As the US House of Representative works on its symbolic vote to repeal the new national health care plan Vermont moves forward. A draft report was presented in Montpelier by Dr. William Hsiao for recommendations today.
Vermont State Senate Pro Tem said in part “The Hsiao report provides us with a road map to develop a healthcare system with a strong foundation.”
The draft report is available here http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/healthcaresystemdesign.aspx
comments can be emailed to comments@vermontact128study.com.
As required by Act 128, Hsiao studied three options for system reform:
1 A government-run single payer program;2 A “public option” that would be offered as a choice within a new health insurance exchange;
3 A third option, not specified in the legislation, which Hsiao defined as a public/private single payer program that has a public governance structure and preserves a limited role for one private insurer.
Hsiao recommended implementing the third approach. He and his team estimate that it would reduce health care costs by $500 million while achieving quality and universal coverage for Vermonters. The plan will reduce overall employer payments for health care, decouple health insurance from employment and create as many as 4,000-5,000 new jobs in Vermont. [emphasis added]
it’s a big report and I only looked briefly at the financing section
they recommend paying for a single payer system with a payroll tax; to me, this is a mistake because it would exclude almost a quarter of all Vermont income from taxation (unearned non-payroll income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains)
obviously, this would be great for wealthy folks, but not so good for the rest of us (as we would have to replace the lost revenue)
they also suggest exempting very low income workers; that’s OK with me; but they also recommend exempting small business low-wage employers; say what? not all small scale low-wage employers are on the edge; what about those who make a nice profit? why should they get a pass? why should we reward profitable low-wage employers?
I’m troubled by both of these
I haven’t read the full report yet, but it’s shot through with attacks on the tort system. This seems like a very dangerous idea for what he admits are minuscule savings.
I was happy to hear the Good Doctor mention the sausage making process yesterday. It’s gonna be ugly no matter what, and I think his 3rd option provides the best chance of passage because it includes a wide array of stakeholders. Plus savings of 8-12% are a lot better than the 5% that I’d been touting during the campaign.
Folks here have identified a couple things we need to work on, and that’s why there is a public comment period! So let’s get cracking…
FYI:
Public comment on the draft report will be accepted until:
4:30 pm on Thursday February 3, 2011
Government, municipal, state workers etc. Iow, everyone. Primary reason I am against universal or whatever it’s called is bc it does not include everyone, which makes one wonder WHY if it’s so wonderful.
At first glance, #3, the one he’s pushing seems to be the best.
So, if the funding mechanism is a payroll tax, how do the self-employed and the “young” (as in under 65) retired folks contribute and participate?
NanuqFC
Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have. ~ Winston Churchill