( – promoted by odum)
VPR came out with a report just shortly ago that the Senate Health & Welfare Committee voted the bill unanimously out of committee. It goes on to report on the key parts of the bill, mainly the creation of the 5-person GMC Board as well as setting up the health exchange.
There is one piece of the legislation that does concern me a little bit. Even after the House had changed the name of the legislation and striken out the mention of single payer, the Senate Health Care Comittee added an amendment by Senator Mullin. Bob Kinzel reports that “the key to winning the support of everyone on the committee was a provision that calls for a comprehensive study before the state considers adopting a single payer system.”
I had to wrap my head around that for the moment and ask myself the question. Was this a bit of deja-vu? Hadn't we already done something similar in commissioning the Hsiao Report? (Update: DH points out in comments the difference between the Mullin amendment and the Hsiao report. Thanks for the correction) Isn't that a comprehensive study of different models of single payer systems for Vermont and have a recommendation for the model that would best serve the state? I gave the legislation voted out of the Senate Health & Welfare Committee a quick look (it's 135 pages) and I don't see a reference to a study, but I'm in a bit of a rush and haven't looked at it deeply, so correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Also, Sen. Baruth had a post a few days back relating to this problem. He says, “The first of these threats has been institutionalized by this point: the House and Senate have agreed to move the Administration’s single-payer plan in a two-stage process, with the empty structure and the resulting questions on the front end, and all of the details, figures and final answers on the back end. That leaves pro-reform elected officials defending against anything and everything for a period of 18 months, minimum.”
The problem with putting in a study before adopting a single payer system is the delay that Baruth is worried about. I don't know about what others think, but this seems to be a strategy of a death by a thousand cuts, and the Senate Health Committee seemingly is going along with this. Delays and stalling tactics will increase pressure and doubts on the legislature and governor, imperiling the original intent of the administration and leaving us with just with a vastly diminished reform. Am I being a bit too worried here or does this worry have any merit to it?
It sounds like they’re following the Douglas model: study something, then study the study, just to create a delaying study process that studies the studied to death.
Not. Acceptable.
Slow it down to give the opposition time to stir up the crazies to rally against it.
This is ridiculous and utterly unacceptable.
the same as the Hsiao report
vtdigger reports it’s about the impact on the state’s economy and credit rating
http://vtdigger.org/2011/04/13…
a study like this could be useful but it could also be a means to attack reform
hey, here’s an idea; the study should include consideration of what the current system has done to the state’s economy and what effect it would have if nothing was done
we’re up to our necks in health care expenditures (almost $5 billion / year); thousands delay getting care because of high deductibles and no insurance; what are the costs of that down the road?
and it’s interesting that the two senators are concerned about our credit rating instead of the health of our citizens; where is the call for a study of the health impacts of this proposal? we know that the un- and under-insured will ask for a lot of care in the first year or two; it will cost money but, presumably, they will be healthier as result; what are the economic & social impacts of that?
finally, where were the two senators before this bill was proposed?
Yes, we should all be worried. It seems, even though thousands and thousands of Vermonters have gotten behind the original “Healthcare Is A Human Right” proposal, the bill out of committee is gutting sweeping reform and making too many concessions to a sector (Shumlin’s closed door meeting with IBM?) that worries more about immediate profit than the long term health of Vermont’s people and Vermont’s ECONOMY. Who–or WHAT–is going to make this new study? Somebody on Trump’s show Apprentice?
This is another example of how working people and the poor and the elderly and the sick get a promise from a liberal/progressive candidate, elect that candidate on that promise, and then get the proverbial stab in the back (out of leftfield). Democracy as Reality TV. Or Game Show.
Democrats under LBJ in the mid-sixties were under a lot of pressure about the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, but THEY DID IT. Were are the Dems Of Yore? Oh, that’s right, preparing for next year’s elections. Well…if they want our vote–WE WANT THEIRS. Fair and simple.
She said it’s not a bad compromise: http://vtdigger.org/2011/04/13…
Upon reading a little more closely, I guess I can grudgingly support it given the timetables we already had laid out.
a lot of support from some sectors of the community if they could easily identify for their folks-what exactly they were signing onto….
there is an element of danger in this “pig in a poke” appropach…
I need to see some details on funding and benefit levels and overall design…. My support for the concept is there, but……