Catamount health and insurance reform

Latest Ideas

Congress is debating a big health care overhaul in DC. And one of the central items of debate is about whether the plan should give people the option to choose a public health care plan if the want one. Here in Vermont, we're already experimenting with using a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers with our Catamount Health program. Some people think Vermont programs like Catamount should be used as models for national reform. But Catamount has had trouble meeting it's goal of insuring lots more low-income Vermonters, and prices for private insurance have continued to rise.

What do you think must be done to lower health care costs and insure more Vermonters? Will a voluntary program like Catamount be enough? Or do we need to completely remove private insurance from the picture and require everyone to use only a government-backed insurance plan? Is there a middle way?

Bookmark

Email this

Comments (3) add comment

Sally Duston Whitlock said:

...
As a sixty year old, I face a scary health care future. I currently have two part-time jobs, one of which has no health care and the other which does. Retirement seems like a far-off dream! So I don't have a lot of hope that real reform will happen in my lifetime. If it does, however, I hope to see something like a single-payer system, an emphasis on preventative medicine and rewards for healthy lifestyle choices, and local clinics. I was brought up in the time of a local family GP and feel that we should go back to something similar: a town clinic - easy to walk into, friendly, cheap, and watchful. A place that reaches out, where folks are encouraged to come in early on, when intervention can prevent a more serious condition. Beyond that we are fortunate to have two area hospitals that can provide care for more serious illnesses or specialized care. Matt and crew, thank you for providing this forum and listening to ideas.

December 02, 2009
Votes: +0

Peter Payne said:

...
First: The profit motive has no place in health-creating organizations. The motive has to be promoting health, not creating profit. This means that insurance companies must be not-for-profit, and that doctors should be paid for results (or at least on a salary basis) rather than for numbers of procedures performed
Second: Health care should primarily emphasize prevention. This is mainly a question of diet, exercise, life-style changes, meditation, stress reduction, and requires the use of so called "alternative" approaches such as Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Somatic Bodywork, Yoga, Tai Chi, Qigong, Alexander Technique, Bodymind Therapy, etc., all of which help create high levels of wellbeing. These should be regarded as Primary; the use of pharmaceuticals and surgery are for unusual, extreme, poorly handled, and exceptional circumstances. The fact is that the ordinary "primary care physician" is NOT the best provider of true primary care; they are a Secondary resource. I believe doctors will generally acknowledge that a very high proportion of the patients they see have nothing wrong with them that is medically treatable. This does not mean they cannot be helped; just that a medical doctor is not the appropriate person to provide help.

Third: environmental pollution is a significant cause of disease, and this must be taken seriously and constantly kept in mind, all the way from mercury in the lakes or heavy metals in the air to the use of fabric softener containing benzene or shampoos with Sodium Laureth Sulfate.

I believe that unless these three factors are taken into account there can be no solution to the current heath care crisis. Vermont could lead the way.

October 29, 2009
Votes: +2

Peter Payne said:

...
I think that, before considering how to provide health care, one should consider WHAT KIND of health care.
Our present system is deeply flawed in several ways, and I believe these flaws are central to our current health care crisis, and therefore that this crisis can not be solved (nationally or state-wide) without addressing them.
Dr Andrew Weil does a good job of articulating these flaws. Central are the lack of preventive programs, the complete neglect of life-style transformation, the ignoring of the health effects of environmental factors such as air, water and food pollution, and the marginalization of "alternative" healing methods.

As it stands our "health-care system" is oriented to disease, not health; to crisis-driven patching up rather than proactive prevention; to generating profits and wealth for the few rather than creating health and happiness for the many.

Clearly such a transformation is an immense undertaking; but what if it is the only way the current crisis can actually be resolved? I am certain that anything less is doomed to failure.

Could Vermont lead the way?

October 28, 2009
Votes: +1

Write comment