAL.pdf


----------



## Claudette (May 31, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > What part of Vt. do you live in??
> ...



Nope. 

My Dad was born in NH and we spent summers there when he was in the Military. NH is one of the few States in the Union with no State income tax and no State sales tax. The State also owns all the liquor stores. 

When he retired we moved to Florida. Also has no State income tax. 

I also lived for 10yrs on NC. That state has just about every tax you can think of. 

Currently reside back in Florida. 

In Vt essentially those that are working will be paying the costs for everyone else. I can see where that can create a problem down the road. 

However, I see it as a States right. As long as the citizens of Vt. endorse it then the rest of us will just have to sit back and watch to see how it goes.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 31, 2011)

> In Vt essentially those that are working will be paying the costs for everyone else.



That is the way it is everywhere. It is just with single payer it will be less money.

Also with this burden taken off employers there will be fewer people not working.


----------



## Claudette (May 31, 2011)

P F Tinmore said:


> > In Vt essentially those that are working will be paying the costs for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Will be interesting to watch and see if it does work as advertized. 

Guess we'll just have to stay tuned and see.


----------

