Vermont to Require That All Have Health Insurance

By | June 18, 2018

  • June 18, 2018 at 1:19 pm
    MightyQuinn says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 5

    OK, then set up a state exchange and bankrupt the state. That’s a Vermont edict so Vermont should – not the federal government and the tax dollars outside of Vermont – should not fund it. Vermont should bear the consequences.

    • June 18, 2018 at 2:59 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 4

      They already studied this a few years ago and determined it was not economically feasible. I suppose they will want Trump to make up for their losses and blame him if he doesn’t.

      • June 22, 2018 at 9:31 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        Wrong. Yet more ignorance and/or dishonesy from you. They decided it would not be politically feasible to convince people that higher taxes along with a bigger decrease in health care costs would be a benefit. The economic studies found it to be feasible, as has been proven all over the world. This is largely because of people like you who freak out and lie or state incorrect things as fact. Stop posting, there’s nothing you have ever said that can be fact checked that turned out to be true.

  • June 18, 2018 at 1:26 pm
    responsible adult says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 4

    Good for them! Everyone SHOULD be required to purchase. Otherwise, hospitals & providers should be able to turn you away. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for those who are not responsible enough?? No one knows if they are going to become seriously ill or have a serious accident.

    • June 18, 2018 at 4:45 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 9

      The ACA mandate is unconstitutional. So, there’s no sense in continuing the conversation about it. There’s a means of protecting the HI system from those who opt to not cover themselves but show up for treatment at a clinic or hospital ER. It’s mentioned in the updated plan to R&R the ACA, along with a novel means of encouraging insuring for health care risks.

      No one knows if they’ll get sick. The pools for prexers or serious injuries used in the past worked fairly well. So, that could be the basis of coverage for all comers, which was used in the past.

      • June 19, 2018 at 1:07 pm
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 10
        Thumb down 3

        “The ACA mandate is unconstitutional.”

        Except for the fact that it’s not.

        • June 19, 2018 at 1:13 pm
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 2

          Right on point as usual, Ron. It is constitutional. Yogi, your opinion doesn’t prevail over fact.

          • June 19, 2018 at 5:26 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            Extermination of the Jews was considered legal by the people who put it in force.

            Stating something is or not constitutional is completely not relevant. Polar looks like a fool, but so do you Ron.

            The question here is should it be, constitutional to force purchase of insurance? And the answer should be: Absolutely not.

          • June 20, 2018 at 9:56 am
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            didn’t take long for Goodwin’s law to show up here. nice job staying on topic of healthcare bob! (end sarcasm)

          • June 20, 2018 at 10:01 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            “Extermination of the Jews was considered legal by the people who put it in force.”. That was Germany

            “The question here is should it be, constitutional to force purchase of insurance?” I agree with you that the answer is no. Now let’s get rid of all mandated insurance and see what happens.

          • June 20, 2018 at 4:12 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            He said the MANDATE is unconstitutional. That’s why the ACA had a penalty (Obama said “tax”, I mean “penalty”, or I mean “tax”).

            You can’t force someone to buy something. But you can tax them.

          • June 20, 2018 at 5:19 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            Hey Craig,
            Ever hear of the Militia’s Act of 1792 – government mandated purchase of guns and knapsacks. Or what about John Adams in 1798, “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” – also a government mandated purchase.

          • June 21, 2018 at 7:50 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Craig,

            The mandate in the ACA does not force you to buy health insurance. It provides a choice. Obtain health insurance or pay a tax. That is why it is not unconstitutional.

          • June 21, 2018 at 10:15 am
            Cut the Bias says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Ron and Captain Planet with reason, once again.

            Agent, Yogi, and bob with opinions based in “Tales from your a$$” like always.

            Declaring something as unconstitutional when it has been determined by the highest court in the land as constitutional means you are wasting your time. The Supreme Court, led by conservative majority with a conservative chief justice declared it constitutional, get over yourselves.

            And yes, the wavering by the Obama administration to hide the fact that the penalty was in fact a tax was stupid, and the courts told them as much. Nobody is forcing anyone to take health insurance, but if you do, you got a nice tax break. If you decided to forgo coverage, you would also forgo the tax break.

            This isn’t rocket science.

            I am interested to see how this new Vermont law works out, seeing as how their last attempt at UHC failed. Here is hoping they can implement something and provide cost effective healthcare to their citizens. If they can do it, you can bet that Vermont would be a more attractive place to live for many.

  • June 18, 2018 at 4:50 pm
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 7

    Vermont may be headed for Single Payer HI. Many of its residents will soon flee to Rode Island, New Hampshire, Connecticut, or Maine.

    • June 20, 2018 at 8:03 am
      CL PM says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Question – Almost all state governments require citizens to purchase Auto insurance if they own a car. Why is that not over-stepping but requiring health insurance is considered to be wrong by many. I was just starting my career (mid-80s) after most of those mandatory laws went into affect. Was there the same backlash then? After all this time, it seems to have worked OK. (One interesting fact is that most of the commentators on this site have benefited financially from the Auto laws, myself included.)

      • June 20, 2018 at 11:15 am
        Just a guy says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 0

        The answer is obvious; you said it yourself. The auto-insurance mandate is conditioned on the individual’s decision to own and operate a car. It is therefore not a true mandate. To drive is a choice. Therefore the conditions that must be satisfied in order to drive are also a choice. The health-care mandate gives no such option to the individual. Even with the auto-insurance mandate, it only requires one to purchase bare-minimum levels of liability coverage. Property coverage is not required and is the prerogative of the driver.

  • June 18, 2018 at 6:35 pm
    bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 2

    I’m all for it.

    State programs are like mini tests, and it leaves the federal government out of it.

    I thought for sure I would see some democrats calling republicans hypocrites for this.

  • June 19, 2018 at 8:41 am
    Ron says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    More proof that the mandate is something even some Republicans understand is needed to spread the risk. You know, Insurance 101.

    Until the underlying costs are addressed, which is the most critical aspect to reducing premiums, this is the next best thing to reduce premiums or minimize increases.

    • June 19, 2018 at 1:42 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 2

      “More proof that the mandate is something even some Republicans understand is needed to spread the risk. You know, Insurance 101.”

      Called it again.

      Oy vey.

      • June 19, 2018 at 2:36 pm
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        bob,

        Still not reading my posts?

        “Called it again.”

        1. I am not a Democrat
        2. I did not call anyone a hypocrite.

        I was just pointing out how some Republicans actually understand insurance and the spread of risk. I have no proof that any of the Republicans who wrote, voted for, and signed this bill were ever against an individual mandate.

        Next time, please take some time to comprehend what I write before replying.

        Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

    • June 19, 2018 at 1:47 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 2

      Do you know why republicans are not hypocrites on this?

      Point 1: The ACA mandate required a LEVEL of insurance to be bought. As I have pointed out, if you buy a barebones policy at 20, that’s all you need. You can’t afford it, and then you work up to a better policy. This addresses the cost issue and you don’t lose pre existing conditions. It addresses the cost issue.

      The very specific reason the republicans were against the mandate were two fold.

      1: It was Federal.
      2. It was for a level of insurance, which messed up the very concept of keeping insurance cheap when people needed it cheap.

      You might say that “we need to expand the risk pool” in theory to reduce costs, but in point 1: It didn’t reduce costs, as you admitted.

      In point 2: It forced people who are otherwise just starting out, to purchase insurance and tighten their budget (which would well be why the economy was slower after the last recession, or part of it anyway, than typical, rather than your “production” theory which is just justification for slow growth.)

      In point 3 I have to emphasize this again: It required a level of insurance to be bought.

      Republicans understood very well what the democrats said they were doing (which they didn’t manage to do) vs what their process was (which wouldn’t work).

      The problem is you want to believe they are stupid. Maybe you’re wrong. These are educated people. They understand basic risk 101.

      • June 19, 2018 at 3:09 pm
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 3

        bob,

        There was a time that I thought you would be intelligent enough to debate me fairly.

        Turns out you’re just a bully who needs to tell me what I believe, based on poor reading comprehension and analysis, in order to try to make me look bad.

        If your ever interested in having an honest debate, let me know. Otherwise, I respectfully request that you refrain from replying to any more of my posts or referencing me in any of yours.

        Cheers and God Bless!

  • June 20, 2018 at 7:45 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 2

    Liberals are so funny, running after solutions that don’t work, simply because they love government telling everyone what to do.

    Vermont rejected Single Payer: too expensive.
    Colorado rejected Single Payer: too expensive.
    California Democrats proposed and then dropped Single Payer, even though they run everything in California: seems it was going to cost $20,000. a year for a family of four. Yep, too expensive.

    But does that cause our Lefty friends to think a little harder? Nope. Single Payer Uber Alles! (The problem in America isn’t insurance companies. It’s the high cost charged by doctors and hospitals. Let me know when Democrats want to go to war with them. I won’t wait up.)

    • June 21, 2018 at 7:54 am
      Ron says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Craig,

      Where is this great health care plan Republicans have been touting since 2010? How about our president’s beautiful plan that will cover all American citizens, regardless of your ability to pay?

      It’s been a year and a half and nothing except getting rid of the way to mitigate the higher cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions and no more lifetime limits. Republicans seem to love the benefits, but have no interest in paying for them.

      • June 21, 2018 at 1:46 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 0

        You okay if Trump lies about health care the way Obama lied to get Obamacare passed?

        You know, “keep your insurance/doctor/$2,500. premium reduction per family” lies.

        The NY Times reported years after Obamacare was passed that Obama was warned repeatedly NOT to say these things as they were not true. You think if Obama was honest about Obamacare, America would have accepted it? Of course not.

        • June 21, 2018 at 2:11 pm
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 3

          Craig Cornell says:
          LIKE OR DISLIKE:
          Thumb up 0Thumb down 0
          You okay if Trump lies about health care the way Obama lied to get Obamacare passed?

          How would it be different than anything else that comes out of Tramp’s mouth. All that comes out of his cat’s arse-looking mouth are lies.

        • June 21, 2018 at 2:15 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 1

          Craig,

          I have opposed the ACA since it passed. However, the statements made by President Obama were incorrect predictions which were not properly vetted by him nor his campaign while making them. President Trump’s was a promise, which has not even tried to keep.

          I am still very disappointed in President Obama. while i believe he was a mediocre president at best, and no where near one of the worst, I had higher hopes. I was wrong.

          Anymore whataboutisms to defend our current president? That is all he and his supporters seem to have.

          • June 21, 2018 at 4:59 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Fair enough. But keep in mind that campaign promises are not the same as representations after you become President.

            But sure, Trump lies sometimes, no doubt.

          • June 22, 2018 at 7:59 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Can you quote President Obama making the $2,500 reduction in premium and/or keeping your doctor representations after the law had been in effect and it became clear those things were not going to happen? That would make them lies.

  • June 21, 2018 at 5:05 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    The entire basis for upholding the ACA was that Justice Roberts ruled the fine for not buying insurance was a tax – and legal for the Feds. to apply – and NOT a penalty, which is coercion to force the purchase of something and therefore unconstitutional.

    Apparently, your memories aren’t too sharp. There is a reason Obama said it wasn’t a tax while pushing it through – he didn’t want to be accused of raising taxes. But once it got challenged in court, Mr. Honest flipped to calling it a tax, and fast! He knew the Constitution.

    • June 22, 2018 at 11:20 am
      Captain Planet says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 2

      And I repeat:

      JUNE 20, 2018 AT 5:19 PM
      Captain Planet says:
      LIKE OR DISLIKE:
      Thumb up 1Thumb down 1
      Hey Craig,
      Ever hear of the Militia’s Act of 1792 – government mandated purchase of guns and knapsacks. Or what about John Adams in 1798, “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” – also a government mandated purchase.

      And guess what…constitutional.

    • June 22, 2018 at 5:50 pm
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Roberts wrote that it was a tax in his opinion, the other justices did not agree and in their opinions, backed by more people, specifically said it wasn’t a tax. Roberts can’t “rule” the way your present it, sorry. Why do I get the feeling you won’t stop saying this though?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*