5 ms·

> If NY does this, the near zero chance of my moving there ever would go to absolute 0. Are they proposing kicking you off your insurance? From the bill: > SU

> If NY does this, the near zero chance of my moving there ever would go to absolute 0. Are they proposing kicking you off your insurance? From the bill: > SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Every New York resident will be eligible to enroll, regardless of age, income, wealth, employment, or other status. There would be no network restrictions, deductibles, or co-pays. Coverage would be publicly funded. The benefits will include comprehensive outpatient and inpatient medical care, long-term care, primary and preventive care, prescription drugs, laboratory tests, rehabilitative, dental, vision, hearing, etc. all benefits required by current state insurance law or provided by the state public employee package, Family Health Plus, Child Health Plus, Medicare, or Medicaid, and others added by the plan. As someone that has lived in NYC for 15 years, I'd really love to see this happen. Edit: > Private insurance that duplicates benefits offered under New York Health could not be offered to New York residents. So yes, I guess it would be kicking those off of their current private insurance. It sounds like it'd force private insurers to offer plans that would augment off of a base of public care. I'm still fine with this.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ceeplusplus 4y ago
I read through the bill and there are no specifics written on how the entire thing is supposed to be funded, other than saying that payroll taxes will be increased to fund it. My guess is that once the numbers come out on how much tax would have to be paid that this bill would be dead.
- yazaddaruvala 4y ago
  Companies currently provide health insurance and pay per employee. Per employee costs go up due to health care payroll taxes. Per employee costs come down due to not paying for health insurance. Overall, net-neutral cost to companies and simplifies health care payments for hospitals, clinics, etc so fewer employees to explain and collect payments so cost of care comes down. Seems like a win - win - win.
  - ceeplusplus 4y ago
    Health insurance is a constant cost per employee, effectively decreasing in percentage of income as income goes up. Payroll taxes scale up as your income goes up. So no, it's not net-neutral as it's highly redistributive. If single payer were implemented as a flat tax, then it would be net-neutral.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Having it scale is fine imo as it fights against the overtime/overwork issue where since the health costs are constant it’s better to overpay and overwork one employee than to hire two.
  - RHSeeger 4y ago
    If you follow this specific thread, the discussion looks like this >>>> Person complaining about how his previous state-run health care system was awful >>> Person replying that your current plan will still be there, no one will force you to take the state run plan >> Person commenting on how funding for the bill will kill it > Response that funding will come from the money that companies were paying on health plans. So if everything in this one thread is true, then - Companies will continue to offer the health plan they currently offer - The state will provide a single payer health plan - The money that companies currently pay on health plans will pay for both of those, with no increase in cost to the employee Clearly that's not realistic.
    - theptip 4y ago
      It was later edited, but I think the bit where the thread diverges from your summary is > - Companies will continue to offer the health plan they currently offer I think the GP (GGP?) reading was that the current health plans would have to change; they can't duplicate the state mandatory coverage. (But they can build on top of it). So theoretically a $1k/mo plan paid by the employer might turn into a $400/mo plan for extra coverage, and the baseline would cost $600/mo and that part would be taken over by the state. Best-case they can streamline that portion and decrease the cost through economy of scale; worst-case you have 2x the operating costs for two different insurance plans and the quality goes down because of the duplication and billing uncertainty for providers. (I'd hope that the bit covered by the state would be good enough for many people to have as their only coverage though).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bdzr 4y ago
Network restrictions are dumb, but copays and deductibles serve a purpose. Healthcare isn't unlimited, and free services leads to long wait times because people don't reduce demand (e.g. going to the doctor for a stubbed toe). Certain specialities already have enormous wait times. You're in NY, try seeing a neurologist for a non-emergency. Given that an enormous amount of first appointments are "come back in a month if this is still bothering you" - copays need to exist. Patients have to have "skin in the game" as Andrew Yang would say.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ceeplusplus 4y ago

I read through the bill and there are no specifics written on how the entire thing is supposed to be funded, other than saying that payroll taxes will be increased to fund it. My guess is that once the numbers come out on how much tax would have to be paid that this bill would be dead.

yazaddaruvala 4y ago
Companies currently provide health insurance and pay per employee. Per employee costs go up due to health care payroll taxes. Per employee costs come down due to not paying for health insurance. Overall, net-neutral cost to companies and simplifies health care payments for hospitals, clinics, etc so fewer employees to explain and collect payments so cost of care comes down. Seems like a win - win - win.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  Health insurance is a constant cost per employee, effectively decreasing in percentage of income as income goes up. Payroll taxes scale up as your income goes up. So no, it's not net-neutral as it's highly redistributive. If single payer were implemented as a flat tax, then it would be net-neutral.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Having it scale is fine imo as it fights against the overtime/overwork issue where since the health costs are constant it’s better to overpay and overwork one employee than to hire two.
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  If you follow this specific thread, the discussion looks like this >>>> Person complaining about how his previous state-run health care system was awful >>> Person replying that your current plan will still be there, no one will force you to take the state run plan >> Person commenting on how funding for the bill will kill it > Response that funding will come from the money that companies were paying on health plans. So if everything in this one thread is true, then - Companies will continue to offer the health plan they currently offer - The state will provide a single payer health plan - The money that companies currently pay on health plans will pay for both of those, with no increase in cost to the employee Clearly that's not realistic.
  - theptip 4y ago
    It was later edited, but I think the bit where the thread diverges from your summary is > - Companies will continue to offer the health plan they currently offer I think the GP (GGP?) reading was that the current health plans would have to change; they can't duplicate the state mandatory coverage. (But they can build on top of it). So theoretically a $1k/mo plan paid by the employer might turn into a $400/mo plan for extra coverage, and the baseline would cost $600/mo and that part would be taken over by the state. Best-case they can streamline that portion and decrease the cost through economy of scale; worst-case you have 2x the operating costs for two different insurance plans and the quality goes down because of the duplication and billing uncertainty for providers. (I'd hope that the bit covered by the state would be good enough for many people to have as their only coverage though).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bdzr 4y ago

Network restrictions are dumb, but copays and deductibles serve a purpose. Healthcare isn't unlimited, and free services leads to long wait times because people don't reduce demand (e.g. going to the doctor for a stubbed toe). Certain specialities already have enormous wait times. You're in NY, try seeing a neurologist for a non-emergency. Given that an enormous amount of first appointments are "come back in a month if this is still bothering you" - copays need to exist. Patients have to have "skin in the game" as Andrew Yang would say.