Montpelier 5/20/2012
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on May 20, 2012
Clear
86°/52°

Run of Site Leaderboard

house

5 responsesSubscribe to comments

  1. Thank you, Digger, for getting the story right. Unlike coverage in other media, you make it clear this is only one of the many needed waivers to institute a single payer.

    I’m still trying to figure out, though, whether the type of Exchange envisioned in H. 202 could be given a waiver, as the waivers are described in the federal law, and in the White House fact sheet on the amendment. The fact sheet provides examples of possible waivers, and they appear to increase choice — e.g. state could offer more plan designs, state could allow larger employers the option of buying coverage in the Exchange. The plan in Vermont’s H. 202, on the other hand, is to narrow choice to ONLY what is available in the Exchange (no plans can be sold outside the Exchange), and to have only one carrier’s plan for sale in the Exchange. Effectively, the Exchange would be the only place any individual or employer with fewer than 100 employees could find coverage.

    If all of our eggs are in that basket, the coverage had better be very affordable, the subsidies had better be sustainable, and the physician/hospital networks had better be ready. Otherwise,our plan wouldn’t meet the waiver’s test of ensuring that as many people are covered, at the same or lower cost, than what would happen under the existing (unwaivered) federal law.

  2. Obama’s support of Affordable Care Act state waivers is great news. Although the US Supreme Court may review the legality of the ACA, it is not likely that the powerful and omniscient Health Insurance corporations will allow the ACA to be aborted. Why would they want that action when the ACA, as it stands, would require every American to buy an expensive, profit-driven health industry insurance plan. Here in Vermont, we have the opportunity to finally overcome the machinations of the Wall St driven health insurance corporations and implement a cost containing and universal system of health care for all Vermonters. With the state waivers available, hopefully, in 2014, the Vermont legislature can pass the single payer bill and create the needed infrastructure for implementation by 2014. Without this waiver, the state would have to wait six more years: six more years of damage from the health insurance industries.

  3. As I understand it, this announcement is hardly worthy of being called anything new, apart from the political opportunity to make it look as though something has changed to make Shumlin’s plan more plausible.
    Obama has supported this from the start (“news”: he still does), but it wasn’t in the Affordable Care Act as passed (“news”: the law hasn’t changed.) There’s a bill we already knew was introduced to move the date for waiver applications earlier, and it still faces getting through the House and Senate. If Obama’s statements that he supports this bill gives it important new momentum, that would be a surprising change, since an earlier waiver date was rejected by a Democratic Congress. His support will now be “tremendously helpful” in swaying the new Republican House majority? Hmmm, now there’s a political spin.
    What I haven’t seen much coverage of is the testimony of our (nonpartisan) Legislative Joint Fiscal Office last week, stating that the plan would probably save money in its first few years, but then fall back into an upward spiral that would require increased revenue or decreased benefits. That makes the governor’s enthusiam about saving costs and enabling new job creation ring a bit hollow.

  4. Lady Thatcher was prescient when she said: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
    Having ALL Vermonters in a single payer system would create the greatest savings. Any single payer system must include all people on a government payroll; state, county and town. That way all Vermonters have the same plans and the same services. That would be democracy and fairness. All treated equally before the law. No big host of people would be required to administer it.
    Plans with high deductibles should also be offered to people who want them.
    It would be the lowest cost way to go, the least complex and the easiest to administer, AND create the greatest savings. That is the way it is done in Europe.
    I lived in Europe for 28 years under a single-payer system that covered ALL workers, including government workers, professors in colleges, policemen, teachers, loggers, farmers, business owners, etc.
    It is a fair system that provides care for all at about half the cost per person per year.
    Medicaid and Medicare have 10% administrative costs and 90% benefits.
    HMOs have 20% administrative costs and 80% benefits.
    The additional 10% HMOs keep is about $200 billion per year which is used for lavish offices and multimillion dollar paychecks for top management.

  5. “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

    As does Capitalism when there is no more left to take:) Thatcher conveniently forgot about that one:)

    William, thanks for the stats on the percentages paid on health care versus administration in the HMO’s and on medicare. Where did you live in Europe for so long? How did you like the health systems there? I lived in israel for a while, a long time ago, and, though I did not have much occasion to utilize it, found the health system there pretty good. Everyone was covered; no rejections, denials, and no one was left out of it because of economic reasons like here.

    “As I understand it, this announcement is hardly worthy of being called anything new, apart from the political opportunity to make it look as though something has changed to make Shumlin’s plan more plausible.”

    As I understand it this announcement, while perhaps not new, is Obama officially coming out into the open with his support and giving his blessing to it if the particular state’s endeavor meets the criteria of the affordable care act — which Shumlin’s plan certainly does. This is clearing another hurdle to making it a reality.

Leave a Reply

Comment policy

VTD requires that all commenters identify themselves by first and last name. You may wonder why we don't accept anonymous comments. The short answer is: We want to keep the discourse civil.

You might rightly ask, since most online newspapers accept anonymous posts from readers, what makes VTD so special?

The long answer is: Anonymous comments don't support our mission. We are a nonprofit news organization dedicated to enhancing democracy through in-depth journalism. Our role is to foster a civil online discourse, and one very simple and effective way to do that is to require commenters to identify themselves. This isn't a new idea, of course. This is the way newspapers have treated letters to the editor since time immemorial.

As a result of our comment policy, VTD has created a safe zone for readers who want to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

Donate Today

We're an independent nonprofit organization, your donation helps fund the digging, and, it's tax deductible.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Obama backs waivers needed for Vt.’s single-payer system"