What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

New York Single Payer. $91 Billion. (1 Viewer)

I can't imagine this works well, but it'll at least serve as a petri dish to see how big of a disaster it would be, or if there's some feasibility to it. 

 
Yea!!!  Why don't you just tax me 100% of my income for living in this ####hole of a state. More Traffic, More crime, More Taxes!!!  

 
But you wouldn't have health insurance coming out of your paycheck, so there is some kind of offset to the increase?  Insurance on paychecks goes down, taxes go up?

 
I have to read up farther on this, but lots of other awesome countries have single payer so it's a viable option, right? What is wrong with the NY set-up? 

 
I have to read up farther on this, but lots of other awesome countries have single payer so it's a viable option, right? What is wrong with the NY set-up? 
It would require taxes to at least double :shrug:

I doubt it passes, but I will vote against anyone in favor. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It would require taxes to at least double :shrug:

I doubt it passes, but I will vote against anyone in favor. 
Whats the difference between the doubled taxes and the Statewide savings in insurance costs? Honest question. I don't know much about this issue.

 
there's a reason this isn't on my news feed... it's not news yet.

The same proposal cleared the state Assembly in 2015 and 2016, but never received a vote from the state Senate.
let's check back on this if/when the senate votes on it.

 
So we are supporting states rights now for health care? Those damn costs always seem to get in the way. But taxing investments and a double digit (11.4) payroll tax increase and a nearly double digit (9.5) income tax increase should cover it.   :thumbup:

To pay for the single-payer system, Friedman suggested that New York create a new tax on dividends, interest, and capital gains that would range from 9 percent to 16 percent, depending on how much investment income an individual reports, and a new payroll tax that would similarly range from 9 percent to 16 percent depending on an individual's income.

It was a similar prescription for massive tax hikes that sank Vermont's experiment with single-payer health care in 2014. Funding it would have required an extra $2.5 billion annually, almost double the state's current budget, and would have required an 11.5 percent payroll tax increase and a 9 percent income tax increase. Voters in Colorado rejected a proposed single-payer health care system when they found out how much it would raise their taxes, and efforts to pass a single-payer plan in California (being championed by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont progressive) are facing similar financial troubles.

Back in New York, a second analysis of the single-payer health care plan, suggests that Friedman's projections significantly underestimate the cost of single-payer in New York (while overstating the savings).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whats the difference between the doubled taxes and the Statewide savings in insurance costs? Honest question. I don't know much about this issue.
I pay $500 a month and my family of four is fully insured with very high quality coverage. I'd imagine anyone in the same stadium as me would much rather keep as is, than double their taxes for ####tier coverage. 

 
I pay $500 a month and my family of four is fully insured with very high quality coverage. I'd imagine anyone in the same stadium as me would much rather keep as is, than double their taxes for ####tier coverage. 
whoa. you get that through work though- right? I pay roughly that for my ACA coverage which went from being decent, to ok, to junk at this point. Kids are on a separate plan. Prior to ACA, as an independent contractor I was paying almost $2200/month for my family of four.

 
I pay $500 a month and my family of four is fully insured with very high quality coverage. I'd imagine anyone in the same stadium as me would much rather keep as is, than double their taxes for ####tier coverage. 
Right, but how much does your employer pay for it? 

 
Right, but how much does your employer pay for it? 
A lot more than I do, I have zero reason to change that.

whoa. you get that through work though- right? I pay roughly that for my ACA coverage which went from being decent, to ok, to junk at this point. Kids are on a separate plan. Prior to ACA, as an independent contractor I was paying almost $2200/month for my family of four.
Yup, through work. I'm into insurance on the year for $2250 so far, losing that & I'd be furious. My employer isn't headquartered in NY though, so not sure how that would work. 

I doubt this comes to fruition, and probably is no news because bc the bill might as well have been signed by a Nigerian Prince. I never heard of this until I opened the link. 

http://nypost.com/2017/05/22/ny-dems-lunatic-push-for-single-payer-health-care/

Found a post article, first two sentences made me lol at my desk.

 
I am far from a smart man but this doesnt seem like a reasonable thing to do.   Seems like a lot of #### will start flowing downhill.

 
A lot more than I do, I have zero reason to change that.

Yup, through work. I'm into insurance on the year for $2250 so far, losing that & I'd be furious. My employer isn't headquartered in NY though, so not sure how that would work. 

I doubt this comes to fruition, and probably is no news because bc the bill might as well have been signed by a Nigerian Prince. I never heard of this until I opened the link. 

http://nypost.com/2017/05/22/ny-dems-lunatic-push-for-single-payer-health-care/

Found a post article, first two sentences made me lol at my desk.
If this ever happened, I'm fairly confident that the best doctors would do what some of them have already done- stop taking insurance. 

 
Somehow, I doubt that money would make its way into my bank account.
It should. They are paying you right now, it's just into a pool for health care because it benefits you and your fellow employees to get a group discount rather than each to go solo. If that money didn't go to you, you are straight up taking a big pay cut. Where I work, we can opt out of health care and then we get the money it saves the employer. 

 
I pay $500 a month and my family of four is fully insured with very high quality coverage. I'd imagine anyone in the same stadium as me would much rather keep as is, than double their taxes for ####tier coverage. 
Bring on the DMV!!

Health care professionals lose money on Medicaid patients (ridiculously actually. Like hundreds of dollars per visit), about break even on Medicare patients (we are reimbursed $0.30 to the dollar roughly for Medicare). Where they make money is with private insurers. Insurance costs are so high because the government insurances pay far less than what is needed to support the system therefore we, as private insurance holders, are alreayd picking up the rest of the bill. I cannot imagine how many great doctors, therapists, dentists (if applicable) may leave the state to practice with less red tape (it gets worse every year! The documentation requirements are absurd), better reimbursement, and clientele that isn't angry as soon as they walk in the door because they had to book that appointment 9 weeks in advance and now their cough has turned into pneumonia. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you are saying the State insurance would pay much less than the doctors are used to?

Sorry, I am honestly a moron when it comes to insurance. 
Just pretend Dr. Nick from the Simpsons and a world renowned surgeon offered the same price.

The state is basically negotiating the cost of a specific procedure with providers, with one pay, all doctors would receive the same amount for the same procedure. The best doctors leave and go to an open market.

 
That is the idea of "Total Compensation". If companies didn't have to pay for certain benefits your base would be higher. 
So they can all expect their companies to say, hey we used to pay $600 a month to your health care, so we will now GIVE YOU that same $600 a month? Get real... companies will pocket those savings. 

 
Just pretend Dr. Nick from the Simpsons and a world renowned surgeon offered the same price.

The state is basically negotiating the cost of a specific procedure with providers, with one pay, all doctors would receive the same amount for the same procedure. The best doctors leave and go to an open market.
EXACTLY!

Other states use a performance based system. Hospitals/clinics that do the best are reimbursed better and the insurance company will pick up more for that provider. We are seeing some insurers doing this in Wisconsin already... you can go to Doctor A and we will pay 90%, or you can go to Doctor B and we will pay 75%. We pay Doctor A more because he has better results. It WORKS

 
Just pretend Dr. Nick from the Simpsons and a world renowned surgeon offered the same price.

The state is basically negotiating the cost of a specific procedure with providers, with one pay, all doctors would receive the same amount for the same procedure. The best doctors leave and go to an open market.
That makes sense. How far does it go though? How many people can afford >>>sticker price on health procedures and to what extent it would drain the health community of a statistically significant % of the top doctors? 

 
So they can all expect their companies to say, hey we used to pay $600 a month to your health care, so we will now GIVE YOU that same $600 a month? Get real... companies will pocket those savings. 
Then they wouldn't be competitive. Total Compensation is the aggregate of your worth to the company. It's the same reason they offer good benefit packages to begin with; to attract and retain good employees. If you're getting shafted, there are other employers out there.

 
It seems weird to me that people assume their employers are basically waiting to rip them off on health care compensation in the name of higher profits, yet seem perfectly content to keep pouring money into private insurance. 

 
shadyridr said:
Lmao no way new Yorkers are gonna pay even more taxes
Just using this site (which I just found, so it could be trash), the average New Yorker would make $14,400 more each year in the gains from what their employer was contributing in health care. Combine that with the personal contribution average and we are at an annual personal cost of $19,600 for health insurance. According to this site, that is about the equivalent of taxes for a person making $310,000. So, I am wondering if most people wouldn't actually save money in this situation since the average income in Yew York is only $60,000. Why is my thinking/math wrong? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just using this site (which I just found, so it could be trash), the average New Yorker would make $14,400 more each year in the gains from what their employer was contributing in health care. Combine that with the personal contribution average and we are at an annual personal cost of $19,600. According to this site, that is about the equivalent of taxes for a person making $310,000. So, I am wondering if most people wouldn't actually save money in this situation since the average income in Yew York is only $60,000. Why is my thinking/math wrong? 
I work in nj, live in ny

 
I work in nj, live in ny
That is a big issue since the NY-NJ-Conn area seems to have a lot of crossover like this. There would need to be an option for you get an out of state employed health care deductible that balances this out for you. Would that work? The bigger issue would the going the opposite way (although in theory working in New York would pay more so they could allow you to use that money tax-free to buy into the NY State insurance as an out of resident employee). 

Does anyone know how US-Canada handles this? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For the sake of argument, let's say it doubles everyone's taxes, but at the same time you get a tax write off equal to the amounts both you and your employer are already paying in for health insurance (which now would all go to the single payer instead)- and the net difference to you is around $200 more a month. But everybody gets health care. 

And also for the sake of argument, put aside all questions of efficiency, keeping your doctor, etc. Assume that all of that is satisfactory. The question then becomes: would you be willing to pay $200 more a month to make sure that everyone in your state (or in the USA) gets healthcare? 

Because I think I would. 

 
Ilov80s said:
Right but that is part of your compensation. You could be getting paid all of that money. 
Corporate America is just waiting to raise your pay the same amount they spend on your health insurance.  Especially getting the extra taxes to pay for new single payer taxes. 

 
I'm all for this. My wife and I pay about $700 a month for "meh" coverage (3k deductible/etc). Pretty sure my taxes won't go up that much.

Yes, it's lousy for the people who have great plans from their job. But you know, those are few and far between these days, and yes, they will be going away as time goes on.  We used to have great coverage. Then last year my wife's job said "can't afford it anymore", and we went from Platinum to Silver. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For the sake of argument, let's say it doubles everyone's taxes, but at the same time you get a tax write off equal to the amounts both you and your employer are already paying in for health insurance (which now would all go to the single payer instead)- and the net difference to you is around $200 more a month. But everybody gets health care. 

And also for the sake of argument, put aside all questions of efficiency, keeping your doctor, etc. Assume that all of that is satisfactory. The question then becomes: would you be willing to pay $200 more a month to make sure that everyone in your state (or in the USA) gets healthcare? 

Because I think I would. 
How about 2,000?

20,000?

What is your price for the health of America?

 
El Floppo said:
If this ever happened, I'm fairly confident that the best doctors would do what some of them have already done- stop taking insurance. 
That's what my GP of 18 years just did. He now now offers 3 levels of concierge services. Think the low plan is $3K annually. If I stay with his office but don't step up yo the concierge plan, my annual physical and any office visits will be with a nurse practitioner. 

 
And also for the sake of argument, put aside all questions of efficiency, keeping your doctor, etc. Assume that all of that is satisfactory. The question then becomes: would you be willing to pay $200 more a month to make sure that everyone in your state (or in the USA) gets healthcare? 
Well, it might be $200 more a month the first year.

El Floppo said:
If this ever happened, I'm fairly confident that the best doctors would do what some of them have already done- stop taking insurance. 
England has single payer and 50+% of them still have add on private insurance.  This would be no different.

Just to add another state to the mix - California is proposing the same thing.  Cost: $200 billion a year.  Or roughly double the state's entire budget. 

 
If we want to solve healthcare in this country, the first step is to get serious about helping the public become healthier. Any other approach is just treating the symptoms instead of the disease.

 
The dollars mentioned in the OP's article seem odd to me.

The annual cost estimates given in the article swing between $91 billion and $226 billion. New York State had 19,378,102 residents according to the 2010 census (link), with ~13% 65 years old or older (and thus not covered by NY's single-payer plan).

That leaves about 16.8 million residents to be covered by a single-payer health system. $91 billion divided by 16.8 million is just under $5,400/yr per person covered. $226 billion would be about $13,400/yr per person covered.

Really? We can't cover everyone for an average few thousand per year per person? And 13k per year ... come on.

 
Thank God Connecticut is so rich and running their government in the black!

Oh, and NJ... how awesome. Did you hear that David Tepper moved? He moved to Florida! Goodbye New Jersey!

Who's David Tepper? He's a guy who lived in New Jersey. His individual tax bill as a NJ resident for 20 years was so high that the state relied on him, personally, to fund a significant portion of the budget. When he moved out of state, New Jersey lost hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from him, alone!

I'm sure the answer is always to tax the rich more because they've got all the money and they can afford it. Just be happy there are never any consequences of these decisions! :towelwave:
I will research this. Like  I said, I know nothing about all of this and am just brainstorming. Thanks for the input. 

 
Corporate America is just waiting to raise your pay the same amount they spend on your health insurance.  Especially getting the extra taxes to pay for new single payer taxes. 


Why would your employer care if the employee got $15,000 or an insurance company got $15,000? 

The corporate tax issue is something to deal with. Do employers currently pay taxes on their current contributions to health care? 

 
For the sake of argument, let's say it doubles everyone's taxes, but at the same time you get a tax write off equal to the amounts both you and your employer are already paying in for health insurance (which now would all go to the single payer instead)- and the net difference to you is around $200 more a month. But everybody gets health care. 

And also for the sake of argument, put aside all questions of efficiency, keeping your doctor, etc. Assume that all of that is satisfactory. The question then becomes: would you be willing to pay $200 more a month to make sure that everyone in your state (or in the USA) gets healthcare? 

Because I think I would. 
I'm no CPA...but aren't tax write offs money that is NOT going into the state/fed taxes? So how does that help the cost of the program? You are doubling my taxes to pay for it, but then allowing me to not pay on other taxes b/c of the write off?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top