Le Vermont veut sa propre “Sécu”

Le Vermont veut sa propre “Sécu”

L’Etat du Vermont, déjà bien connu pour sa tradition et ses velléités d’autonomie et d’indépendance, a entrepris un processus pour mettre en place son propre système de soins santé (sécurité sociale), rejetant ainsi la solution fédérale, vraisemblablement au profit du système fonctionnant à Taïwan. Dans Huffington.post, Sam Stein examine cette initiative, dans un article de ce 20 janvier 2011

On peut noter :

• Que les autorités du Vermont sont promptes à citer divers précédents qui justifieraient léghalement que leur Etat prenne une telle initiative, que Stein qualifie de “provocative push”. Ces précisions rassurantes tendent également à montrer que les Etats de l’Union sont aujourd’hui en train de chercher des biais juridiques leur permettant de prendre leur distance du “centre” fédéral.

• Selon ces dispositions juridiques, le Vermont ne peut adopter son propre système de “Sécu” avant 2017. L’Etat devrait agir pour ramener cette limite à 2014. On est plutôt pressé...

«Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) told The Huffington Post that his state's local and national lawmakers were “looking to get a waiver” so as to formally opt out of the federal system. Conversations have begun as to how an alternate health care policy might look like should the waiver be granted, Welch said. “Vermont is very supportive of moving towards single-payer, you have the entire congressional delegation you have the governor who ran on the platform of single-payer and the legislature is very sympathetic to single-payer,” he said.

»According to Welch, the state's governor, Democrat Peter Shumlin, was receiving a report on Wednesday from one of the architects of Taiwan's single-payer system, which would help inform a proposal tailored for Vermont. […]

»“This whole state opting out, there is a lot of precedent for this,” Assistant House Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said in a meeting with bloggers and new media reporters on Wednesday. “And I don't know why nobody focuses on it, but if you go back and look at Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, you would find some very interesting language that allows states to opt out of the coverage of that act. I happened to run the agency in South Carolina that because of the law we passed in 1972, South Carolina was allowed to opt out of that section of the Civil Rights Act so law as the state law was substantially equal to the federal law. And I think that is the whole concept of states' rights.

»“If you are going to come up with a state law that will give coverage to the citizens that is equivalent to the federal coverage, what's wrong with opting out?” Clyburn added. “We had that discussion around the table when we talked about putting this bill together, I kept using that term, 'substantially equal to the federal law.”»

dedefensa.org