I <3 NY

[delavan]

Raise taxes and make the state even more expensive, joy.

  Check$ and balances

[Badger]

Raise taxes and make the state even more expensive, joy.

Let's start with bare minimum stuff like legalizing pot before we start arguing over whether it's appropriate to spend money to improve people's lives.

[Badger]

Free healthcare for all. But only if you have a job. And only if that job offers healthcare. And only if they don't pull out pre-tax dollars to fund it.

Once that is settled, free college for all. But only if you take out a loan. And your parents pay it back.

I really need to read up on the NY Health Act, I think something like that works much better at the federal level but if it seems workable at the state level then LFG.

[delavan]

  Brian's story

  https://earther.gizmodo.com/cancel-the-rockefeller-center-christmas-tree-for-good-1845714413

[delavan]

I really need to read up on the NY Health Act, I think something like that works much better at the federal level but if it seems workable at the state level then LFG.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190717.466249/full/

[AlioTheFool]

I really need to read up on the NY Health Act, I think something like that works much better at the federal level but if it seems workable at the state level then LFG.

My understanding is that it is basically Medicare with the conditions that you can't opt in over benefits through your employer and there is an income threshold, past which you have to pay into it just like employer-based benefits. That was at least how I understood it 10+ years ago, but my wife and I both have offerings from our employers so we never really looked into it.

[Badger]

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190717.466249/full/

Thanks, this was a good read with a couple things I wasn't aware of. My overall perception is still the same, preferring the far more flexible tools of federal spending, but it was good to know more about the possible path forward at the state level.

[AlioTheFool]

Thanks, this was a good read with a couple things I wasn't aware of. My overall perception is still the same, preferring the far more flexible tools of federal spending, but it was good to know more about the possible path forward at the state level.

Things that concern me:

1) If employers are encouraged to completely move away from HMOs, then pre-tax benefit payments now become taxes, lowering salaries. Does the benefit outweigh the loss?

2) What does this do to the thousands (millions?) employed by HMOs? I DGAF about the ownership, but there are a lot of administrative employees that would be suddenly out of work.

3) How does state-to-state insurance work? If you get sick/injured while in North Carolina on business, what does your NYS-run insurance plan cover?

More and more I buy into the idea of MFA, but there are a lot of questions that need addressing, and even more if it's run at the state level instead.

[Johnny English]

2) What does this do to the thousands (millions?) employed by HMOs? I DGAF about the ownership, but there are a lot of administrative employees that would be suddenly out of work.

This is a common argument against taking services public, usually brought up (not accusing you of this) by people who also argue for privatization of public services for reasons of efficiency (i.e. putting people out of work is a good thing as long as it can be turned into profits instead).

Public healthcare administration does not happen without people. As many jobs as may be destroyed in the private sector would be created in the public sector to fulfil the same roles, although I think that there's a legitimate argument that the net effect would be an increase in total employment as insurance doesn't cease to exist in the private sector so some would be redeployed. What you would see is a move away from sales and actuarial roles in healthcare management, and an increased focus on driving delivery efficiency and patient care.

I find the fear of job losses in the private insurance sector to be an entirely nonsensical reason to be concerned over a move towards socialised healthcare.

[Badger]

2) What does this do to the thousands (millions?) employed by HMOs? I DGAF about the ownership, but there are a lot of administrative employees that would be suddenly out of work.

3) How does state-to-state insurance work? If you get sick/injured while in North Carolina on business, what does your NYS-run insurance plan cover?

2) Any decent healthcare legislation has to address this (the federal M4A bill does by paying these people for X months and providing assistance in finding new jobs). Not sure about NYHA. Also, what JE said.

3) Private insurance already has this problem. My coworker got sick on a trip to SF and her employer-sponsored insurance refused to pay for treatment in another state. So hopefully the NYFA would be better than this, but it's hard to be worse.

[delavan]

Thanks, this was a good read with a couple things I wasn't aware of. My overall perception is still the same, preferring the far more flexible tools of federal spending, but it was good to know more about the possible path forward at the state level.

Your welcome, and I too think it would be better under the aegis of the Feds.  I'd only hope it would be done equitably across-the-board (i.e. state-to-state) least it prompt 1960's type migration rushes to more 'favorable locations' which would feel the strain = compromised services (citing the following scenario as a migratory reference however apples-to-oranges it is):

https://people.eou.edu/socwelf/readings/week-2/welfare-expands-in-the-1960s/

[AlioTheFool]

This is a common argument against taking services public, usually brought up (not accusing you of this) by people who also argue for privatization of public services for reasons of efficiency (i.e. putting people out of work is a good thing as long as it can be turned into profits instead).

Public healthcare administration does not happen without people. As many jobs as may be destroyed in the private sector would be created in the public sector to fulfil the same roles, although I think that there's a legitimate argument that the net effect would be an increase in total employment as insurance doesn't cease to exist in the private sector so some would be redeployed. What you would see is a move away from sales and actuarial roles in healthcare management, and an increased focus on driving delivery efficiency and patient care.

I find the fear of job losses in the private insurance sector to be an entirely nonsensical reason to be concerned over a move towards socialised healthcare.

2) Any decent healthcare legislation has to address this (the federal M4A bill does by paying these people for X months and providing assistance in finding new jobs). Not sure about NYHA. Also, what JE said.

3) Private insurance already has this problem. My coworker got sick on a trip to SF and her employer-sponsored insurance refused to pay for treatment in another state. So hopefully the NYFA would be better than this, but it's hard to be worse.

Just to be clear, I'm not at all against a public healthcare system. I just have questions on how to do it "right."

Also, I'm far more in favor of a national system than a state-by-state solution.

[Badger]

Though 2 years old and from a failed primary bid, this is relevant

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/07/the-incredible-state-level-single-payer-plan-that-everyone-should-be-talking-about

https://abdulelsayed.com/policy

Unfortunately he lost to the daughter of a health insurance CEO.

[CatoTheElder]

Though 2 years old and from a failed primary bid, this is relevant

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/07/the-incredible-state-level-single-payer-plan-that-everyone-should-be-talking-about

https://abdulelsayed.com/policy

Unfortunately he lost to the daughter of a health insurance CEO.

Cabinet post.

[Johnny English]

Over to you, NY.

https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-passes-legislation-to-make-daylight-time-permanent-1.5205125