Editor’s note: This commentary is by state Sen. Joe Benning, a Republican who represents the Caledonia-Orange District in the Vermont Senate.
[T]he big news this week is that Gov. Shumlin pulled the plug on his signature campaign issue: single payer health care. Those who believed Vermont would be the ideal petri dish to create this cure-all for all things medical, are no doubt disappointed. Others, who have been diametrically opposed to this concept as an assault on a free society, are probably elated.
For me personally, the governor’s decision to pull the plug comes as no surprise. I’m frustrated, however, that it took him this long to do so. The cynic in me sees his three election cycle delay in arriving at this conclusion as a ploy to preserve political capital. His press release this week looks like an outline of the roughly hour long speech I gave on the Vermont Senate floor back in 2011. In the years since I’ve issued several op-ed pieces trying to point out why it wasn’t going to work. We haven’t yet figured out exactly how much money was expended for this experiment, but it wasn’t cheap by any means. Nevertheless I’m relieved that the debate will not be part of the difficult issues the next Legislature will be facing.
Unfortunately, I also can’t ignore the fact that we still have a problem with health care. Coverage is still not universal, claims are still denied, and individual and municipal/school budgets still cannot keep pace with rising costs. Those problems have now been exacerbated with Vermont Health Connect. That system has never fully met expectations, has created yet another set of problems, and will no doubt cost us much more moving forward. That system does not appear capable of putting to bed, once and for all, the problem of health care coverage for Vermonters.
But at least now we have some breathing room. Perhaps we can renew the health care discussion without the rhetoric that caused polarization, instead of unification, in the search for a solution. To begin that process, let me first suggest that each side consider the possibility that there might be a reasonable and workable middle ground.
Imagine, then, the platform known as Medicare expanded in increments over time (to minimize the impact on our economy) to eventually cover the entire population.
To those committed to a solely free market system, let’s remember government only got involved because the free market wasn’t working. It is highly unlikely that a myriad of insurance companies will suddenly appear to provide inexpensive coverage that all can afford. To those who champion health care as a human right, let’s remember that government is not a bottomless pit of money. Any system funded by tax dollars will necessarily be limited by the extent to which revenue can be raised, meaning benefits will be limited. Someone or some entity will have to decide what is and what is not covered. We have to deal with these realities.
Like it or not, at the state level we have to deal with Vermont Health Connect. The lack of competition within that universe and a seemingly always broken IT network tells me that this system will not be around for long. I cannot dismiss the possibility of opening up this universe to a regional compact that will entice more competition, but until the right connections are made by the right government officials, this will remain just a concept. It is, however, worth pursuing.
In the meantime, it is also worth debating a different idea — a national solution. To even consider this idea, it would be necessary to consider universal health care as a public good, much like our national defense or interstate highway systems. We’d have to accept that benefits would be limited to the extent the nation could afford them. We’d have to accept that an aging population causing stress on that system might indeed lead to longer waiting times than we are used to.
Imagine, then, the platform known as Medicare expanded in increments over time (to minimize the impact on our economy) to eventually cover the entire population. No separate plans for congressmen or other groups; one plan for all. Imagine a revenue stream to support it that is spread across the country, like a national sales tax, to eliminate any one state being placed at a disadvantage. No need for subsidies or different tax rates across socio/economic lines.
Such a system would not be connected to employment. It would not force individuals into bankruptcy or deny them coverage. It would not require school districts and municipalities to constantly chase tax dollars. It would eliminate one of the biggest bones of contention in labor disputes.
Admittedly this idea is a major shift in how we deal with health care. Does this idea have problems? Of course. But it is a heck of a lot better than the one Gov. Shumlin just pulled the plug on.
