Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Policy

Vermont's Single Payer Health Care Plan Failed For One Big Reason: It Cost Too Much

Peter Suderman | 12.22.2014 1:46 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Gov. Shumlin via Twitter

There are a number of reasons why Vermont's proposed single-payer health care plan failed: It was too complex, too ambitious, too difficult to achieve within the context of the rest of the U.S. health care system.

But biggest reason was that it simply cost too much. The financing wouldn't have worked.

As Vox's Sarah Kliff reports in a long post-mortem on the proposal, which Democratic Gov. Pete Shumlin killed last week in a surprise announcement, the final estimates indicated that the plan would have required the state to raise an extra $2.5 billion in revenue annually. This is in a state that typically only raises about $2.7 billion total each year. In other words, it would have cost nearly the amount that the entire rest of the state government cost—and that's presuming that those estimates were accurate, and that the one-of-a-kind program encountered no unexpected cost overruns. 

Raising that kind of money would have required significant tax hikes—a payroll tax increase of 11.5 percent and a 9 percent income tax increase. Even in liberal Vermont, with a governor who campaigned on single payer and who was dedicated to the cause, that was just too much. This was perhaps the best possible environment for single-payer in the United States, and it failed. 

Kliff has spent a fair amount of time reporting on Vermont's plans, and her entire piece is worth reading. This bit from the end, in particular, is notable: 

"You'd think that, if there was any state where this could fly politically, it should have been Vermont," said Matthew Dickinson, a political science professor at Middlebury University. "But in this case, the price was so big that even a state as solidly blue as Vermont wasn't able to swallow it."

When I interviewed Shumlin in March, he said that whether or not Vermont succeeded at its single-payer push would have huge national ramifications. Back then, his state had the potential to serve as a model. It could be what Romneycare was in Massachusetts: a template for national reform. But if single-payer couldn't succeed in deep-blue Vermont, Shumlin and others mused, how could it possibly move forward anywhere else?

"If Vermont gets single-payer health care right, which I believe we will, other states will follow," he predicted. "If we screw it up, it will set back this effort for a long time."

I'm not sure this quite counts as a screw-up, exactly; faced with the reality of the costs the plan would impose, Shumlin chose to walk away. But I suspect that Shumlin wasn't far off in his prediction, and that the failure of Vermont's plan will end up keeping future single-payer plans at bay for quite a while. 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Requiring Abortion Doctors to Narrate Ultrasound Violates First Amendment, 4th Circuit Rules

Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason.

PolicySingle payerHealth insuranceObamacare
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (120)

Latest

Trump's Iran War Would Not Be a One-Off Deal

Matthew Petti | 6.18.2025 12:26 PM

A Brief History of American Propaganda Against 'Foreign Invaders'

Autumn Billings | 6.18.2025 12:06 PM

The 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Require Even More Borrowing Than Previously Thought

Eric Boehm | 6.18.2025 10:40 AM

'Unconditional Surrender'

Christian Britschgi | 6.18.2025 9:49 AM

Gun Owners Deserve Freedom To Enjoy the Sound of Silencers

J.D. Tuccille | 6.18.2025 7:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!