NY was on the verge of passing payer well being care – then Particular Pursuits crushed it

Many New Yorkers expected this year to be the year New York finally passed the New York Health Act.

Thirty years after its inception, the prospect of the state realizing the ability to pay for health care alone, free from corporate influence, has enough votes to survive.

But if New Yorkers think that for-profit insurance companies, lobbyists, and even some unions are planning to relax the status quo, they will soon be disappointed – once again.

Snuggle up to the pressure of special interests, The New York legislature let the legislature end on Thursday without approval or voting.

Despite the need for unions to represent the needs of public sector workers and the overwhelming support of most Americans for a national health system, union leaders have rejected demands for health care through a single payer.

Last month, the New York City Municipal Labor Committee (MLC) wrote a letter to spokesman Carl Heastie to “register our vigorous objection to the New York Health Act 2021,” which states:

“To avoid misunderstandings, the MLC supports general health insurance. But, as we have repeatedly stated in connection with previous attempts to pursue a deposit system in New York, in addition to wages, the health program for NYC workers is of paramount importance.

This “primary meaning” implies Negotiating better and cheaper health insurance and past Wage increase victims that single-paying health care would supposedly negate.

Anti-NYHA Group “Realities of Single Payer ”coordinated with the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) in an open letter To the state legislature asking the legislature to oppose the bill.

The Colorado SEIU recently raised “serious concerns and strong opposition to House Bill 21-1232, which would create a new state-controlled health insurance system known as a state government option,” which led lawmakers to back out The state’s bill passed a public option in two years if private insurers refuse to cut premiums by 15 percent.

However, healthcare providers do not have to accept the insurance, so the reservation no longer applies.

Nevada’s largest union, Culinary Workers Local 226, made vocal opposition to Vt’s Medicare for All proposal during the 2020 presidential campaign. Sen. Bernie Sanders headlines.

However, not all unions are against it.

Some notable supporters are 1199 Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a health care workers union, and the New York State Nurses Association.

If the coronavirus / COVID-19 pandemic fiasco has exposed anything, it’s our social inequalities.

When it comes to public health, the most obvious injustice lies in the reality that we are to spend the most money on health care – 20% of our national income – of every Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country in the world, but we are not the healthiest country.

Most countries offer health care as a human right for all of its citizens.

But of the 25 richest nations, the United States is the only one who fails in order to do this.

The respondents to a Medicare-for-all type national payer health care system similar to what Canada Practice is: “We can’t afford it” or “How do we pay for it?”

However, this question is rarely, if ever, asked when we feel the need to do that Military budget, print money to provide it $ 2 trillion for economic relief Keep companies afloat, distribute them permanently Subsidies to the most profitable companies in the world or permanent taxes on the same companies and their masters in the amount of $ 1.5 trillion.

Those who complain, “We can’t afford this,” are often the same ones who also brag about the fact that we are the richest nation in the world.

But you can’t have both.

The argument “we cannot afford that” is of course a lie.

We have could always afford it to provide medical care as a human right to every man, woman and child born in this country.

A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) late last year showed that not only could we always afford it, but that Medicare-for-All could cost even less than the most ardent Medicare-for-All proponents suggest.

According to the several deposit models examined by the researchers, four would be fully implemented by the country before the 2030 $ 42 billion to $ 743 billion especially this year.

The model that comes closest to the Medicare for all framework that most proponents support is based on low payment rates and low cost sharing $ 650 billion in savings in 2030.

With the combination of Medicare, Medicaid, insurance premiums, and out-of-pocket expenses, we are likely to be spending roughly right now $ 52 trillion Health care over the next decade.

But Health insurance for everyone would Eliminate premiums and expenses and reduce the price between $ 20 trillion and $ 36 trillion in the same period of time.

It is coincidental same amount the federal government has reserved for corporate welfare since 2008.

After the 2008 financial crash, we granted $ 700 billion in major banks.

The Federal Reserve committed between $ 16 trillion and $ 29 trillion to major financial institutions.

The legislature recently passed $ 4 trillion in pandemic aid to large businesses.

For the past twelve years we’ve been in the neighborhood between $ 20-35 trillion in corporate bailouts.

Three years ago the Republicans took the opportunity to: a. to quote Mercatus Center sponsored by Koch Brothers study To prove once and for all that health care alone, despite its economic advantages, is too expensive and popularity in public and US lawmakers.

David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, health policy experts and co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), explained:

“The Mercatus Center’s estimate of the cost of running Senator Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All-Act projects has resulted in an overwhelming surge in health care use, ignoring and not even mentioning the huge savings from single payer reform extensive and well-documented evidence of payer systems in other countries, all of which spend much less per person on health care than we do. [The] Report underestimates administrative savings of more than $ 8.3 trillion over 10 years. Taking these savings into account would lower Blahous’ estimate from $ 32.6 trillion to $ 24.3 trillion. “

These administrative savings could begin by eliminating or significantly reducing medical billing overhead costs for the United States spends twice as much than Canada.

How Much Savings?

over $ 89 billion a year.

Another component: salaries and marketing expenses.

Health insurance companies are basically just banks on which insurers spend more than 20% of Total overhead expenses.

Medicare, on the other hand, spends around 2%.

The transition from private for-profit health insurance to a Medicare-for-All system would result in savings of around some $ 200 billion in overhead alone.

But what about taxes? Wouldn’t they explode?

Think about every time we see a doctor (also via telemedicine) or a walk-in clinic.

If we are fortunate enough to have employer-based health care for which we pay premiums, we are also responsible for co-payments, which can vary from person to person depending on the type of plans offered by employers.

These premiums and co-payments are functional taxes, although we are not used to viewing them as such.

Under a Medicare-for-All-Type system, we would all – ALL – pay Medicare already billed premiums, with no co-payments or deductibles.

That would bring in $ 210 billion in sales.

We are currently paying grants for two pillars of insurance: plans provided by the employer and those offered through private insurers under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA); also known as “Obamacare”.

A single payer model would focus on a single, Saved $ 161 billion.

Employers would no longer have to include health insurance coverage in their books and save millions.

Unions would no longer have to negotiate health and costs with management.

We can visit any doctor at any time without having to worry about the costs.

Hospitalization would not drive people into debt.

No more “surprise bills”.

Neoliberal change over the past forty years has prioritized Wall Street, the defense industry, and in general any individual or company ideologically committed enough to capitalize on the argument “money = freedom of expression” the Supreme Court agreed, is constitutional.

This also includes health insurance companies.

More Americans are in favor of a national health system with a single payer now than ever, and fed up (no pun intended) of sacrificing their sovereignty and security so that another obscene rich CEO can demand another billion dollars in back taxes from them compensation.

Ted Millar is a writer and teacher. His work has been featured in countless literary magazines including Better Than Starbucks, Caesura, Circle Show, Cactus Heart, and Third Wednesday. He’s also contributing to The Left Place Blog on Substack, Liberal Nation Rising, and Medium.

Comments are closed.