But they are a fairly good indicator of how liberal or conservative a state is compared to the national average. And given the Democrats/Progressives have 65-70% of seats they have a solid majority. So your best argument is he might have not liked a bill he signed? Wot? I'm arguing the populace of Vermont is more educated than the rest of the US. The odds of federal single payer are basically zero.
I don't disagree with the concept of a tax overhaul causing marginally higher tax rates for the rich. Personally, I'd love to institute a flat tax rate for everyone, and cut most exemptions (especially those for the rich). If that results in marginally higher effective tax rates - within reason - so be it. The efficiency gained from fixing the tax code to make it easier for everyone and to limit excuses for tax evasion would be worth that. Yes, northern Vermont is marginally more conservative than southern Vermont. However, no county gave Obama less than 55% of the vote, though, and only one county gave him less than 59.5%. Basically, that means that the most conservative Vermont county is as liberal as Oregon (a very liberal state) and the rest of them are nearly as liberal as California. If you look at the state legislature, only 30% of state senators and 35% of state representatives are Republicans. Add that there is a left-wing third party (Progressives) with solid representation in both legislatures and you have a very clear liberal majority. Then why did he sign the bill in the first place So the problem was the people are uneducated (despite Vermont having a higher proportion of high school graduates and bachelor's degrees than the country as a whole) for voting with their wallets, and the plan wasn't liberal enough?
So you concede high taxes lead to people leaving? That's only because many more people identify as conservative overall than liberal nationwide. Nationally, for example, conservatives have a 13.8 percentage point lead over liberals; in Vermont, it's a 3.2 percentage point liberal advantage. That means Vermont is a whopping 17 percentage points more liberal than the national average. Seems to me like even a positive spin government examination couldn't prove it would work without a massive tax burden. The article's general complaint is that Vermonters are too stupid to realize how awesome single payer is. IMO, that's an excellent way to sell policy proposals.
You're right, France isn't America. It's far more liberal, with a very active Socialist movement as well as a Communist Party that hovers around 5% of the popular vote. The fact it failed there is astounding. Would you be willing to work if 90% of your money was taken by the government? Vermont is literally the most liberal state in the country. The Democrats there had no electoral reason not to back single payer if it would have worked. Why wouldn't it? Because it would have doubled the state budget and required massive tax increases. Because Vermont is such a small, rural state, these would have heavily impacted the ordinary populace and small businesses, and taxes aren't really that great there as-is. It's not really surprising a massive new government program costs a lot of money, and it had to come from someone.
It would come from a 90% (or higher) tax on rich people. He's said that's not too high. For perspective, a 75% tax on rich people in France caused the rich to leave and didn't increase revenue substantially.
If you want to see the problem with single payer, go look at what happened to the most liberal state, Vermont (Sanders' home state) ,when they tried to enact it. They would have had to increase taxes so much that they scrapped the plan.
Philly really does remind me of Steve. Not so much in his temperament, but the fact he can function well as both a deep threat and a possession receiver. He's a lot more versatile than you would expect from a shorter, lighter receiver.