Talk Elections

Good job, you slimey bunch of atheist gay communists!

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

http://www.slate.com/id/2293634/ (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. 

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.

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.

What a great place! :D

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

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

Yes but at least the feds won't stop them on this one. Probably.

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 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.

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.

Goldmined.

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

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

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).


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.

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).

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.

AK ND SD and WY are welfare states. The rest have big cities.

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.

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.

I've been to Greece and Mississippi...both more than once. Greece is in better shape.

GDP was a measure created by Keynesian economists in order to make left-wing economic policies look superior (since all government spending is added to GDP, which is why the aforementioned "welfare states" are high).  Finding that even their own tailor-made measure makes their policies look bad, they have since been forced to come up with still more ridiculous measures in order to justify their positions.

I agree with you that GDP is faintly absurd (though probably for different reasons), but it only makes the policies look bad if one's chief concern is money. HDI is actually less ridiculous than GDP, since it takes into account at least some of the things (educational and health institutions) that make someplace actually worth living in.

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

Ernest Hemingway was born in Illinois (are you maybe thinking of Faulkner?), was a writer of fiction, and Greece is not an American state. If you don't know what Greece is 'known for' there's something wrong with you.

It all depends on the measure you're using.  If you use GSP per capita... you get some weird figures.  DC, for example, has the highest GSP per capita while Mississippi is in last.  Vermont is 30th.  Vermont is higher than the states Wormy mentioned.

If you use household income... Vermont is higher than North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas; basically all of the states that are truly rural like Vermont.  Other rural states poorer than vermont based on household income include Maine, Montana, West Virginia, and Mississippi... and include states with major metropolitan areas:  North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan.

So I'd say you were wrong Wormy.  Sorry.  Gross state product is a terrible measure of wealth.  Household income is a better measure despite wide variance in the cost of living.  But even in the region, the average household in Vermont makes more than the average household in New York, Maine, and Pennsylvania... and is only a few spots behind Rhode Island.

So overall, Vermont is one of the richer states in the northeast.

In contrast... New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey are all wealthier.  But Minnesota, California, Colorado, Washington, and Alaska all round out the top as well... and Minnesota, California, and Alaska are hardly low tax, low service states (despite what Sarah Palin may tell you).

I think in the end it comes down to natural resources, homogeneity, workforce participation, and overall worker productivity... not size of government (though regulations do play a role with the exception of natural resource sectors)... that determines overall wealth.

I'm not sure why that would be high for Vermont, then, since they have crappy schools and you don't exactly want to be in urgent need of open heart surgery over there.  I suspect the fact that Vermonters tend to have more healthy lifestyles (and therefore don't need to go to hospitals as often in the first place) is artificially boosting their numbers.  That's a cultural/geographical thing, not really related to government policy.

We are the birthplace of lesbianism and the guy who invented the Pap smear.

You should know, you're a professor.

And despite one of the highest rates of smoking in the world and a large number of overweight people... has one of hte longest life expectancies in the world.  Probably because of all the wine, olive oil, and disgusting ocean creatures you people eat.

As a product of Vermont public schools up through fifth grade (private schools after that), I will grant you that the education system has major, major flaws. You may have a point regarding the lifestyle/cultural component (which I'd regard as a more 'real' measure of an area's wellbeing anyway, with government action or inaction being the artificial component by comparison), but remember that a part of that culture, at least nowadays, entails voting for the sort of people who are liable to enact single-payer health care.

Don't forget our wonderful climate and our laid-back lifestyle. ;)

Lemme give you a third measure, the one I would use.  Disposable personal income - the income that people earn and are then free to spend after purchasing essentials (food, fuel, healthcare, mortgage, and of course the tax man...).  Vermont is once again the second-poorest state in the Northeast (or the third-poorest, if you count Delaware as part of the Northeast).

Source: http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2011/05%20May/D%20pages/0511dpg_i.pdf (page 3)

This is definitely true.  Minnesota is always in the top 5 (if not the 1st or 2nd) when it comes to overall health.  We almost always place in the top in surveys that measure activity and healthy lifestyles.

At the same time, we often have unusually low rates of pre-natal care (despite one of the lowest rates of infant mortality in the nation) and a middling obesity rate (though we are the lowest in the nation for childhood obesity).

Then again... our public schools are quite good and if you need heart surgery... this is where you come.  (literally... royalty from the Middle East come here for heart surgery.. we're that good :P).

We almost got single payer healthcare back in 1991... but Republican Arne Carlson vetoed the bill, instead coming up with MinnesotaCare, which is a subsidized insurance program for the working poor.  That reduced our non-insured rate to the lowest in the nation (though MA has since gone lower).  Unfortunately, the very same party that negotiated MinnesotaCare is trying to dismantle it today.  Only Mark Dayton stands in the way of doing that.

I must admit, I have never seen such a high level of incorrect statements in two sentences before.  Ever.  I'm impressed.

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. 

Hemingway was from Illinois.

You should know that. You're a professor.

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.

Wait, so all of you are going to jump on Professor for the "Hemmingway was from Illinois, not Mississippi" part, and none of you are going to mention the "Father of Capitalism" bit?  Papa Hemmingway wasn't even particularly capitalist: he was too busy seeing what happens when you mix champagne and absinthe to deal with economic theory.

Get help.

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? 

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 love the reasoning here.  Vermont is only allowed to be compared to the rest of the Northeast to show that it is poor while Mississippi is rich because Greece is in the sh**tter.

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 is ALWAYS right. Politics in America is now entertainment. Even this site is a byproduct of that. That's how you get your Trumps and Palins. Its sad but it's the truth in this era. We could do better but we choose not to.

So when wormy comes here and spouts nonsense about how Vermont is really, REALLY poor and overall a worse place to live than Mississippi, am I supposed to take him seriously and have a respectful, policy-oriented dialog?

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

Well, it's technically true. -_-

When was the last time you made a respectful, policy-oriented post? (serious question)

And, of course, Greece's laid-back lifestyle may not be a good thing in the long run, since you don't seem to be ready to pay for it. :P

I thought that's what Germany's money was being used for? ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Indeed. When Barbour was preparing to run for President, somebody here in the forum said that he's never going to be elected because he is from Mississippi and for most Americans that state has ugly connotations. I doubt that when they hear about someone being from Greece they have the same reaction.
We aren't racists, we aren't obese, we have produced many more notable scientists and artists and I bet that we have better infrastructure than Mississippi (not to mention our tourist attractions). And there aren't any pockets of overwhelming poverty like the Delta.  

This.

You speak as if that's a good thing, and it's not.

Not many people in countries with single-payer agree with you.