What is the true cost of Bernie's single payer health care proposal?

[Cali_Democrat]

Nobody knows for sure.

Because a lot of folks are talking about Bernie's single payer healthcare proposal, I thought this would be a good time to look back at what happened earlier this year in Vermont.

Vermont is Bernie's home state and is widely considered to be one of the most progressive states in the country.

So what happened when Vermont tried to implement single payer?

-------------------------------------------

Costs derail Vermont’s dream of a single-payer health plan
By Jay Fitzgerald
JANUARY 25, 2015

For decades, liberal activists yearned for a European-style, single-payer health system that they argued would lead to more affordable, efficient, and comprehensive medical coverage for all citizens. When Vermont four years ago enacted a landmark bill to establish the nation’s first single-payer health care system, they saw their long-sought dream about to be fulfilled.

But reality hit last month. Governor Peter Shumlin released a financial report that showed the cost of the program would nearly double the size of the state’s budget in the first year alone and require large tax increases for residents and businesses. Shumlin, a Democrat and long-time single-payer advocate, said he would not seek funding for the law, effectively tabling the program called Green Mountain Care.


“In my judgment, now is not the time to ask our Legislature to take the step of passing a financing plan for Green Mountain Care,’’ Shumlin said.

The decision not only stunned and angered supporters in Vermont, but also signaled that the dream of universal, government-funded health care in the United States may be near its end. Vermont’s experience, analysts said, shows how difficult — and costly — it can be to shift from a system long-dominated by private health insurance, and that the future of universal health care lies within the private market.

Read more:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/01/25/costs-derail-vermont-single-payer-health-plan/VTAEZFGpWvTen0QFahW0pO/story.html

[Renew Deal]

1. This is going to go well....

Universal care should be the ultimate goal of all Democrats

[demmiblue]

6. +1

I didn't even think it was a point of contention.

[HassleCat]

2. Socialism is soooooo last Tuesday. Totally!

Another article explaining why Euro-Socialism is a "failed experiment." Of course it will be expensive, because the insurance industry will insist on being bought out, and the price will be astronomical. In the long run, it will be worth it.

[99th_Monkey]

3. I'm not an expert on this, but it makes sense that a tiny island of single-payer

would be undermined by the ocean of high cost surrounding it.

I've heard that single-payer pretty much needs to be an all-or-nothing
whole-nation deal to become feasible.

I may be wrong about this, but maybe someone more knowledgeable
on the subject can clarify this down-string.

[jeff47]

24. The bigger the pool of people, the easier it is to predict and absorb the costs.

So yes, a federal program would have a much easier time than one small, rural state.

10 people get cancer in VT, and that's a noticeable blip in the budget. 1000 people get cancer in the entire US, and it won't register at all.

[bvar22]

28. Exactly!

The risk pool would be shared among the entire population of the US.

[demmiblue]

4. Check... Cali_Democrat is against single-payer health care. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

7. I never said I'm against single payer.

Nowhere in my OP did I say that.

Why is it so hard to have an honest conversation in this forum?

[demmiblue]

9. Lol... honest. n/t

[rhett o rick]

23. Maybe you need to re-read what you wrote. Sen Sanders favors single payer health care,

but your OP makes it look like a bad choice and how that reflects on him because he represents Vermont.

You don't say one way or the other whether you agree with Sen Sanders or not on single payer. So where is the "honest conversation" you want to have?

[still_one]

11. you do realize that they tried to do single payer in Vermont, and they had to back away

From it because it was cost prohibitive

The OP simply asked a question about cost, not that they were against it

[Warren Stupidity]

16. You do realize that just about every other modern industrial democracy has some form of

either single payer universal healthcare or a fully socialized healthcare system and that their per capita costs are approximately half of our system and their measured health outcomes are generally much better than ours, right?

Vermont couldn't go it alone.

[still_one]

39. I was not addressing you, I was addressing the assumption being made that because the OP asked a

question about how it would be funded, does NOT mean the OP is against single payer

You response is a reasonable and intelligent one

[demmiblue]

18. You do realize that Bernie Sanders is a United States Senator...

not a Vermont state senator? FFS, some of y'all don't realize how things work.

Well, I think it is pretty clear that the OP has an aversion to single-payer. Either that, or he has an intense dislike of Bernie Sanders that clouds his judgment in an inexplicable way.

[still_one]

40. where did I even MENTION Bernie? I was addressing the ISSUE to a SPECIFIC poster who ASSuMEd that

the OP was against single payer, because the OP simply asked how it would be funded.

Is that an unreasonable question, I guess so.

Cannot even carry on a simple discussion, without it involving, " my side verses your side"

Have a good day, no point to pursue the conversation further

[HooptieWagon]

27. Some third world countries have universal care.

But RWers don't think the U.S. is capable of doing it.

[still_one]

41. I will repeat this again for the third time. I WAS NOT ARGUING AGAINST SINGLE PAYER. I was

responding to a SPECIFIC POST which made the comment that the OP was against single payer, because the OP asked the question how it would be funded.

That is NOT an unreasonable question, and it does NOT mean the OP is against single payer

[upaloopa]

5. I would like to see a real study of what it would

take to implement single payer in this country.
Not "other industrialized countries have it"
Not just happy clappy words. Really a real time line with real costs and real effects on all concerned including people who invest in health care, insurance and pharma companies. Not a "screw them" debate.

[still_one]

15. they couldn't do it in Vermont because it was cost prohibitive. doesn't mean it

shouldn't be done, but who will pay for it is a very reasonable question

People also need to keep in mind that with a Republican Congress it is most likely not to happen

[jeff47]

21. It wasn't cost prohibitive. The DLC-style governor got scared of big numbers.

If I pay $10k per year to Blue Cross, or $10k per year in taxes to get equivalent insurance, it really doesn't matter.

But you can make an enormous, scary headline about that $10k in taxes while carefully ignoring the $10k I already send to BC.

[jeff47]

17. Are we somehow unable to do what other countries have done? (nt)

[upaloopa]

22. Words

You can just say words!
Repeating those words gets nowhere!

[jeff47]

25. Your claim is that other countries having single-payer is not evidence it can be done here.

I'd like to know why that is the case. What makes it impossible for the US to do what every other industrialized nation on the planet has successfully done?

[upaloopa]

26. I didn't make any damn claims I asked what

it would take. These words are a lot like high school class president campaigns.
You have to tell people what it would cost what it would take the up sides and the down sides
Anybody can say I want single payer like a baby crying for a bottle

[jeff47]

35. So someone hacked your account and made post #5 for you? (nt)

[Ron Green]

8. Shumlin chickened out when he realized the huge amount of public money

required, although MORE THAN OFFSET by the reduction in insurance premiums, copays, etc., could not be sold to the public - mostly because of the limitless advertising budget of guess who?

The insurance industry.

(And Big Pharma, of course.)

[taught_me_patience]

10. Bernie didn't fight very hard for Green Mountain Care

Once the taxes required to pay for it were revealed. It was a real failure of his leadership and another reason why I favor Hillary.

[Barky Bark]

12. Um, it was Clinton surrogate, Peter Shumlin

who was responsible for the Green Mountain Care failure, and it was because he wouldn't raise taxes, typical of a DLC'er.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. this talking point is tired and needs a nap

[rhett o rick]

30. Like her plan is better. nm

[Doctor_J]

37. Bernie respresents Vermont in DC. He is not a member of the state government

And you're full of shit.

[NCTraveler]

13. Such an undertaking is best suited if under the control of the Federal Government.

I respect any state that has tried. Even with the flaws it is better for for a majority in what we should always refer to as a right. We are a ways off at the Federal level so states with more progressive constituencies are helping to lay the groundwork. But for it to really work at its potential it needs to be a federally run program. A state having seriously disastrous results wouldn't help much either.

K&R

[Gregorian]

14. A lot less than the wars that almost every other candidate will start.

[restorefreedom]

20. it might be apples and oranges

to compare a tiny rural state to a federal effort.

medicare works fine. we just need to expand it to all and remove the greed driven profits from the practice of medicine.

will it cost some in the short term? no doubt.

but we are on the side of the aisle that puts lives before money. lets rejoice in that.

[ORjohn]

29. Lets argue

Your not presenting the upside in worker productivity and less lost time for sickness. You also neglect to mention that Vermont is a state and small in population. I f all the states were united the drug companies would be bargaining with a collective with power. Social programs return $10 for every dollars spent. I have never met someone from a social democracy with universal healthcare who was unhappy with it. The threat of taxes should be met with initiatives to take the exorbitant profit out of health care.

[rhett o rick]

31. I am confused. Are you inplying that single payer like Sen Sanders would like would

cost more than our current plan? How much would H. Clinton's plan cost?

[Puzzledtraveller]

32. It is strange.

So much of what a majority of DU'ers support, single payer for one, when we are just talking about how much we hate republicans and how they will never let that happen we generally get along and are on the same side. Then we get to election time and ideas that we supported when we were just talking about our common enemy become fodder to attack the other candidate.

[rhett o rick]

34. I guess this is about as close as we are going to get to discussing real issues.

Single payer health care will save money. Just because Vermont ran their ford into a tree doesn't mean fords don't work.

from Gerald Freidman:

These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, HR 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and the underinsured.

The economic benefits from Senator Sander's proposal would be even greater than these static estimates suggest because a single-payer plan would create dynamic gains by freeing American businesses to compete without the burden of an inefficient and wasteful health insurance system. As with Senator Sanders' other proposals, the economic boom created by HR 676, including the productivity boost coming from a more efficient health care system and a healthier population, would raise economic output and provide billions of dollars in additional tax revenues to over-set some of the additional federal spending.

from: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251598177

[Doctor_J]

36. So we pay 2-4 times as much per capita for healthcare as any other country, and

we pay as much for "defense" as the next 16 countries combined, yet we can't afford the health care that every other country has. Got it.

I am going to go on a limb and say that math is not a strength in most Hillarians.

[area51]

38. Some FAQs on single-payer.

Here.