Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why the Supreme Court Should Kill ‘Obamacare’ [View all]Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)16. Vermont health bill mislabeled 'single payer': doctors group
Vermont health bill mislabeled 'single payer': doctors group
Physicians for a National Health Program says draft legislation gives wide berth to private insurers, falls far short of single-payer reform
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 7, 2011
Contact:
Garrett Adams, M.D., president PNHP
David Himmelstein, M.D., co-founder PNHP
Andrew Coates, M.D., board member PNHP
Mark Almberg, communications director, (312) 782-6006, [email protected]
The following statement was released today by the national board of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Health reform legislation initiated by Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin was recently passed by that states House of Representatives and awaits action in the Senate.
Many journalists and commentators have portrayed this bill as fully embracing the single-payer approach to reform. We write to clarify the views of Physicians for a National Health Program on the Vermont legislation.
We appreciate the enthusiasm for progressive health reform shown by Gov. Shumlin and the many dedicated single-payer supporters in Vermont. However, it is important to note that the bill passed by the Vermont House falls well short of the single-payer reform needed to resolve the health care crisis in that state and the nation. Indeed, as the bill moved through the House the term single payer was entirely removed, and restrictions on the role of private insurers were loosened.
In its present form, the legislation lays out in considerable detail a structure to implement Vermont's version of the federal reform passed in March of 2010, which would expand coverage by private insurers and Medicaid. However, it offers only a vague outline of the additional reform promised by the governor and Legislature at such time when states will be allowed to experiment with alternatives to the federal program in 2017 (or 2014, if the effort to move up the date succeeds).
The Vermont plan promises a public program open to all residents of the state in 2017, but even then it would allow a continuing role for private insurance. This would negate many of the administrative savings that could be attained by a true single-payer program, and opens the way for the continuation of multi-tiered care.
Within the public program, the plan would continue to lump together payments for operating and capital costs, allowing hospitals and the newly established Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to use funds not spent on care for institutional expansion. Meanwhile, those with operating losses would shrink or close even if they were meeting vital health needs. This would perpetuate incentives for hospitals and ACOs to cherry-pick profitable patients and services, and hobble the health planning needed to assure rational investments in new facilities and high-technology care.
Under the legislation, many patients would continue to face co-payments that obstruct access to care, and the bill makes no mention of expanding coverage of long-term care. The legislation fails to proscribe the participation of for-profit hospitals and other providers (e.g. ACOs and dialysis clinics), which research has shown deliver inferior care at inflated prices.
Finally, the bill offers no concrete funding plan or structure for the public program that it promises.
We applaud the sentiments expressed by the governor and legislative leaders and remain hopeful that the legislations rhetorical commitment to further reform will become a reality. We urge the Vermont Senate to address the shortcomings in the House bill.
Much work, including efforts to enact federal enabling legislation and continued advocacy by single-payer supporters will be needed in the years ahead to achieve Vermonts goal of universal access to high quality, affordable care.
*******
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2011/april/vermont-health-bill-mislabeled-single-payer-doctors-group
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
140 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I agree, I think think there's going to be one hell of a backlash they just don't see coming,
mother earth
Mar 2012
#140
It's not a public option pool. It's a private for-profit insurance industry pool.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#11
It is already in place. It is being funded by people choosing the public option.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#20
So "It is already in place" Please post the fee and benefit schedule for it.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#56
I see you edited your post. I did not, in fact, say it was single payer. You were talking about...
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#22
I didn't claim you said it was a single payer system. I quoted the doctors press release.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#55
"Please stop the right wing rhetoric" Why do you think the doctors organization is right-wing?
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#57
How does one build on something the insurance industry and big pharma have a legal lock on?
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#76
If the ACA is overturned Dems won't even think about National Healthcare for 50 more years.
JoePhilly
Mar 2012
#46
Bullshit, for no other reason than the cartel cannot survive 50 years with their current model
TheKentuckian
Mar 2012
#77
Of course it can't, but in the intrim people will die and suffer miserably. We agree.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#115
Proping it up to try and get a couple generations out of it, has no costs?
TheKentuckian
Mar 2012
#136
How many Democratic Senators would you need in the Senate to get 60 votes for single payer?
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#23
Single Payer is supposedly very popular among the public (so we keep hearing)
Proud Liberal Dem
Mar 2012
#25
Why won't Democratic Senators even co-sponsor Senator Sanders single payer bill?
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#60
Probably because most know/knew it's not going anywhere right now (and not even 2009-2011)
Proud Liberal Dem
Mar 2012
#84
It was the extreme left that guaranteed that Roosevelt had to come up with something
eridani
Mar 2012
#99
Obama will make mincemeat of Mitt on health care no matter what the court decides
eridani
Mar 2012
#121
And how many Democrats are needed in the Senate to pass Medicare for All? 51? 60? 70? More?
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#27
It could take generations to achieve single payer if the insurance industry law is allowed to stand.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#101
That "reality" accepts without a fight the domination of health care by Wall Street.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#129
In the context of the Individual Mandate, it's not a "tax". The intent of a "tax" is to generate
cherokeeprogressive
Mar 2012
#33
You should have called the Supreme Court before they had their meeting today then.
cherokeeprogressive
Mar 2012
#126
Check out the "friend of the court" briefs (record number) in this case. Who's for and who's against
pampango
Mar 2012
#40
And what is the position of the health insurance industry and big Pharma? They wrote the law.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#63
Why and how is a system designed to prevent anything like single payer going to usher it in?
TheKentuckian
Mar 2012
#92
But the belief that single-payer will rise from the ashes of a repealed ACA is insane...
SidDithers
Mar 2012
#73
"forcing the public and the political system to finally consider the only real answer"
wyldwolf
Mar 2012
#87
never ceases to amaze me that some folks believe the Right will suddenly come to their senses
librechik
Mar 2012
#94
Meh. What do I care? My mom was natural born Canadian. Thus, I am Canadian too.
lumberjack_jeff
Mar 2012
#96
The United States isn't like Canada. Canada has a multi-party system and democratic elections.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#128
If Congress wants to regulate the commerce of health, LET THEM DEMAND LOWER RATES FROM THE INSURERS.
WinkyDink
Mar 2012
#116
Realistically, if ACA is overturned, health care reform of any kind is dead for decades.
backscatter712
Mar 2012
#119
If the health insurance industry bill is upheld, progressive health care reform is dead for decades.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#127