Universal Coverage Would Mean…

By: Marge Power, VT for Single Payer Supporter, Montpelier

Everybody is in favor of universal health care. Sure they are just ask them. But did you know that there seems to be a problem defining “universal”. Say what? That’s right. It seems that some of our legislators can’t understand simple English.

On February 2, 2010, Rep. Steve Maier, Chair of the House Health Care Committee, announced that he wanted the Committee to “wrestle” with “what would universal health care mean for us. How would we know when we got there? Could we define it? Could we take on the task this year of defining what that might mean? I think that’s a relatively involved conversation.”

The Committee then launched into a convoluted discussion of percentages of the population with health insurance coverage, whether Vermont at 92.5 percent was really at 96 percent if you discounted the people who are eligible for coverage, but don’t sign up. Does Massachusetts have universal health care with 98 percent health insurance coverage? And on and on. There did not seem to be any recognition by Committee members that being covered by health insurance is not the same thing as having health care.

I described to a young member of the Health Care is a Human Right Campaign Rep. Maier’s search for enlightenment about the meaning of “universal”. Her face dropped with incredulity as she groaned, “Duh!” That pretty well sums it up.

Join the conversation by adding your thoughts. If you want to assist the House Health Care Committee with its definition of “universal”, don’t forget to send a copy of your thoughts to Chair Steve Maier at smaier@leg.state.vt.us.

2 Responses to “Universal Coverage Would Mean…”

  1. Heather Davis says:

    Universal health care is not an option, it’s essential. Universal coverage means 100% of the people of VT are covered with a single payer system. It works in other countries around the world and there is no reason it can’t work here, especially in Vermont.

  2. Bub Cole says:

    To all those who may be moved to action by this editorial:

    When corresponding with legislators it is most effective to maintain a high level of decorum. Please avoid using statements like “It seems that some of our legislators can’t understand simple English.” and “Duh?”

Leave a Reply