Carte Blanche: Vermont, Medicare for all, and how they proved it can’t work
gorden murah surabaya
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
- The Declaration of Independence
In the modern age, the idea of self-evident has become hyperbolic. The ideas of guaranteed abundance and more rights than bones in the human body are trumpeted as truth at face value. After all, why should others starve while others eat so well? Why should people freeze when others live in houses that are far bigger than they need? Worse still, why should others suffer sickness and ailments while others who profit so much from so little work never really worry about the cost of hospital bills? Senator Bernie Sanders has made a career out of raising these questions and pointing to others as examples of decadence and evil incarnate. Of course, the Senator does this from one of his three homes, and in between private jet trips paid for by super PACs or with the millions he’s amassed from his book deals. The Democratic Socialists who hold him up on high agree entirely, and the state of Vermont has eagerly taken up championing his cause as their most beloved resident and Senator. The talking points that are driven home by most supporters of universal healthcare are repeated on college campuses and on C-SPAN almost hourly. Healthcare is a human right, America is alone in Western Nations for not having it, and the rich don’t pay their fair share. The talking points never address the underlying issues that come along with socialized medicine, but such inconveniences can’t be allowed to get in the way of progressive ideals.
In 2011, Vermont passed legislation to create Green Mountain Care. The state's single-payer healthcare system was designed to lower costs and ensure that every state resident had access to publicly funded healthcare. However, in less than three years, the act failed and had to be repealed. There were many causes for its failure, but one of the main ones was the overwhelming tax burden. To fund Green Mountain Care, the state would need to raise taxes by more than 150%. These would be in the form of a 11.5% state payroll tax and a 9.5% income tax. An estimated $4.6 billion was needed to fund a program that would provide healthcare to just over 643,000 people. Even with the huge ballooning in costs, the state legislature still presses to have it implemented, but at a more gradual pace. Much like the crab in the pot, it would make the costs seem more realistic if the state gradually taxed its citizens into poverty to ensure healthcare for all. By 2021, the estimated costs would have exceeded $5 billion, and the deficit would have been almost $146 million. None of this has dissuaded the voters in Vermont, where over 70% approve of the idea of some form of single-payer healthcare.
"I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right."
- Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
The disconnect comes in many forms, and state legislators often admitted, even years later, that the process would be both complicated and costly. Nevertheless, they continue to push ahead with the idea. The sunk cost fallacy is on display for voters and politicians alike to ignore. That is, they’ve already come so far, so they must push ahead. To consistently ignore what doesn’t work, disregard project costs, and deny that there will be second- and third-order effects is to vacate the responsibility they claim to hold. If Vermont, and indeed the rest of the US, want to implement universal healthcare in the form of a publicly funded system, then it can and will be implemented. However, the costs will be extreme both in terms of money and the demands placed on medical staff and citizens. But there is a question that is not only not raised but considered blasphemous by those who champion such institutions and progressive causes. What about those who don’t want it? Democracy was something deeply feared by the founders. It is the tyranny of the majority. It’s not just the 51% disagreeing with the 49%, it’s 50.1% deciding how 49.9% must live their lives.
Rather than focusing on comprehensive, total coverage for all, regardless of the needs of those being insured, why not return to something that was once the norm? Allow individuals to choose the healthcare plan and hospital they want, and let the free market foster competition and options. The counterargument that has been made from the very beginning is that corporate greed leads to unfairly high prices and a lack of coverage for those with pre-existing health conditions. In reality, the cost of healthcare is driven by many factors, but one leading factor is government price controls intended to ensure hospitals' financial well-being. This, combined with the lack of transparency in pricing and costs, only further drives up the burden on the average person and limits access to medicines and services. If the cost for socialized medicine, as shown by Vermont’s experiment, is going to be so astronomical, then there is no reason that an alternative that decreases costs and increases coverage should at least be given the opportunity to be tried and tested accordingly.
The slogan of free healthcare shows this, as does the detachment from reality of those who champion it. It isn’t free, but that’s inconvenient to discuss. Americans are given less and less chances to redress their grievances with the government at nearly every level. Tariffs and taxes are levied without their consent and often with no discussion. Life becomes ever more difficult, and the government exerts greater control. The experiment conducted in Vermont should prove once and for all that government-mandated and run programs will always cost too much and ultimately fail. The results of which will create whole areas that cannot access goods or services because the government drove away competition and created monopolies that are the only providers left. Ignoring uncomfortable truths doesn’t make them vanish; doubling down guarantees they will be far worse in the end.
Instead of viewing the problem of access to healthcare as an existential threat that must be decided by bureaucrats and politicians, it should be viewed as an opportunity for individuals to solve the problems of their time. Freedom of choice is not the same as freedom from responsibility. Giving way to the government ensures that, in time, people will have neither. If healthcare is too expensive or too sparse, then let the people work out how to fix it with their feet and their money. Not the legislators deciding what’s best and making everyone their brother's keeper.