It would require taxes to at least doubleI 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?
Whats the difference between the doubled taxes and the Statewide savings in insurance costs? Honest question. I don't know much about this issue.It would require taxes to at least double
I doubt it passes, but I will vote against anyone in favor.
let's check back on this if/when the senate votes on it.The same proposal cleared the state Assembly in 2015 and 2016, but never received a vote from the state Senate.
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).
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.Whats the difference between the doubled taxes and the Statewide savings in insurance costs? Honest question. I don't know much about this issue.
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?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.
A lot more than I do, I have zero reason to change that.Right, but how much does your employer pay for it?
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.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.
Right but that is part of your compensation. You could be getting paid all of that money.A lot more than I do, I have zero reason to change that.
Somehow, I doubt that money would make its way into my bank account.Right but that is part of your compensation. You could be getting paid all of that money.
If this ever happened, I'm fairly confident that the best doctors would do what some of them have already done- stop taking insurance.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.
Further driving up personal out of pocket costs.If this ever happened, I'm fairly confident that the best doctors would do what some of them have already done- stop taking insurance.
Dunno about that, but definitely further differentiating the haves from the have notsFurther driving up personal out of pocket costs.
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.Somehow, I doubt that money would make its way into my bank account.
Why is that?If this ever happened, I'm fairly confident that the best doctors would do what some of them have already done- stop taking insurance.
Why would the coverage be ####tier?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.
BC the rate the state would negotiate would be well below their normal rate.Why is that?
Bc the doctors would be worse & getting an apt with any half decent remaining doctor would take months.Why would the coverage be ####tier?
So you are saying the State insurance would pay much less than the doctors are used to?BC the rate the state would negotiate would be well below their normal rate.
Bring on the DMV!!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.
That is the idea of "Total Compensation". If companies didn't have to pay for certain benefits your base would be higher.Somehow, I doubt that money would make its way into my bank account.
Just pretend Dr. Nick from the Simpsons and a world renowned surgeon offered the same price.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.
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.That is the idea of "Total Compensation". If companies didn't have to pay for certain benefits your base would be higher.
EXACTLY!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?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.
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.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 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?shadyridr said:Lmao no way new Yorkers are gonna pay even more taxes
I work in nj, live in nyJust 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?
This is one of the main reasons State level single payer isn't a good model.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).I work in nj, live in ny
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.Ilov80s said:Right but that is part of your compensation. You could be getting paid all of that money.
How about 2,000?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.
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.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.
Well, it might be $200 more a month the first year.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?
England has single payer and 50+% of them still have add on private insurance. This would be no different.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.
$2000 is way too much. I am willing to pay $200, and I am willing to support politicians who want to force YOU to pay $200 and for millionaires to pay more.How about 2,000?
20,000?
What is your price for the health of America?
I will research this. Like I said, I know nothing about all of this and am just brainstorming. Thanks for the input.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!
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 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?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.