NY Senate Bill S5474 proposing a universal single payer health plan for NYers

Post by ceejayoz » Mon, May 09, 2022, 9:04 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #36

ceejayoz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems readily fixable; make it a legal requirement that companies that provide employer-provided healthcare pay the premium to the employee if they opt out.

In my case the premium wouldn't even come close to the marketplace cost. I'd be losing overall.

Post by ceejayoz » Mon, May 09, 2022, 9:05 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #45

ceejayoz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer, and others are a greatly discounted rate, who will not necessarily share savings with their employees. Then require that savings be shared. Make it a legal requirement that any company that has employer-provided healthcare must rebate employees the premium costs if they opt-out.

That makes no sense, salaries would simply be adjusted to compensate. The kind of bureaucracy you’re proposing is why things are already so complicated to begin with.

Post by VWWHFSfQ » Mon, May 09, 2022, 9:06 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #42

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #16

If this is anything like the ACA then the vast majority of New Yorkers will end up paying twice for insurance. Once in taxes to subsidize the single-payer marketplace, and then again for their own employer-based insurance. Have to start somewhere though, I guess.

Nooo! Public option is not a half measure, it's a ~zero measure. Single payer >>> public option. Public option is really easy to kill, just kneecap it any of a hundred ways, call it a failure, and then sell killing it as a tax break. It has the staying power of a cobweb on a car wheel. Failure is inevitable and it won't just be dead, it'll be held up for decades as proof that our government is uniquely incapable of d…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 09, 2022, 9:06 PM UTC

outside1234 wrote: post #43

aserdf wrote: post #30

it will be interesting to watch NY (and/or CA) put something like this in place and observe from afar. i strongly feel that states should be much more aggressive running policy experiments if their constituents desire them, and at the national level we all get some benefit of seeing how things turn out in real time. all that said, assuming there is some tangible tax increase, NYC high earners are going to be knocking…

Remember that this expense is also reducing the cost of employers. One of the best ways to finance this would be a payroll tax that is basically equal (in aggregate) to the insurance the company is (usually) already paying.

Post by lotsofpulp » Mon, May 09, 2022, 9:08 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #54

lotsofpulp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30% of the US federal budget is healthcare spending. https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function And that is only because a ton of people do not actually get healthcare, either because deductibles dissuade them or they do not pass the means testing to get enough subsidies to buy Medicaid or healthcare.gov insurance. And that is because Medicaid severely underpays doctors to the point that if you visit a US c…

Very broad strokes, doctors in the US are overpaid and conservatives legislated Medicare can't negotiate drug prices. Lots of room to drive down costs. Spending is high because of a dysfunctional system driven by profit instead of care. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/12/702500408/are-... https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2010.... https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/25/opinion/let-medi…