|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Guy Page
Gov. Phil Scott’s reelection campaign is challenging Democratic opponent Amanda Janoo’s proposal to provide universal primary health care in Vermont, arguing that the plan could cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than the revenue Janoo has proposed to raise.
In a press statement issued October 12 following an October 8 VTDigger report, Scott campaign spokesperson Emma Shouldice questioned whether Janoo has adequately explained how the program would be funded or how health care services would be delivered.
“It’s one thing to put a policy proposal on the table,” Shouldice said. “But anyone running for office has a responsibility to be straight with Vermonters about how much that policy would cost and how it would work.”
Janoo has proposed making primary care available to all Vermonters without charges at the point of service, financed at least in part through higher taxes on upper-income households.
The Scott campaign cited a 2016 report prepared during Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin’s administration that estimated the annual cost of universal primary care at $294.1 million to $316.6 million.
Adjusting those figures for medical inflation, the Scott campaign estimates the cost today would range from $580 million to $611 million annually.
By comparison, the campaign said proposed taxes on higher-income Vermonters would generate between $114 million and $344 million annually, potentially leaving a funding gap of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Those figures are the Scott campaign’s estimates, not an independently verified fiscal analysis of Janoo’s current proposal.
How the proposed income tax increases would work
The Fair Share for Vermont Campaign, which advocates higher taxes on wealthy Vermonters, has outlined three options for raising additional state revenue. The group argues that Vermont could recover some of the federal tax reductions received by high-income households under the federal tax and budget legislation enacted in July 2025.
The first option would impose a 3% surcharge on personal income exceeding $500,000 annually. Fair Share estimates that the tax, affecting roughly the top 1% of Vermont income earners, would raise $114 million per year.
The second option, described as a federal tax cut “clawback,” would impose a 2% surcharge on personal income exceeding $250,000 and a 5% surcharge on income exceeding $500,000. Fair Share estimates this would raise $230 million annually, recovering approximately all of the federal tax reductions received by the wealthiest 1% of Vermont earners and 10% of those received by the next 4%.
The third option combines the original proposal with the federal tax clawback. It would impose a 2% surcharge on personal income exceeding $250,000 and an 8% surcharge on income exceeding $500,000. Fair Share estimates that this approach would raise $344 million annually.
The surcharges would apply to income above the specified thresholds, not to a taxpayer’s entire income. For example, under the second option, a household with $600,000 in taxable income would pay an additional $7,000 on the income between $250,000 and $500,000 and an additional $5,000 on the income above $500,000, assuming the two surcharge rates apply to separate income brackets. That would total $12,000 in additional annual state income taxes.
Fair Share argues that the added revenue could help Vermont offset federal funding reductions while supporting state services and new investments.
The group’s three proposals are alternatives, not three separate taxes that would all be imposed. Nor does their estimated revenue necessarily represent money dedicated solely to universal primary care.
Even the highest-revenue option, at $344 million annually, would fall $236 million to $267 million short of the Scott campaign’s estimated annual cost of universal primary care, assuming all the revenue went toward that program and no other funding or savings were available.
Competing approaches to health care
According to VTDigger’s October 8 report, Janoo has acknowledged that her cost and revenue calculations remain preliminary and that more detailed analysis would be needed to determine staffing, salaries and other expenses.
Janoo has also suggested that broader access to preventive care could save Vermont as much as $300 million annually by reducing emergency room visits and hospital admissions. That estimate remains preliminary, and the amount of savings that could be realized has not been established.
The Scott campaign argues that such projections do not provide a firm basis for financing a new statewide program.
“Vermonters need real solutions to lower healthcare costs, not half-baked, ideological talking points,” Shouldice said.
Scott has advocated changes to Vermont’s health insurance market, including greater flexibility in insurance plan design and expanded consumer choice. His campaign argues that insurance options available in neighboring New Hampshire demonstrate the potential for lower premiums.
The campaign cited an example of annual family insurance premiums exceeding $26,000 in Vermont, compared with approximately $11,000 in New Hampshire. The statement did not provide enough detail to establish whether the plans have comparable benefits, deductibles and eligibility requirements.
The debate comes as Vermont lawmakers are already studying universal primary care. Legislation signed by Scott in June directs state officials to examine options for establishing such a program, with a report due to the Legislature in January 2027.
Supporters of universal primary care say eliminating out-of-pocket charges for basic medical services could improve access, encourage preventive treatment and reduce some long-term health costs. Critics question whether those savings would be large enough to offset the expense of a publicly funded system.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Elections, Health Care
Any come-lately moonbat politician can promise you the moon, and it’s hard to compete in the polls with Santa Clause. Finally a response from the Governor about the empty promises from this candidate Janoo.
Thanks Rich
What does Ms Janoo know about any of this? I can hear the crown roaring now: “JANOO, JANOO! ” heh heh
Mice die in mouse traps because they can’t figure out why the cheese is free. That is how socialism works. When the government gives us healthcare everyone will be wondering why it is so limited that they won’t have anything but assisted government suicide to ease their suffering and you know that will be the governments best option.
From the article:
“Janoo has also suggested that broader access to preventive care could save Vermont as much as $300 million annually by reducing emergency room visits and hospital admissions. That estimate remains preliminary, and the amount of savings that could be realized has not been established.”
Warranted, the last sentence is key for the argument suggesting her figures are not based on true data. But, please keep in mind my fiscal minded friends, most credible studies suggest the best way to lower health care costs is to maintain the population with early preventative care. And, here’s the important point, Amanda Janoo (unlike Phil Scott) is at least trying to find creative ways to lower the costs.
Scott has no ideas on health care, and the cost of health care keeps going up in Vermont, while access to services decline.
Unfortunately, many Vermonters can’t afford preventative health care. Just the pills that they push constantly are usually cost prohibitive, unless you work for the state.
“the cost of health care keeps going up in Vermont” you can thank years of leadership of the democratic and progressive parties for that. And Shumlin too
We still have approximately 5000 Illegal Aliens in the State of Vermont. Illegal Aliens are a burden on Our Healthcare System. When the Illegal Aliens are removed by ICE Agents Health Insurance will become more affordable and accessible. Homelessness is a burden on Our Healthcare System. Over half the Homeless Population in Vermont is not from Vermont. After Loitering Ordinances and Vagrancy Laws are reenacted, people we begin to be arrested for breaking our loitering ordinances and vagrancy laws. After multiple arrests for violating our ordinances and our laws these people will realize it’s not worth all Our Vermont Free Benefits and they will return to New York and or New Jersey and or Massachusetts, etc. For the rest of our Homeless population we will bring back the Vermont State Psychiatric Hospital. We will get these people the psychiatric and medical help they need. Once these issues are addressed, we will get them education and or job training. We will get them back into the work force. The jobs they get from the companies that hire them will give them Health Insurance. Health Care will become more affordable and accessible. When I audit the State of Vermont and we sell off some of the over 140 Empty Buildings that the State owns for fair market value we will take those monies, put them in CD’s in Vermont Banks and accrue interest at 4-6%. We will convene a committee that will come up with ideas to use this money to help make Health Care more affordable and accessible for Vermont Citizens. When I audit the NON-PROFITS and find Fraud and or Waste and or Abuse people will be arrested and these non profits will leave Our State. We will recover the monies that these non profits have taken from Vermont Tax Payers. These monies will be put in CD’s in Vermont Banks and accrue interest at 4-6%. We will convene a committee that will come up with ideas to use this money to make Health Care more affordable and accessible for Vermont Citizens. We will research in making it less difficult for Small Businesses and out of state businesses to open businesses in Vermont. These businesses will provide Health Insurance for Vermont Residents who will take jobs with the businesses.
Mr Judd, You need to be more upfront with the readers of VDC on where the funding is coming for your campaign. Seem like all your posts should include a line that says: “paid for by democratic and progressive parties of Vermont”
Hey Mark,
The funding is coming from me. I have taken Ads out in Newspapers that have the most readership in each of Vermont’s 14 Counties. Because of overlap Mark, it will probably be 12 – 15 different newspapers. The other expense is taking my Newspaper Ad and turning it into a business card. Half of the Ad on one side of the card and the other half of the Ad is on the other side of the card. If you have any other questions or answers give me a call at 802-839-9985 or email me at brianjuddward2@gmail.com Thanks Mark
Do people forget that Peter Shumlin already went down this road?
When Shumlin’s team ran the final numbers in late 2014, they calculated that a single-payer system covering 94% of medical costs would require $2.5 billion to $2.9 billion in new state tax revenue for its first year. Because the entire state budget at the time was only about $2.7 billion, Shumlin realized the tax shock, including an 11.5% payroll tax, would heavily damage the state’s economy.
What magical thinking has Ms Janoo found to contradict these findings that cost taxpayers $2.3MM dollars?
If single-payer healthcare is the objective of the Democratic party and so wonderful, why haven’t they instituted it in California? They have the governorship, the lieutenant governorship, super majorities in the California House and Senate, they have the backing of Progressives and Democrats, labor unions, courts and public opinion, etc.
Trump isn’t stopping them, so
WHY HAVEN’T THEY INSTITUTED SINGLE PAYER in CA??
Lots of talk about how to pay for primary health care. No mention about the lack of doctors in Vermont. How do you plan to attract doctors to move here? Graduates from UVM and DHMC are not flocking here anymore.
Just got a notice that our private health care insurance costs will be going up next year. Comment from Richard Day.
You have to figure in how many wealthy individuals would just leave the state
The debate over universal primary care raises two fundamental concerns: funding and patient choice.
The Scott campaign estimates annual costs of $580 million to $611 million, while the proposed tax increases could raise at most $344 million. That’s a potential funding gap of $236 million to $267 million every year. Those figures are preliminary, and projected savings have not been independently established. Before committing taxpayers to a new program, Vermont needs a credible analysis of its actual net cost and a complete funding plan.
Equally important, who decides what constitutes legitimate health care? Many Vermonters seek naturopathic, complementary, and alternative treatments that insurance doesn’t consistently cover. Vermont already recognizes licensed naturopathic physicians as primary care providers. Would universal primary care preserve that choice or restrict it?
Affordable health care should expand access and patient choice, not simply reinforce the existing medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance system. Vermonters deserve clear answers about what is covered, who provides it, and who pays for it.