Vermont makes History

[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.

[angus]

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.

Mississippi is the birthplace of Ernest Hemingway, also known as the "Father of Capitalism". What is your state known for?

We are the birthplace of lesbianism

You sir, have won.
Over everybody.

He certainly wins the award for making an ass of himself.  I've heard of mucking up potentially interesting threads created by others, but to take a big dump on a thread of your own creation--multiple times, and at every possible opportunity--must be worth of some dubious distinction. 

[angus]

Angus is always right, though if px wants to px all over his own thread, I can accept that. All I ask is that no one px on my threads.

Well, to be fair you have to admit that the opening sentence contained the unrelated terms gay, atheist, and socialist, so it's not entirely clear whether the thread was meant to be taken seriously.  Yet, it was posted in the General Discussion board, so I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.  So much for that benefaction. 

Frankly, it's potentially an interesting topic.  My original questions stands.  Is anyone up on this topic?  If so, let's discuss it.  I can see advantages and disadvantages to the legislation, at least in terms of political consequence. 

As for the normatives, I'll leave that to others.  It seems that there are those who genuinely believe that employing medical service types is a necessary function of the government.  I can't honestly say I'm a member of that cult, but I don't consider that germane to the discussion in the first place, since I think we can objectively discuss the politics of enacting such legislation.  For example, it's a bold move.  One that may improve the economic situation in Vermont.  Or one that may imperil it.  That's my fundamental question.  My gut feeling is that it's a positive for the governor, assuming that this is what the people want.  Most folks in the USA don't really trust the government to deal with such issues.  We already commit about one-sixth of our aggregate GDP to medical services, and yet everyone bitches about their aches and pains.  The right, for all its greediness, is at least honest in saying that it doesn't trust the government in this area.  The left is slave to a political correctness that demands that they give lip service to the new-and-improved terms "Universal Health Care" or "Single Payer."  But the truth is that most of us are more willing to let a single state experiment with this idea, especially since it needn't affect the rest of us.  In this regard the left comes across as more intellectually honest.  Not that they are more intellectually honest, but it fits their brand better. 

I say let the experiment begin.  I'm actually interested in studying its results, objectively.  Some of you young folks may think that four years is like a millenium, but I can assure you that it's not.  It'll pass by quicker than you imagine.  And my gut feeling is that that the Vermonters will make a good go of it.  Whether it's something the rest of the nation will want to consider depends upon many factors, not the least of which are (1) its economic efficacy and (2) its ability to honestly report that it can provide wealthy people with the medical services at a level to which they are accustomed and (3) provide poor people with the medical services that they desire but cannot afford individually.

My guess is that if you satisfy all three of those criteria, then even the most hardened libertarians and freedom-lovers will overcome their ideologies and say that the ends justify the means.  But if within a few years the program does not deliver on those criteria--a distnct possibility--then we will chalk it up to a failed economic experiment that, thankfully, was restricted to one of the least populous parts of the country.  (Yes, "a few years" is all you get, Vermont.  We are the people that put a man on the moon and invented Fast Food.  God help us.  But a few years is really all you need, if you're serious.)

Still, as important consideration, how will it affect funding from the federal government?  After all, band-aids aren't free.  It's not as though Canadians get down on their knees and ask the gods, "hey, while you're turning water into wine, can you give us an MRI as well?"  They tax themselves heavily for them.  Best that we all remember that.  And with federal legislation putting a potentially competing program into nascent development, it begs the question:  how will the recent federal law help or hinder the Vermont program? 

I think a SC ruling against Obamacare actually helps vermont.  Am I wrong? 

[angus]

We can give entire states Obamacare waivers now?

Slightly more on topic, odds are this won't really change a thing.  Vermont's healthcare system could range anywhere from fountain of youth to extermination camps, and 90% of people will have already made up their minds on whether or not its a good or bad thing.

Vermont's probably close to the top of most US "health" indexes too, so it will be interesting to see how this holds up 10 years from now.

I disagree.  Well, I agree with your tacit accusation that "health" indices are misleading and agenda-driven.  Indeed they are.  People point to things like longevity, which has less to do with medical service than demographic and cultural norms, or to things like "customer satisfaction," which also have more to do with societal impressions.  As far as I know, there is no objective metric metric for medical service.  Most neutral observers understand this, and anyone who points to irrelevant statistics as anything other than what they are is easily identified as either foolish or malevolent.

But your point about folks not reserving judgment about such radical economic experiments may not be valid.  I'd say that if the result is concentration camps wherein the terminally ill are systematically denied services which extend their lives, no matter how wealthy they are, then the American people, and probably Vermonters as well, will reject the idea.  At the moment, although I have visited Vermont many times, I have only two friends in vermont and no relatives there, so, all things considered, if we're going to conduct such an experiment, better it be there than in Massachusetts, California, Texas, Iowa, or any other place where I actually have relatives and friends.  Vermont is small in area and population.  And exceedingly redneck, and exceedingly white.  Homogenous, insular, and not very representative of the US population as a whole.  It's Denmark, basically.  Farmers and stoners, mostly, and a few cops and public servants.  It's one of the few places where such a plan may work.  But if it does work there--and by "work" I don't mean the sort of concentration camps that you hear about on Sean Hannity's show--then I think you have a chance that the rest of the nation may give it a go.  On the other hand, if it doesn't work there, in that lily-white, rural, goos-hunting, organic tomato-growing country where there are fewer McDonald's than there are in any given square mile of Manhattan, then I doubt you're going to get the rest of the country to take it seriously.

But, if we're going to be honest, then we have to wonder about whether the likely cuts in federal funding to Vermont are enough to discourage them.  My gut feeling is that it will not.  But I admit my ignorance here.  I was hoping that at least one post in this thread might be an intelligent one.  And in four pages, I have not seen one.  All we're doing here is braggin about our own ignorance.  And I include my own posts in that indictment.  Given the potential economic impact of such a radical legislation, I think that's unfortunate.

[angus]

And since when is having fun a crime around here? If I want to get depressed I can just watch the news.

Okay, maybe I'm suffering sense-of-humor degradation.  That happens sometimes.  But I hadn't actually read this anywhere yet, so to me it was news.  Interesting news.  And it was in a discussion board, so presumably you were looking for some intelligent discussion.  

As for wormy guy's comments, he merely pointed out a fact.  Greece and Mississippi are both poor.  Greece is a money pit for Brussels.  Just as Mississippi is for Washington.  In 2010, the federal government channeled $5,584,088,732, or $1,900.24 per capita, to the state of Mississippi.  They're living on my dollars down there, just as Greeks are living on handouts from Brussels.  I'm not sure Mississippians are worse at driving than Greeks.  Both places have high accident rates.  I'm not sure whether Mississippians are as chaotic as Greeks.  Both are places where people haven't learned to respect the concept of a queue in banks and other waiting places.  But, as poor as Mississippi is, Greece is even more poor.  It's an objective, demonstrable fact that wormy guy pointed out.  You needn't be so defensive about it.  

[angus]

And since when is having fun a crime around here? If I want to get depressed I can just watch the news.

Okay, maybe I'm suffering sense-of-humor degradation.  That happens sometimes.  But I hadn't actually read this anywhere yet, so to me it was news.  Interesting news.  And it was in a discussion board, so presumably you were looking for some intelligent discussion.  

As for wormy guy's comments, he merely pointed out a fact.  Greece and Mississippi are both poor.  Greece is a money pit for Brussels.  Just as Mississippi is for Washington.  In 2010, the federal government channeled $5,584,088,732, or $1,900.24 per capita, to the state of Mississippi.  They're living on my dollars down there, just as Greeks are living on handouts from Brussels.  I'm not sure Mississippians are worse at driving than Greeks.  Both places have high accident rates.  I'm not sure whether Mississippians are as chaotic as Greeks.  Both are places where people haven't learned to respect the concept of a queue in banks and other waiting places.  But, as poor as Mississippi is, Greece is even more poor.  It's an objective, demonstrable fact that wormy guy pointed out.  You needn't be so defensive about it.  

Well px actually lives in Greece so he's touchy........as well as other unpleasant things.

Greeks are notoriously litigious.  We yankees are known for being a litigious society.  Sue happy, so to speak.  But when you break it down by state places like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are extremely sue happy.  Places like Iowa are not.  In fact, people in the Midwest who want to sue other Midwesterners often try to get a change of venue to places like Mississippi in order increase their odds of getting a pliable jury.  Greeks are litigious like that as well.  

Harry used to get very defensive anytime anyone brought up economic or social indicators about Mississippi.  He go on about about how the first successful heart transplant was performed in Jackson and how the seminal study on the benefits of peanuts came from Mississippi researchers.  I think the same thing is happening with Greek posters when you talk about Greece is an objective way.  

But wormyguy's point, although true, was irrelevant and led us off on an unnecessary tangent.

[angus]

But, as poor as Mississippi is, Greece is even more poor.  It's an objective, demonstrable fact that wormy guy pointed out.  You needn't be so defensive about it.  

If we're going by GDP per capita, it may be an objective fact.....but what about general quality of life? I don't know any numbers by heart....but I don't think GDP per capita is an extremely accurate way of really measuring wealth or poverty.

On the contrary, it correlates pretty well with the hassle factor.  Ever notice how long you have to wait to get a driver's license or a register to vote?  Ever notice how well or how badly people drive?  Or how defensive or litigious the people are?  I've lived in lots of places in the US.  Held driver's license and voted in nine states so far.  And I've traveled to many countries.  And in my observation, the tedium and general level of chaos does correlate pretty well with the local per-capita income.  There are exceptions, of course, but overall I think it's a good thing to check when you're planning your next vacation.  Not that it should ever deter you--I've had great times in some extremely impoverished places--but just so you can know what to expect in terms of public service and the general level of awareness of the population.

But look, man, all of this is so totally irrelevant.  It deserves its own thread if you want to discuss it further.