If universal health care saves 50% from total health care costs, why didn't Vermont switch to it?

[hill2016]

Somehow Vermont didn't want to raise taxes to pay for the massive *increase* in health care spending, let alone break even, let alone find 50% health care savings.

Oh and if it saves so much money why didn't Bernie use his bully pulpit to get Vermont to switch so they can benefit from the massive savings?

Note: this is not a normative judgment on whether the US should adopt a universal health care system but a positive statement that a universal health care system will result in total increased health care spending.

[Agschmid]

1. Unrec.

[upaloopa]

2. You ask a good question

and I'll bet know one has an answer beside other countries do it.

[Human101948]

3. You cannot institute universal single payer health care in one small state when...

the entire medical, insurance and pharmacological industry are arrayed against you. Not to mention various right wing politicians in your own state.

By the way, didn't Hillary have a disastrous experience with her half-assed healthcare reform effort?

[Barky Bark]

4. Ask Peter Shumlin. He bailed from GMC..

Typical DLC'er.. doesn't want to raise taxes, so he drops the single payer care idea.

And he is a Clinton surrogate. Bernie has already made efforts to get the exception for Vermont and Shumlin blew it.

[demmiblue]

5. Some of y'all really seem to dislike universal healthcare. Hmmm?! n/t

[arcane1]

6. Funny how that works, isn't it? n/t

[demmiblue]

8. The noobs I chalk off as disrupters,

the other folks, well.

[Human101948]

7. The US spends almost twice as much as other developed countries for worse outcomes...

If we adopted the best aspects of various successful universal healthcare systems we could save massive amounts of money.

I think you know that. If not read up.

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06/16/once-again-u-s-has-most-expensive-least-effective-health-care-system-in-survey/

[TubbersUK]

9. Have a look at some Figures

Universal healthcare here in the UK costs less as a proportion of GDP than partial healthcare in the US.

The figures are 9.1% versus 17.1% according to this source.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS

ETA: I see that Canada is at 10.9%

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Sanders is a Senator, for one.

So using his bully pulpit can only go so far in terms of state legislation, as anyone versed in civics will understand.

Furthermore, funding a SPHC through taxes is one thing which would need to come first- seeing the cost savings shake out would have to come afterwards.

The fact that the first part wasn't sold to the public of VT doesn't mean the fiscal logic isn't sound. It would require implementation to make that determination.

A tough sell, but not an impossible one.

[ibegurpard]

11. I'll hazard a guess

That legislators under the influence of insurance and pharmaceutical corps are standing in the way.

[Politicalboi]

12. As long as we can afford war

We can afford to cover EVERYONE in the US for FREE! Everything can be free, even prescriptions. No war, no money spent on war vehicles that were not going to use.

[HereSince1628]

17. Yep, we need a constitutional amendment to limit out military to being just 2 times bigger

than the next largest military spending nation.

[whatthehey]

13. Few reasons

Unlike the US as a whole Vermont lacks the authority to:

Unilaterally negotiate with drug companies, expressly forbidden in federal law.

Change Medicare eligibility and payment criteria (we could use the existing bureaucracy quite nicely)

Enact laws applicable nationwide to healthcare providers on things like excessive testing and redundant equipment

I ask you in return, WHY would UHC raise costs here when EVERY other country with it pays less?

[HassleCat]

14. Because they would have to buy out the crooks who run the industry now

And that's the only problem with a single payer system. They will oppose anything that does not create a windfall for them. We could make it work if our legislators were not bought and aid for by corporate lobbyists. But we can do it. Others countries have done it, and they're happy. Some of them eliminate the private insurance industry, and some don't, but they all pay less for health care than we do. And your disclaimer regarding a normative judgment does not ring true.

[msongs]

15. ACA is a windfall and buyout of sorts. it can be done if the payoff is big enought nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. You got me

that's it, I'm dumping Sanders today. Go Hillary!

[99Forever]

18. Good fucking grief.

You drag that pile of excrement over from Freeperville or Camp Weathervane?

It's getting so you can't tell much difference.

[GeorgeGist]

19. You obviously have no idea how much the US currently spends on healthcare.

[morningfog]

20. You already did this thread. Did you forget?

[TrollBuster9090]

21. A positive statement that a universal health care system will result in total increased health care

spending.

Except when it doesn't. (Which is every single case, actually.)

Every single developed country that uses a universal single payer HC system spends less on health care (per capita, or as a percentage of GDP) than the United States. In addition, they cover EVERYBODY (which the United States does not), and have no healthcare cost associated bankruptcies (which the United States does).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_%28PPP%29_per_capita

The cost savings is a fact.

If you want to switch positions, and argue that moving to a government run single payer (Medicare for all) system will kill medical innovation, I'll argue that A) we're not talking about a government takeover of healthcare research and development, or of pharmaceutical companies. Just a takeover of for profit HMOs, that only make a profit from DENYING peoples' claims. And B) I'd point out that about half of the largest pharmaceutical companies are located in Europe, where they DO have universal healthcare. So, universal healthcare does nothing to kill medical research or innovation, or the manufacture of medical devices or pharmaceuticals.

And if you want to switch positions yet again, and claim that the private HMO system results in better healthcare I'll argue that A) It definitely doesn't for people who are uninsured, and B) the healthcare outcomes are as good if not better for people in single-payer countries than they are even for INSURED people in the United States. I'll cite papers proving that if you like, but most of them are collected in Physicians for a National Healthcare Plan website (www.pnhp.org). You can have a look for yourself.

There is only one small minority of people for whom the HMO system works better than single-payer, and that's for millionaires who can afford platinum insurance plans. And, as usual, those people have managed to hood-wink the majority of people who would be better served by a single payer plan into believing otherwise.