Who's excited about Single Payer in Vermont?

[jojonavy]

I am. From California but would seriously consider moving to Vermont if there is a single payer system that works. I think Vermont would be the perfect test bed for a single payer system in the States because of the population that exists. Not sure California would be because of the how big it is and the issues with illegal immigration.

[hotflashion, BSN, RN]

Ok, I'll shout out: I am down here in Massachusetts and I am very excited. I don't hear much about it in the news, but then again, I haven't gone looking for it either. Perhaps a native Vermonter could enlighten us?

[elkpark]

I'm very excited (although also not in Vermont ... :)) I'm hoping that, if it works in Vermont, the idea will gain more traction in other states.

[philomena_minor]

I am in Vermont, and it looks like it's going to fail miserably. The state has already admitted that it has no idea how it's going to deal with certain issues (like those who get care outside VT, or those who come from outside the state to get care) and is nowhere near a solution.

Also, I came from the UK who has a single-payer system, and it scared me to death. Some examples of the law there that scared me: if a woman gives birth before 25 weeks, the baby is by law required to be left to die (too expensive to pay for NICU for preemies); if expensive care is required, it is denied (judge gets to decide if your care is too expensive or not -- while I lived there, there was a six year old girl who was ordered killed by the judge because the procedure which would have saved her was too much "a burden for the tax payers" and her family was banned from paying because that would "give them an unfair advantage over those who can't pay"); in cases of terminal illness, treatment (including pain management) is stopped (in fact, while I was there, I remember dozens of cases of people being denied even water); many women are pushed against their will into abortion because of a possibility that the child might need extra care. When the government pays, you have to expect them to try to cut costs which always mean cutting services.

[elkpark]

When the government pays, you have to expect them to try to cut costs which always mean cutting services.

And you think that that is not true of the private-for-profit insurance companies??????? Their entire business model is to take in as much $$$ as they can in premiums and pay out as little as possible in actual healthcare services.

At least a government funded system is not taking a big chunk of the money off the top for shareholders' profits, which is how it works with the private companies.

[philomena_minor]

But if my insurance refuses to cover a procedure, I can still pay myself to get it; if the government refuses, it becomes illegal for me to procure it. Trust me, I've had this issue with government-run health care and Tricare insurance. Tricare wouldn't cover something, so I paid out of pocket and got it anyway. The government wouldn't pay for something, so I was not allowed to get it regardless of how much I was willing to sacrifice for it.

[jojonavy]

So you prefere US healthcare vs NHS? I was reading apoll that 89% would rather have NHS, so you'd be an exception. US Healthcare is all about the haves and have nots. The poor and elderly are covered, and those with good jobs and have money. Most of middle class is out of luck. I read that you work full time in Mc Donalds? Are you insured there, how much are you paying and have you had to use it? Finish your RN and see what its like to work in the medical field first hand. I recommend going for your Bachelors.

[philomena_minor]

I am uninsured since my insurance due to the health care law has increased my premium to the point where I can no longer afford it. With full-time employment, I am still $600 a month in the hole and living off savings, and we cut everything out of our budget (no tv, no cell phone, one car that's 11 years old, etc.). I've lived with the NHS, most of us in the U.S. have not. They kill all their patients they feel are too expensive. They refused to feed me while I was hospitalized because I was not worth it (my husband had to sneak me in food).

By the way, the NHS is starting to dissolve now because the government has found it too expensive, so they are now starting to privatize it.

[ixchel]

Philomena, forgive me, but I have friends over the pond and we've spoken at length about their health plan and they absolutely love it. I'm finding so much of what you say to be very, very unbelievable. They didn't feed you and you had to SNEAK food in? There is absolutely no way that happened in any of the industrialized western European countries.

[philomena_minor]

It did happen. My husband has family who lives in the UK, and we both have friends there. I begged the midwives for food, and they all kept saying "Oh, they didn't feed you?" and that was it.

Here are some examples of patients being denied treatment and food/water:

Patients 'denied water for hours' - Telegraph

BBC News - 'Welsh NHS patients denied cancer drug funding'

Elderly dying due to 'despicable age discrimination in NHS' - Telegraph

Doctor who fought NHS tirelessly over postcode lottery for pioneering cancer treatment loses battle for life - Worldnews.com

[philomena_minor]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247030/Grandmother-disgusted-filthy-hospital-nursed-bathed-patients-ward.html

This is the hospital I had to stay in for a few days. I remember that they didn't do cleaning over night or on the weekend. When my husband had to go in for a head injury, there was biological waste all over the halls of the emergency room.

[ixchel]

Okay, the link to the article about water being withheld is a reflection on those facilities, not on the NHS itself.

Cancer treatment is the only area that I can find needs improvement and that England ranks lower than the US on in terms of healthcare quality.

The Telegraph is not the most reliable source ever, and if you do some reading on NHS, you'll see that age discrimination is specifically prohibited. They are required to treat all ages equally.

And as I said before, cancer is the only area where England ranks lower than the US.

They are terrified over there that their health care might be like ours. They spend $3,500 less per person on their care system and yet they rank #17 on the WHO's annual report (we rank #35 I think).

The Brits are healthier than us, they ALL have access to health care, and they spend less money on it than we do.