Vermont Concurrence Page (2024)

Need to reach us? Use our “email hotline”:

Table of Contents

The League of Women Voters of Vermont (LWVVT) would like your League to support their request to have a discussion of their privatization position on the recommended agenda for the LWV National Convention in Washington, DC, this June.  If in the discussion, the new provisions in the Vermont privatization position are received favorably, LWVVT further proposes that the delegates should vote whether to “concur” –to ADD provisions from the new Vermont position to “UPDATE the LWVUS position by Concurrence. “

What is a concurrence? You can check what the League means by “Concurrence” at this Glossary adapted from the 2009 “League Basics”, or with our elaboration of the terms and how they affect our advocacy here.

WHY: The League of Women Voters of Vermont believes that the national position on privatization is not sufficient to support the advocacy needed to protect our health care resources.  We see two major issues preventing us from achieving League priorities:

Further, the national position was created in 2012. Much has changed and much has been learned since then. So we felt the need for a fresh study of privatization and, perhaps, a new state position to supplement the national position. 

Questions motivating our study:

Note that, as with the LWVUS position on Privatization, the Vermont study group had in mind that the principles governing privatization also applied in other domains, for example, privatized jails, private schools that used public money, and other.

After months of study and a consensus meeting, the League of Women Voters of Vermont Board of Directors approved a new position embodying these responses to their study questions:

Then, at a special convention, members voted unanimously to adopt the position. 

Vermont’s new state position allows them to not just educate but also advocate at the local and state levels. However, they state, “We still cannot adequately address the privatization of Medicare because it is a federal program, and advocacy at the national level requires a national position.” 

For this reason, and also to allow League members across the country to benefit from the work of our study, Vermont is proposing an update to the national privatization position by adding the language of our state position via concurrence, and we are asking for your help in proposing it.

June 5 Pre-Convention “CAUCUS” Educational Sessionvideo available here.

with Betty Keller, chair of the LWVVT Privatization Study Committee.

Link to it on HCR Interest Group YouTube Channel. Powerpoint with notes pdf here.


In case you missed it! UPCOMING June 17. ONLINE FORUM – a similar pre-convention Caucus with Betty Keller, Chair of the LWV Vermont Privatization Study Committee.

Register in advance for this meeting:
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

For a pdf flyer announcing the FORUM, view or download here.


VIDEO (2/8/24) presentation for LWV-CO by Betty Keller, MD of LWVVT “What does LWV Vermont Want to Do?” Youtube link. Additional information (and time stamps identified) in the description field below the video.

VIDEO (2/14/24)–5-minute clip walking you through the directions for filling out the Program Planning Survey. See the context for it at the “Critical Steps – How to Help” page.

As of 5/15 – 71

Q1. Why do we need an update to the position on privatization? Isn’t the LWVUS current position adequate? Go to Answer A1

Q2. Why does Vermont consider the topic of privatization is so important in health care? Go to Answer A2...

Q3. Do you propose that the Vermont update replace the LWVUS position? No. Read more…

Q4. Is the proposed update intended to add to the LWVUS Health Care position (under Social Policy)? or the Privatization position under “Representative Government? Go to Answer A4.

Q5. Is it your position that there should be no private options available at all? Go to Answer A5.

Q6. Without definitions, and descriptions of the process for taking control of currently and historically private health services, would we be inadvertently manipulated into supporting a move that was unintended? Go to Answer 6

Q7.  What are the criteria for “failing to deliver”? Go to Answer 7.

Seeking your comments – Pro or Con

We are open to your input–please. For example, the Pros and Cons document (linked above) still feels stilted to some members of the Update Committee; the “cons” especially do not feel authentic. So we are looking for people who do not agree with adopting the new position more broadly to send us their opinions.

Please use the linked webform for comments and suggestions, or send an email to the Update-email below.

Please contact us for Concurrence questions and comments: 

(Prepared by the LWV Health Care Interest Group on behalf of LWVVT)

Health Care Reform for the US