Someone wrote about Vermont’s efforts for single payer health insurance and I asked the question of how they were getting around the new health insurance reform law.
I was answered that they were just going to go ahead with it and my question was basically unanswered.
I came across this article which explains why the Vermont and CA efforts to get a single payer system set up are basically doomed.
"As the Center for Policy Analysis’ Ellen Shaffer suggests, this is a major set back for single-payer advocates:
Section 1332 [see text below] provides that they can apply to the Secretary of HHS to opt out of the Exchanges beginning in 2017, if they have a plan to provide comparable benefits to at least as many people as the Exchange would have been estimated to cover, at no greater cost. At that point, if the Secretary grants the waiver, the states are guaranteed the transfer of federal funds that would have gone to pay for premium subsidies through the Exchanges. However, states have to apply to coordinate funds and programs with all the other federal programs. The bill offers each state a streamlined process to coordinate its waiver requests, but the Secretary can only grant funds for those programs where she has existing authority. For example, HHS does not have jurisdiction over ERISA, which is administered by the Department of Labor, so an ERISA waiver is not possible under this legislation. Within HHS, the Secretary already has waiver authority for some programs, but not all. "
And in CA, "On Tuesday, the Assembly Health Committee approved a bill (AB 1602) by Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D-Los Angeles) that would create the California Health Benefit Exchange to allow individuals and small businesses to purchase private health insurance coverage"
"ERISA — a 1974 law that, among other things, preempts states from enacting legislation that is “related to” employee benefit plans." —-someone was ‘looking ahead’.
And I think you can figure out who by remembering Nixon and HMO’s, passed in 1973.