Vermont makes History
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:37:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Vermont makes History
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Vermont makes History  (Read 4678 times)
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 26, 2011, 10:49:44 AM »

Good job, you slimey bunch of atheist gay communists!

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

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.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2011, 11:12:32 AM »

http://www.slate.com/id/2293634/

I was going to post this article awhile back, but I didn't have enough posts then. This seems like as good an opportunity as ever to post it. 
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2011, 11:28:39 AM »

I remain sceptical of single payer, but Shumlin and the Vermont Democrats certainly have a mandate to do it....so let's see how it goes.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2011, 11:32:06 AM »
« Edited: May 26, 2011, 11:37:00 AM by angus »

In order to actually enact the system, the state needs a waiver from the Affordable Care Act health reform law.

What's the point of the waiver?  Is that like a state applying to the federal government for permission to forego the insurance exchange program, provided they can demonstrate a socialized medicine model that will cover at least as many residents as the exchange would have covered?  Something like that, maybe.

If that's the case, and if the US Supreme Court eventually rules that the federal insurance bill is unconstitutional, then it works in Vermont's favor, because such a ruling would nullify the requirement for the waiver, thereby allowing them to enact their plan on their own timetable.  On the other hand, they may begin to lose federal funding as a condition of the waiver, should the federal bill be upheld.  I'm not sure about the details of the state-federal partnerships though.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2011, 11:38:21 AM »

What a great place! Cheesy
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2011, 03:36:50 PM »

This is what actual pro-life and family values look like.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2011, 04:43:00 PM »

Vermont didn't get to become the second-poorest state in the Northeast for nothing.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2011, 04:50:11 PM »

This is what actual pro-life and family values look like.

^^^^^^^
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2011, 04:50:58 PM »

Vermont didn't get to become the second-poorest state in the Northeast for nothing.

Perhaps it should move itself closer to New York City or Boston.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2011, 04:55:43 PM »

Vermont didn't get to become the second-poorest state in the Northeast for nothing.

I bet it's the fault of those damn illegal immigrants sneaking through the Canadian border and getting free education and health care.
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2011, 04:58:35 PM »

This is what actual pro-life and family values look like.

Yes but at least the feds won't stop them on this one. Probably.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2011, 05:08:15 PM »

Vermont didn't get to become the second-poorest state in the Northeast for nothing.

Perhaps it should move itself closer to New York City or Boston.

I haven't done very much research on NY, but if you're suggesting they become more like MA, what with our below-average taxes, below-average spending, capped property taxes, and the 9th lowest amount of state and local government employees (as a % of the population), I'd think that'd be a good start.

Vermont didn't get to become the second-poorest state in the Northeast for nothing.

I bet it's the fault of those damn illegal immigrants sneaking through the Canadian border and getting free education and health care.

Vermont is unique in that it has achieved becoming poor without having any minority populations of note (and by "minority populations" I of course mean "Catholics").  They've really made history.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2011, 05:13:26 PM »

Vermont might be lower than average in New England, but it's certainly not poor by any reasonable or objective definition.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2011, 05:14:35 PM »

Vermont might be lower than average in New England, but it's certainly not poor by any reasonable or objective definition.

Mississippi isn't poor by any reasonable or objective definition.  Vermont, however, is in fact the second-poorest state in the Northeast.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2011, 05:15:22 PM »

Mississippi isn't poor by any reasonable or objective definition.  Vermont, however, is in fact the second-poorest state in the Northeast.

Goldmined.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2011, 05:18:53 PM »

Mississippi isn't poor by any reasonable or objective definition.  Vermont, however, is in fact the second-poorest state in the Northeast.

Goldmined.

I'm glad you admire my comic skills, and Mississippi is still richer than Greece.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2011, 05:20:54 PM »

Is Vermont poorer than any rural area equivalent in size and population? I imagine the opposite.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2011, 05:27:00 PM »

Mississippi isn't poor by any reasonable or objective definition.  Vermont, however, is in fact the second-poorest state in the Northeast.

Goldmined.

I'm glad you admire my comic skills, and Mississippi is still richer than Greece.

No it isn't.

And we don't marry our cousins.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2011, 05:30:58 PM »

Mississippi isn't poor by any reasonable or objective definition.  Vermont, however, is in fact the second-poorest state in the Northeast.

Goldmined.

I'm glad you admire my comic skills, and Mississippi is still richer than Greece.

No it isn't.

And we don't marry our cousins.

2010 GDP per capita, Greece: $28,100
2010 GDP per capita, Mississippi: $33,000

And wrong stereotype (that's Appalachia).

Is Vermont poorer than any rural area equivalent in size and population? I imagine the opposite.

Alaska, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, Nevada, Oregon, and Kansas are all more rural than Vermont, and all are richer than Vermont.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2011, 05:34:46 PM »

Vermont didn't get to become the second-poorest state in the Northeast for nothing.

Perhaps it should move itself closer to New York City or Boston.

I haven't done very much research on NY, but if you're suggesting they become more like MA, what with our below-average taxes, below-average spending, capped property taxes, and the 9th lowest amount of state and local government employees (as a % of the population), I'd think that'd be a good start.

Vermont didn't get to become the second-poorest state in the Northeast for nothing.

I bet it's the fault of those damn illegal immigrants sneaking through the Canadian border and getting free education and health care.

Vermont is unique in that it has achieved becoming poor without having any minority populations of note (and by "minority populations" I of course mean "Catholics").  They've really made history.

I assume he was suggesting that major metropolitan areas tend to be richer. Vermont not only lacks one of these, but also lacks the suburbs of one (ie, NH has portions of suburban Boston, CT of suburban New York).
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2011, 05:38:55 PM »

(ie, NH has portions of suburban Boston, CT of suburban New York).

Um, I'm not sure what's considered a "suburb" in Washington, but I wouldn't consider "an hour away" to count.  In any case, the area bordering NH is the poorest part of Massachusetts.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2011, 05:41:02 PM »

Mississippi isn't poor by any reasonable or objective definition.  Vermont, however, is in fact the second-poorest state in the Northeast.

Goldmined.

I'm glad you admire my comic skills, and Mississippi is still richer than Greece.

No it isn't.

And we don't marry our cousins.

2010 GDP per capita, Greece: $28,100
2010 GDP per capita, Mississippi: $33,000

And wrong stereotype (that's Appalachia).

Is Vermont poorer than any rural area equivalent in size and population? I imagine the opposite.

Alaska, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, Nevada, Oregon, and Kansas are all more rural than Vermont, and all are richer than Vermont.

AK ND SD and WY are welfare states. The rest have big cities.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2011, 05:41:30 PM »


Alaska, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, Nevada, Oregon, and Kansas are all more rural than Vermont, and all are richer than Vermont.

If you are using GDP per capita this is true. By Human Development Index, however, Vermont is richer more developed (which at least TRIES to be a holistic quality of life measurement, even though it fails in several respects, unlike mere GDP, which only measures the amount of mammon that an area has) than every one of those states except Colorado and Minnesota. Maine, Pennsylvania, and Delaware have lower Human Development Indices than Vermont does.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2011, 05:45:11 PM »

Mississippi isn't poor by any reasonable or objective definition.  Vermont, however, is in fact the second-poorest state in the Northeast.

Goldmined.

I'm glad you admire my comic skills, and Mississippi is still richer than Greece.

No it isn't.

And we don't marry our cousins.

2010 GDP per capita, Greece: $28,100
2010 GDP per capita, Mississippi: $33,000

And wrong stereotype (that's Appalachia)..

Trust me dude. We're much better off than the sh**thole under the name "State of Mississippi".
Sometimes instead of looking numbers on your laptop screen, you must get out and experience the real world.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2011, 05:47:33 PM »

I've been to Greece and Mississippi...both more than once. Greece is in better shape.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 12 queries.