Skip to main content

View Diary: Single Payer in New York State (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Who pays the graduated tax on payroll income (12+ / 0-)

    the employer or employee?

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:46:41 PM PST

    •  I take it to mean we each pay for ourself- (34+ / 0-)

      here is the quote from the press release

        Funded fairly:  Instead of individuals and employers paying high premiums, deductibles and co-pays, the coverage would be funded through a graduated tax on payroll and non-payroll income based on ability to pay.  Today, an insurance company wants the same premium whether they're covering a CEO or a receptionist, a successful company or a start-up just getting by.
      and
        A business-friendly solution:  Single payer reduces costs for business - large and small - by eliminating the need for any employer to provide health coverage for its workers.  That would make New York dramatically more job-friendly, especially for small businesses, start-ups and low-margin businesses, while offering better and more secure coverage to every New Yorker.

      Oh for crying out loud!

      by 4mygirls on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:51:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is the key to provide a level playing field (20+ / 0-)

        to the sole proprietor, the small firm that subcontracts some of their work, and just gets more and more important, the larger the business goes.

        It will sidestep the games of dropping hours to keep part-time employees inelligible for benefits and create incentives for employers who want to offer good plans to actually negotiate with the insurers.

        If they can't negotiate a better plan than what is offered by the state then an employer shouldn't be operating in the insurance brokerage business.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 03:50:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Weaseling is disgusting and something that happens (11+ / 0-)

          here as well, since anything that is permanently 20 hours and over requires health care.  I work 20 hours but not during all of the year, ergo I'm not covered. Whatever the rule, the penny-pinchers will weasel around it.

          At any rate, this is a massive step forward, given that NY state has a good percentage of the American people. It is not a small, exurban state like Vermont. But even where this is only a symbolic victory for progressives, and changes materially nothing this is still a victory.

          I wrote before that we can have most of the people in the United States covered by single payer by the end of the decade. It's only 2013, and it's still possible. Once you get Massachusetts, California and Illinois on board, it will be a rolling wave. And don't forget the Pacific Northwest and Minnesota and New England. It is possible. It is worth fighting for. Not all of our victories need to start nationally. For progressives, historically, they often didn't.

          Governments care only as much as their citizens force them to care. Nothing changes unless we change -- George Monbiot.

          by Nulwee on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:10:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I wish I could rec this about 100 times. (EOM) (5+ / 0-)
      •  I'm not entirely convinced that this is the best (0+ / 0-)

        way to fund it but I guess there are drawbacks to other systems of collection, like increasing the sales tax.  

        BTW, how does France, the UK or, say Sweden, pay for their systems?  

        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

        by theotherside on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:44:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  My understanding of the concept of "single payer" (7+ / 0-)

      is that we all pay. From what I've read, these things all get structured in a variety of ways, but all involve "group purchase" at a society level, and all work far better than both of what we are now trying to implement, and what the right is trying to drag us back to.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 08:18:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is a very important question (6+ / 0-)

      because it points to the need for one specific element that must be included in the new bill.

      1) The covered resident should be the one paying for the insurance so that s/he will never again be bound to his/her employer by the shackles of insurance.

      But, 2) Many people who have decent jobs are currently covered by insurance that the employer pays the majority of.  In my case this has come about via annual negotiations over a period of decades in which employees negotiated away salary for health care.  That is to say that current employer contributions to health care are NOT a gift: They are a secondary form of salary/wages.  

      3 (the stipulation that needs to be included in the bill)) Therefore, the NY bill should include the stipulation that since employers will be rendered immune to any future responsibility for health care, they are legally obligated to add their current health care contribution into the wages/salary of every employee.  This costs the company no additional money and indeed frees them from all future costs of maintaining and insurance department.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site