BREAKING: Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin MAKES HISTORY By Signing Into Law SINGLE PAYER Health Care

:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

One brick at a time!!




" Last month, the Vermont Senate passed legislation, approved earlier by the House, that would establish a single payer health care system in the state. The legislation would make Vermont the first state in the nation to, as Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) said, make health care “a right and not a privilege.”


The governor’s office just confirmed for ThinkProgress that Shumlin signed the legislation into law this morning, making the state the first in American history to pass legislation that will establish a single payer health care system to provide care to all citizens. Now that the law is signed, Vermont will spend the next four years setting up the system and preparing it for implementation.


In order to actually enact the system, the state needs a waiver from the Affordable Care Act health reform law. Currently, the federal government will start handing out state waivers in 2017 — three years after Vermont wants to implement its system. Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) has introduced an amendment that would move the waiver date up to 2014, an idea that President Obama has endorsed.


http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/26/vermont-governor-single-payer/


.

They don't want a successful single payer system for everyone. They're having enough trouble trying to destroy Medicare.

The Republicans in the Senate will filibuster it and in the House the Republican majority will vote against it.

This is a state law, it has nothing to do with the US Congress or the Senate.

The only thing the federal government can do is if someone files a lawsuit and it goes to the SC.

The Republicans will block Welch's amendment, meaning that it will be 5 years before Vermont can receive a waiver.

One way or another, the system is going to be implemented, whether in 2014 or 2017.

You see, this is an issue that would go to court. The high court, eventually. It would be a difficult thing for the SCOTUS to rule single payer unconstitutional.

Yes, it looks like a clusterfuck, but it's not necessarily a Congressional fight.

single payer --

That'll go over well.

:shrug:

I guess they only wants states to drop out if it's a red state.

And, the more one thinks about it, the push to get states to be able to drop out is just noise. Why on earth would they want to deny the healthcare industry from millions of captive new customers?

"MoneyMoneyMoneyMoney....Money"

I think it would be worth it if the (R)s can't be bullied into voting for a state's right to decide what type of health care it wants for it's citizens.

The governor signed it into law.

the republicans against state rights. They didn't do anything against Romney and they wont do anything against Vermont. Now lets hope its run well because any mess up would give singe payer in the US a black eye

Come on CA, let's be next!

sure would be nice - when the larger states take on these issues, they shift minds very quickly about it

Dunno what it takes, but it sure is a temptation.



Laura

and how (or if) it will be financed.

though it doesn't cover residency requirements. I don't think that what constitutes residency for the purposes of this this law has been established yet, though I do know that the amendment to not cover undocumented workers was voted down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/vermont-closing-in-on-single-payer/2011/05/09/AFvtBmZG_blog.html

My family is there and I'm thinking... hmm, could I live there again.

Now, the State could work around that constitutional requirement by demand so much payment into the program before you are eligible i.e pay into the program for two years then you are eligible. Such a requirement, being effective on both old residents and new residents would be valid, but a state can NOT do require a residency of more then 30 days for things like Welfare or Voting, since such requirements interferes

much longer residency requirements for in-state college tuition? (genuinely curious how this stuff works...)

That is generally how states get away with it, even if you are in your late 20s. The state look at your whole family, including your parents. Furthermore, the state can delay the action longer then you are in school, then you no longer have standing to challenge the restriction (i.e. you are out of school). Another way is to demand you make the payment before you registered, then rule you gave up all objections to not being your home state.

The big key is making anyone who will challenge the rule either eligible OR lack standing, either way the student loses.

Furthermore the courts are willing to work with the states to defeat such attacks on the simple ground the only thing the court could order is everyone pays the higher out of state tuition, especially if that is what the state has made the law if the in state tuition reduction is struck-ed down i.e. the Plaintiff wins the right that all his or her in state fellow students pay the same high rate as the out of state students. In many ways this is what state did when welfare was made subject to a 30 day residency requirement(i.e. lower payments of welfare to ALL welfare recpients not just recipents that moved into the state). Who would file a case that increases everyone else's tuition? While keeping your own at the same high rate? No one, so such laws survive.

In the case of single payer would a state be able to write such poison pill law AND keep most residents on the single payer program? I doubt it, the better policy would require a one year pay in to keep out of staters out of the program.

and the government will pay for it, would everyone be on board with that?

maybe



Get BC to pay out 95% of what it takes in on actual care and I think I can get behind that.

SINGLE PAYER -- STATE MEDICARE FOR ALL -- is the way to go -!!

which is still "non-profit" in that state.
This is what Vermont is calling single payer. At least that is what the early indications are that I've read.

That is similar to what the city of San Francisco did for their universal healthcare.

They aren't totally making private health insurance obsolete anymore than many cities who outsource the hauling of residential solid waste to one single company after making everyone use it whether they want to or not or whether the hauler is doing a good job or is being competitive.

I wasn't sure of status of Blue Cross at this moment --

If it's "non-profit" and completely under state control, it might work.

But Blue Cross certainly was never a hero among insurnace companies --

they did their share of cheating way back --

I'd have to check the history -- originally private -- and then modified.

Probably someone else here has better info on it.

Sounds like a monkey-wrench to me thrown in by someone who doesn't want single-payer!


We'll see!!

But its still under the control of the state who I guess can change providers.
They're most likely doing it this way because its much easier to implement.
They don't have to set up offices to handle the payables or the money in the fund.

Obama Puts Public Option & Single Payer Back On The Table
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x530578

Not a minute too soon, either:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=679645&mesg_id=679645

It's good to remind people where these things begin;)

happened several years ago if we hadn't had a repub governor who said he'd veto it.

Most people, like informed Obama supporters Bernie Sanders and Gov. Shumlin, prefer facts to empty rhetoric:
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=44a664de-8e92-43f4-a871-d26e0b5a252d

I repeat, without President Obama's passage of HCR, this never would have happened. More facts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x530578

it's hardly a secret that the reason the legislature didn't take it up when Douglas was governor was that he said he'd veto it. And Shumlin and Bernie and Vermont legislators and Deb Richter all deserve the lions share of the credit. YOU know nothing about it.

at the Public Assets Institute. He's the former Majority leader in the Vt House. He'll be glad to educate you- and affirm my claim.

lol.

Didn't think so. :rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=44a664de-8e92-43f4-a871-d26e0b5a252d

Which came first, HCR or this? Without the political impetus from HCR and the waiver from President Obama to pursue single-payer, this never would've happened. Sanders said as much when Pres. Obama announced the waiver. He said something to the effect that VT would pursue a vote on single-payer immediately.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x530578

Bernie Sanders and Gov. Shumlin laud Pres. Obama:
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=44a664de-8e92-43f4-a871-d26e0b5a252d

put right in front of her wittle face.

You know what they say:

He who laughs last....

:rofl:

Love, love love it.

have fun chewing on the proof

Proof that when you denigrate Obama supporters, you also denigrate your Senator and your Governor: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1178063&mesg_id=1181231

Still can't find one news article from VT that backs up your claim? How unsurprising.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Then factor in the joint press release from Sen. Sanders and Gov. Shumlin after the waivers were approved by Pres. Obama (moved up to 2013, which is earlier than what Sanders had hoped for), couple that with Sanders' joyous public statements to the media after the waivers were granted where he said VT would vote right away on single-payer and there you go:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1178063&mesg_id=1181231

I have provided ample proof of my claim that without President Obama's passage of HCR and his subsequent approval of waivers, this never would've happened today in VT. It's not difficult to acknowledge the timeline of events if intellectual honesty and a bit of common sense deduction is exercised.

to a requirement you're passing at the same time is somehow a change on what previously existed? They said "hey we're going to implement all these requirements and by the way 3 years after you're required to follow them you can ask for and maybe get a waiver from them". How is that any better (in terms of avoiding the requirements) than not passing them in the first place? The reason having the waivers was praised so much is taking as a given that the bill was going to pass, then having the waivers in it to its own requirements was useful as opposed to having no waivers which would have sompletely eliminated the pre-existing possibility of a state single-payer system

That's my understanding at least, please correct me if I'm wrong somewhere

And provided ample evidence.

They're politicians. What do you expect them to say-- "damn, the President sure did pass a shitty healthcare bill"?

Sanders lauded *the option to pass on Obama's HCR*, and you twist that into some sort of ringing endorsement of Obama's efforts? It's so silly.

Shumlin and the legislature and folks like Dr. Richter, accomplished.

:rofl:

as I consider a return to the Green Mountain State.

And that seemes to have been at the top of the Obama/Rahm White House agenda!!


Rahm .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!

Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:03 AM

”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that

the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF

Obama's plan was nothing more than an insurance industry bailout. He grafted the same corrupt industry that causes the problem directly onto the government spigot, saving it from itself just when the public demanded something better. In response to that betrayal, Vermont set about solving the problem for themselves.

Giving Obama credit for this is absurd.

Enthusiastically recced.

:applause:

It's a beginning and I hope it spreads.

Great news! And good for Vermont.

:bounce:

“My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea.” – Tommy Douglas, 1961

nt

Seriously. I'm tired of living in a fascist republican state.

with by the U.S. corporate government they will be successful.

I am not surprised that he is now enthusiastic as hell and wants to move to Vermont. What's the best city in Vermont friends?

the population is so small.. but there are a few that are considered larger towns than others.

I will have to check it out.

Bennington is close to the NY border on the west and MA on the south of its border...Brattleboro is close to NH on the east and MA on the south... If you don't want to be sooo far north as to hop into Canada... If you want to live really close to Canada, Burlington is on the North end of the state.. near Lake Champlain.. Also, hosts the University of Vermont. Cold as can be in the winter; especially with that lake effect wind that blows you in half. There is much country and farm. Fall is my favorite season for beauty. (Its the one thing that I really, really, really miss living in FL now.) Winter is cool when it first comes; but it gets old really, really, really fast even if you love outdoors winter sports.

Congratulations Vermont and thank you for leading the way!

:woohoo:

Hold on a second and let's read what the main physicians organization that advocates single payer legislation has to say about this before we conclude that a funded single payer system has been signed into law. BBI



NEWS RELEASE

Vermont health bill mislabeled 'single payer': doctors' group
Physicians for a National Health Program says draft legislation gives wide berth to private insurers, falls far short of single-payer reform


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 7, 2011
Contact:
Garrett Adams, M.D., president PNHP
David Himmelstein, M.D., co-founder PNHP
Andrew Coates, M.D., board member PNHP
Mark Almberg, communications director, (312) 782-6006, mark@pnhp.org

The following statement was released today by the national board of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Health reform legislation initiated by Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin was recently passed by that state’s House of Representatives and awaits action in the Senate.

Many journalists and commentators have portrayed this bill as fully embracing the single-payer approach to reform. We write to clarify the views of Physicians for a National Health Program on the Vermont legislation.

We appreciate the enthusiasm for progressive health reform shown by Gov. Shumlin and the many dedicated single-payer supporters in Vermont. However, it is important to note that the bill passed by the Vermont House falls well short of the single-payer reform needed to resolve the health care crisis in that state and the nation. Indeed, as the bill moved through the House the term “single payer” was entirely removed, and restrictions on the role of private insurers were loosened.

In its present form, the legislation lays out in considerable detail a structure to implement Vermont's version of the federal reform passed in March of 2010, which would expand coverage by private insurers and Medicaid. However, it offers only a vague outline of the additional reform promised by the governor and Legislature at such time when states will be allowed to experiment with alternatives to the federal program in 2017 (or 2014, if the effort to move up the date succeeds).

The Vermont plan promises a public program open to all residents of the state in 2017, but even then it would allow a continuing role for private insurance. This would negate many of the administrative savings that could be attained by a true single-payer program, and opens the way for the continuation of multi-tiered care.

Within the public program, the plan would continue to lump together payments for operating and capital costs, allowing hospitals and the newly established Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to use funds not spent on care for institutional expansion. Meanwhile, those with operating losses would shrink or close even if they were meeting vital health needs. This would perpetuate incentives for hospitals and ACOs to cherry-pick profitable patients and services, and hobble the health planning needed to assure rational investments in new facilities and high-technology care.

Under the legislation, many patients would continue to face co-payments that obstruct access to care, and the bill makes no mention of expanding coverage of long-term care. The legislation fails to proscribe the participation of for-profit hospitals and other providers (e.g. ACOs and dialysis clinics), which research has shown deliver inferior care at inflated prices.

Finally, the bill offers no concrete funding plan or structure for the public program that it promises.

We applaud the sentiments expressed by the governor and legislative leaders and remain hopeful that the legislation’s rhetorical commitment to further reform will become a reality. We urge the Vermont Senate to address the shortcomings in the House bill.

Much work, including efforts to enact federal enabling legislation – and continued advocacy by single-payer supporters – will be needed in the years ahead to achieve Vermont’s goal of universal access to high quality, affordable care.

*******
Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org ) is an organization of 18,000 doctors who support single-payer national health insurance, an improved Medicare for all. A March 26 rally at the Vermont Statehouse organized by medical and other health-professional students from PNHP and the American Medical Student Association drew over 200 attendees in support of single-payer health reform.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2011/april/vermont-health-bill-mislabeled-single-payer-doctors-group

My question would be - have there been changes made since this April 7th info?

And my statement would be - one step at a time.

Who is going to pay for it? VT hasn't figured it out yet. I mean it all sounds grand but Health Care is a service that costs a lot of money, unless of course the government takes over full control of the health industry and sets pay rates for doctors etc, etc... but I don't think anyone wants to go there... aside from the pre-existing conditions argument the reason why young healthy people in America aren't lining up to fork out hundreds of dollars a month for health insurance is simply because it costs too much and jobs just don't pay enough of a living wage to afford it..so...

Whats going to change?

Healthcare is still going to cost only now many that don't pay for it will be forced to pay for it and when I say pay for it I mean in one form or another directly out of paychecks, deductions by employers, increased costs to consumers, less jobs.... It sucks but lets be honest nothing is free.

Its like finding that elusive free energy, hell I hate my electric bill and I hate everything OIL and would put up a windmill in my yard and cover my house in solar panels to avoid paying for energy, I also want a Nissan Leaf but these things are all out of my price range.

Where's your states rights bullshit now, republicans???

Way to go Vermont!!

and VT House Speaker Shap Smith and a kick ass legislature.

To Vermont

Such as in most states we have to have car insurance? This is a good idea, if it is affordable. I don't have medical, and the government doesn't pay for me either,,, yet. I hope in a few years that I can double my income, to afford this shit!

at least a couple of terms.

I'm getting fuzzy trying to keep up with everything these days.

it will also set payments and it will cover everyone. and it's understandable you're fuzzy; the plan in Vermont is still not entirely worked out.

Congratulations Vermonters!

And from what I've read it doesn't have a mandate. Is that correct cali?