If you have "no place to go," come here!

Shumlin to propose 8% payroll tax, progressive income tax to fund VT single payer plane

The name "Gruber" does not appear in this article but:

Gov. Peter Shumlin intends to propose a combination of an employer payroll tax and an income-based contribution to finance single-payer health care, according to sources with knowledge of the plan.

In the latest version of the proposal presented Nov. 19 to the governor and members of his Business Advisory Council on Health Care, the employer-funded payroll tax was pegged at 8 percent, according to multiple sources who asked to remain anonymous because council members had mutually agreed to keep their deliberations under wraps. The Shumlin administration declined to comment. ....

Estimates for the cost of single payer in its first year are at least $2 billion.

If the payroll tax were to raise about half that amount, the income-based health care fee would need to generate about $1 billion as well.

The health benefit for Green Mountain Care is likely to be modeled after the gold plan offered through Vermont Health Connect, according to one of the sources.

Green Mountain Care will include some amount of cost-sharing at all levels, and that will take the form of copays, coinsurance or deductibles. That breakdown is still unknown.

That stinks of Gruber.

People who are income-eligible to pay at lower sharing levels on the Vermont Health Connect exchange will pay at no more than those levels under Green Mountain Care. The same is true for Medicaid beneficiaries who cannot pay more than they do now or receive less coverage under Green Mountain Care.

That stinks of Gruber, too.

"Free at the point of care" is the way to go, which is why the Tories in the UK are busy destroying it.

UPDATE Vermont League of Women Voters comes out in support of single payer.

Average: 5 (1 vote)


paintedjaguar's picture
Submitted by paintedjaguar on

So... for starters, no matter what they are calling it, this isn't single payer at all. Sounds more like a "public option" plan, designed to have many of the worst flaws of Obamacare/private insurance.

And maybe I'm just ignorant, but are we seeing more of the drawbacks of trying to do reform on a state-by-state basis? (I'm sure this was completely unintended by the authors of Obamacare)


* "balanced budget" stumbling blocks -- steep new taxes required, making the politics difficult.

* Limited ability to regulate or rein in provider costs. Large corporate providers could even threaten to shut down in-state operations, as insurance companies commonly do.

Man, I so hate it when my chronic pessimism is validated!

Submitted by lambert on

I'm thinking, though, that one reason Landrieu said the idiotic things that she said is that her constituents believed them. So that causes problems at the national level. My thought is that a consortium of Northeastern states -- like NY, VT, ME and even MA might work faster, but to do that some state has to be first.

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

I mean - 8% f****** more than poors (er, working people) pay already? And let's not forget if you're your own little enterprise (cough, self-employed, freelance, underselfemployed, etc) you're already paying the FULL 12 Plus % FICA off the top of gross earnings.

So great. Let's suck negative blood from the people who already can't afford health care (because here it's Magic Market Insurance based) because it costs too damn much -- not least, the nasty easteregg skinny HMO high-deductible craptastic Obamacare products - as the way to fund this single-payer thing.

Enough is enough. First, as repeated ad nauseam here and elsewhere, we're saving trillons a year just instituting single payer (Enhanced Medicare for All). Second, one bloddy minuscule financial transaction tax that would barely scratch pennies for the Speculators who are wrecking our world would yield squillions more than RAISING THE ALREADY CRUELLY REGRESSIVE FICA TAX on the victims for whom health care is out of financial reach alreaxy. Third - Treasury and the Fed managed to find many trillions of dollars to reward the Dimons, Goldfeins et al for their heck-of-a-job decimating the American people's economy. Do NOT tell me they can't find another few trillion to jumpstart Medicare for All (enhanced and purged of its current neo-liberal cost-shifting tapeworms) -- assuming that would even be bloody necessary. Oh, and number four - all those trillions that our citizen corporations have parked in tax havens? Repatriating and seizing just 25% of that would have to be enough to keep Medicare for All (enhanced and minus the cost-shifting tapeworms) going until the next polka dot moon.

As Lambert says correctly, one despairs. Regarding the resurrection of the zombie sparklepony roach motel public option and now the Power Point "how we're gonna pay for it" nasty eastereggs that, surprise, are just another army of howitzers to blow up the alleged "people."

"Allons enfants de la Patrie ... "