Wow. I'm being hammered by my Southern friends about Vermont's health care decision.

[branford]

81. Congratulations, you raise some of the issues that make universal care problematic to many.

In order to save or control costs, many of the universal systems limit the number or types of treatment and drugs and/or ration in such a manner that results in long wait times or denial of end of life care (e.g., death panels). Although insurance companies in the USA also somewhat limit certain treatments, the number of different insurers, American healthcare culture and demands, and cost and profit system, render the variety, availability and ready accessibility of treatments much greater in the USA overall.

There is no perfect healthcare system, and no matter the system, healthcare is and will continue to be expensive. Trade-offs must always be made.

The simple fact is that the majority of American voters have excellent insurance and healthcare. You need to convince them that they should pay more in taxes and other fees to ensure a more universal system that may not be better that the one they currently use.

I also am always amused about how many claim that employers will raise employee salaries by any premium savings in a universal system. First, since companies will likely be taxed to pay for such a system, either directly or by increases in their portion payroll taxes, their savings may be minimal to nonexistent. More importantly, I've never seen any evidence that these companies will actually increase worker pay because of any savings, rather than just increase company profits. Absent strict wage controls, a situation far less likely than single payer, I'm not convinced that employees will ever see a dime of any purported universal healthcare savings.