This one I probably have more commentary on, since it's not the standard rigmarole of terrible states with terrible legislators doggedly ruining public systems, and because this now leapfrogs over the deficiencies of Obamacare, or even the deficiencies of Obamacare if it had been permitted the public option.
And they're all certainly preferable to the incalculably dysfunctional mess we had before, but does anyone not think that Vermont is doing early what the entire US will be eventually?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eventually. But it'll require Vermont to have their system up and running for several years before anyone seriously suggests it as a model for the nation. Many will also question how scalable it is to the nation as a whole.
But hey, 1 down, 49 to go.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
the thing I am constantly amazed with is the prevalence of the argument that you can't 'scale' things like UHC to the united states. That just because it works fantastically in, say, sweden or france or germany, the united states is presented as being of a geographical size or a population or some combination of the two that makes for interminable hurdles to the system.
(this is usually supplanted or otherwise provides to another stepping-stone argument that the united states is too "ethnically diverse" to make UHC work. At least, it was, back when you could get away with this)
Here VT gets to start the idea/argument of it being a state level improvement on the system, but as with most things, if we leave states to their own devices, the gap between states is going to widen in terms of quality of life and quality of civic systems and operable infrastructure, and places like the south are going to be even further behind.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: the thing I am constantly amazed with is the prevalence of the argument that you can't 'scale' things like UHC to the united states. That just because it works fantastically in, say, sweden or france or germany, the united states is presented as being of a geographical size or a population or some combination of the two that makes for interminable hurdles to the system.
(this is usually supplanted or otherwise provides to another stepping-stone argument that the united states is too "ethnically diverse" to make UHC work. At least, it was, back when you could get away with this)
Of course. We all know states with lots of brown people in them are going to drain all of us rich white folks.
Reality is that it's all the rich white politicians that will use the system to drain all of us poor (white, brown or other) of everything they can get. How's that for equal opportunity?
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: the thing I am constantly amazed with is the prevalence of the argument that you can't 'scale' things like UHC to the united states. That just because it works fantastically in, say, sweden or france or germany, the united states is presented as being of a geographical size or a population or some combination of the two that makes for interminable hurdles to the system.
(this is usually supplanted or otherwise provides to another stepping-stone argument that the united states is too "ethnically diverse" to make UHC work. At least, it was, back when you could get away with this)
Here VT gets to start the idea/argument of it being a state level improvement on the system, but as with most things, if we leave states to their own devices, the gap between states is going to widen in terms of quality of life and quality of civic systems and operable infrastructure, and places like the south are going to be even further behind.
I guess I meant, not much that it's not scalable in general, but that using Vermont specifically as an example doesn't provide a very large or diverse sample size.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
