VT House Passes Universal Health Care Bill

[STIBROKER]

we are fighting it in texas....

Texas House committee approves health care bills - BusinessWeek

A Texas House committee, defying Washington, has approved legislation opposing elements of the sweeping federal health care legislation signed by President Barack Obama last year.
One of the bills, approved Tuesday, says Texans do not have to buy health insurance, as the law would require for many Americans beginning in 2014. The health care law already has been challenged in federal court by Texas and other states.
The House Select Committee on State Sovereignty also approved a non-binding resolution expressing opposition to the health care legislation passed by Congress.
The law "infringes on the liberty of individuals by mandating that all citizens and legal residents of the United States obtain qualifying health care coverage or pay a tax penalty," says the resolution, sponsored by Rep. Wayne Christian, R-Nacogdoches.
A third bill would require state agencies to compile reports on any activities associated with implementing the federal health care law. All three bills were approved unanimously in the committee and now head to the full House.
Democrats have said the committee is debating anti-Washington bills only to gain favor with tea-party conservatives and not to solve the state's health care woes.

 

[MichiganAgent]

In 2008, a gentleman appeared on the TODAY show. He said we could give everyone in the USA health care by having a Federal Sales Tax. The rate would be somewhere between 6% and 8.5%.

Now before you go, "OMG! That's outrageous! It's robbery! LIBERALS! BIG GOV'MINT!" take a look at the VAT at other countries in the world here: Tax rates around the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll find that this amount is way below the rate of most other countries in the world.

He did not advocate single payor. He said people would receive a voucher to select the best plan for their voucher. Insurance companies would compete for the business. It would not be like Medicare where a plan F from MetLife is exactly the same as a plan F from Mutual of Omaha.

So if Assurant Health's plan offered major medical and a waiver of deductible on accidents (for example), and BCBS offered MajMed without the waiver of deductible, then the marketplace would determine what company they wanted to go with. Companies would be free to offer upgrades (just as is the fashion in Germany, for example).

Finally, Insurers and Health Care Providers alike would be forced to contain costs instead of greedily grabbing for every buck out there.

This guy's point was, "We don't want to get rid of insurance companies--they employ a lot of people and provide service to the customers. We just want to let everyone obtain medical care."

Sounds way better than the current set up OR the current health care reform bill to me. If insurance companies would have just stuck to their promise to reform themselves (in orer to get Clinton to back off reform), then we wouldn't even be having these discussions.

 

[leevena]

In 2008, a gentleman appeared on the TODAY show. He said we could give everyone in the USA health care by having a Federal Sales Tax. The rate would be somewhere between 6% and 8.5%.

Now before you go, "OMG! That's outrageous! It's robbery! LIBERALS! BIG GOV'MINT!" take a look at the VAT at other countries in the world here: Tax rates around the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll find that this amount is way below the rate of most other countries in the world.

He did not advocate single payor. He said people would receive a voucher to select the best plan for their voucher. Insurance companies would compete for the business. It would not be like Medicare where a plan F from MetLife is exactly the same as a plan F from Mutual of Omaha.

So if Assurant Health's plan offered major medical and a waiver of deductible on accidents (for example), and BCBS offered MajMed without the waiver of deductible, then the marketplace would determine what company they wanted to go with. Companies would be free to offer upgrades (just as is the fashion in Germany, for example).

Finally, Insurers and Health Care Providers alike would be forced to contain costs instead of greedily grabbing for every buck out there.

This guy's point was, "We don't want to get rid of insurance companies--they employ a lot of people and provide service to the customers. We just want to let everyone obtain medical care."

Sounds way better than the current set up OR the current health care reform bill to me. If insurance companies would have just stuck to their promise to reform themselves (in orer to get Clinton to back off reform), then we wouldn't even be having these discussions.

A couple of things come to mind.

To begin with, the issue of "seeing a divided country" where states have different approaches should not worry you. Don't forget, when the founding fathers were structuring the new country, they purposely created state rights vs federal rights. They envisioned states being different and that citizens could decide to live in a state that fit their thinking/philosophy.

Secondly, the argument made above is somewhat flawed. Michigan Agent states that the proposed approach "Sounds way better than the current set up." Reading the outline of the proposed method I see two only two differences; 1) a tax-based supported financing, and 2) punishing carriers and providers who make a profit.

 

[somarco]

Florida is moving to a "wild west" model, allowing out of state plans to come in to the state (possibly):

GA is considering something similar and may allow domiciled carriers to sell plans from other states that have fewer mandates. This has got to be one of the most idiotic ideas yet.

I thought FL had their own plan for secession . . . the Conch Republic.

To the union loving MI agent, VAT is one of the most regressive tax schemes in existence. I can't believe a socialist would support such a move.

Adding a VAT on top of the current tax system would only funnel more dollars to DC than they know what to do with and they can't manage what they have now.

Insurance companies would compete for the business.

You mean, just like they do now.

Insurers and Health Care Providers alike would be forced to contain costs

You mean, just like the do now.

We just want to let everyone obtain medical care

Is anyone denied care now under the current system?

If insurance companies would have just stuck to their promise to reform themselves (in orer to get Clinton to back off reform), then we wouldn't even be having these discussions.

What planet are you from?

 

[redkee]

I still have family in the People's Republic Of Vermont,so I will be careful.Please run quotes to compare individual health insurance rates against any southern state.Not everyone gets health insurance with their job in Vermont.Real happy to live in the south.

 

[somarco]

Not everyone gets health insurance with their job in Vermont.

Not everyone here does either, but we don't get free ice cream either.

 

[TxOnline]

Ya'll who love freedom-of-choice can always come on down to Texas.

We've already got enough freeloaders on medicaid. (Ya'll stay up there on the east coast for now & enjoy your freebies.)

We need a few more hard workers down here so we can move forward with secession plans.

 

[somarco]

we can move forward with secession plans.

Sorry, but leaving the US to become part of Mexico doesn't cut it for me.

Waiting on my Conch Republic visa.

 

[djs]

Insurers and Health Care Providers alike would be forced to contain costs
​

You mean, just like the do now.

Well, not exactly. When an insurance company tries to contain costs now, they get sued for not covering some exotic treatment, forced to pay for it. This isn't a workable situation.

Yes, carriers have tried to cut corners, but allowing everything doesn't work either. Have to find a balance, but then, Sarah Palin will be correct with her 'death panels'.

Dan

 

[Ann H]

Florida is becoming wild west from what you've said, Texas is more so... But can anyone beat Arizona for wild west? Try Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the tent city gang for wild west. How about our governor for "contrary to DC politics"? And how controversial is our immigration reform laws that were recently passed in AZ legislature?

Our state did all types of opposition to PPACA. We joined the multi-state lawsuit, passed a resolution to oppose it and passed a bill to not require mandatory purchase of insurance. Arizona, much like Texas, kind of likes it when someone tells us we "must" do something.