The commentary “Vermont cannot spend its way into affordability” (Aug. 27) by Elizabeth Brown ignores the fact that spending in one area frequently results in even larger savings in another area. In healthcare, for example, spending tax dollars can significantly reduce spending on premiums and deductibles, making healthcare more affordable overall.
One healthcare claim in the commentary is flat out wrong. Governor Shumlin did not decide in 2014 that “single-payer was not affordable.” He acknowledged that “At a growth rate of four percent, [Green Mountain Care] would yield savings of $378 Million over the first five years of the program…” [https://www.healthcare-now.org/single-payer-studies/vermont-agency-of-administration-2014/]. And this calculation of savings did not even take account of reduced administrative costs under a single-payer plan.
The commentary’s claim that a single-payer primary care system does not solve the shortage of primary care doctors is certainly questionable. There is every reason to believe that relieving primary care doctors of the massive burden of insurance billing and collections would attract more of them to Vermont and encourage those already here to stay.
The commentary’s perspective certainly represents the concerns of the author’s organization, the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, one of a large network of nonprofits dedicated to reducing taxes and regulation. The Alliance is affiliated with the State Policy Network (SPN) [https://spn.org/directory/] which shares many of same funding sources as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), including Koch institutions [https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/State_Policy_Network]. I doubt that the Alliance itself has affordability problems, given that its 2024 tax filing shows revenue of $754,008, $259,844 going to salaries.
Lee Russ
Bennington, Aug. 31