Mayor De Blasio Announces Health Care For All NYC Residents

a reply to: CriticalStinker


Sounds pretty cheap.

About 1/3 what you would pay for the same in Brooklyn, maybe 1/4 or 1/5 what you would pay in Manhattan.

Before moving to Central BK, which is now rapidly gentrifying and rising in price, I looked at Greenpoint in north BK walking distance from Williamsburg, one of the most hip and expensive parts of BK.

A basic three bedroom was going to be $3900 a month.

Yes, there are few fields in NY where the higher wage ratio matches or exceeds the much higher living costs.

If someone makes let's say 130% the amount they would elsewhere, they are paying 2-300% what they would pay in rent in many places.

a reply to: DanDanDat


FUnding is a real question, for sure.

As you say, the transportation infrastructure and system is in dire straights, and we need that funded too.

I think the US should have universal healthcare in some form like most other developed countries.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
I don't have a dog in this fight being a Brit, but I'd just like to say I'd wish my tax funded healthcare for everyone in the world. 500 million EU nationals have similar, it is only the US as a developed nation which doesn't offer such a system.

I've had lots of treatment this year, got some therapy at the hospital next week and an MRI brain scan the week after. I'm self employed so I've missed loads of work over the last 12 months, but if I'd had to find money for healthcare that would have ruined me. I go to the hospital knowing it won't cost me a penny at the point of need...I wish that for everyone in the world, call it socialist, but the crazy thing is it is one of the few things that unites British people left/right, we all support tax funded healthcare.

It is the sign of a civilised society in my opinion.

I think the US should have universal healthcare in some form like most other developed countries.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That's close to impossible to implement.

Both parties are paid and in bed with corporate factions. They both want to benefit their super pac contributors.

If they put a luxury tax on consumables (alcohol, tobacco, junk food, fast food) than maybe they could find it.

But let's be real, Americans want their cake and eat it too. Either way, trust a politician from either party to have your best interest at heart instead of their bankroll... That's your folly.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

There is already a tax on tobacco. In some places, it's so high there is a thriving black market in cigarettes.

As for the rest, you end up hurting the poor the most or you have the effect of the tax actually working as intended, meaning people avoid the tax by avoiding the consumable. Then you have a shortfall you have to make up by taxing other things.

a reply to: ketsuko


Except lack of health care, healthcare costs, and related bankruptcies harm the poor a lot more in the US.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think it's mainly that corporatocracy and related issues that inhibit it. Rule by the rich for the rich. We already have virtual universalized education at least for k-12. It's doable I think.

There are more people in ny who will never contribute one dime to healthcare then there are those who do contribute.

It will slowly drain the money out of those who do pay and provide healthcare for those who do not.

Citizens should not be paying for illegal aliens.

How is this guy even voted in?

There are that many rich retards in myc?

Clearly the plan is to centralize poor people near coastal areas in gridlock for the coming flood - sneaky democrats

a reply to: ketsuko

There is already a tax on tobacco. In some places, it's so high there is a thriving black market in cigarettes.

Right, but I was saying something on a larger scale, that market exists because localities and states have different prices.

As for the rest, you end up hurting the poor the most or you have the effect of the tax actually working as intended, meaning people avoid the tax by avoiding the consumable

Which is quite literally the point. The problem we have in this country is that we spend more per capita and get less, we also have higher rates of preventable diseases caused by poor diets. This is because much of the time the cheaper food is the less healthy food, and ironically more processed.

Then you have a shortfall you have to make up by taxing other things.

Kind of. If we can address root causes like obesity and precursors to diabetes, than while you are taking in less revenue, the cost at the end is lower as well.

All that said, I said IF we do a universal health care, that's how I'd want to see it, it would be compromise and explain how we could pay for some of the extra costs. Want to smoke cigarettes, eat fast food, and drink alcohol each night, you're still free to, but in this system you would pay more than someone making healthy lifestyle decisions. Hypothetically you are paying for what you use. But I'm just spit balling, my employer pays my health insurance and even gives me 1,000 a year in an HSA to cover deductibles, so this isn't coming from a position of want or need.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think it's mainly that corporatocracy and related issues that inhibit it. Rule by the rich for the rich. We already have virtual universalized education at least for k-12. It's doable I think.

You're putting trust that politicians in America could pull it off, but yes hypothetically it could be done.

Funny how pharmaceutical won't blink an eye to get over 1,000% profit on a drug people need to survive and only clear a 30% profit in another country.

from what i've seen American healthcare is only more expensive due to so many other western nations imposing pricing regulations thus forcing pharmaceutical companies to raise prices to make up for the loss of profits in other markets, namely our market which makes up 40% of their global profits.

the only way prices are going down in America is if nations employing pricing regulations remove those regulations and allow the free market to function properly once again.

you read that right, pricing regulations in foreign nations that keeps prices artificially low are what drives up the prices in America and any other nation that doesn't regulate prices,it's almost like these nations are trying to sabotage the global free market by using our high prices as an example how capitalism doesn't work.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
a reply to: DanDanDat


FUnding is a real question, for sure.

As you say, the transportation infrastructure and system is in dire straights, and we need that funded too.

It will pay for itself in reduced service costs.

The poor (and working poor) don't go to doctors - they "tough it out" and if things get worse, they will eventually go to the hospital in full-blown medical crisis. That means an expensive ambulance ride, emergency services, multi-day hospital stay, plus drugs, plus a prescription that they can't pay for. And six weeks later they're back again (I learned this from a few days of doing a ride-along with a fire crew.)

It's particularly a problem if it's a working adult with diabetes (which is usually complicated by sleep apnea and other things.) They can hang on for years, with an expensive emergency room run every two months.

I just looked it up... around 10 percent of the population in the US has type 2 diabetes (in New York City, that would translate to around 800,000 people. Around 20 percent of those are poor (looking at statistics; the real numbers are different, I'm sure). If my numbers are right, that would mean about 16,000 people in NYC are living in poverty and have diabetes and who have this pattern of emergency room visits.

You can guesstimate from there, but it's clearly a huge financial burden on the city.

Compare that to the cost of a doctor's visit ($150 here in Dallas for an uninsured person) and the cost of meds (uninsured) which could run another $400/month - you could cover someone's doctor visits AND insulin for an entire year ($6,000 OR SO) with the cost of one trip to the ER (which is in the range of $2,000 up... my visit to the ER for a heart problem was over $8,000)... and still have money left over.

Plus it reduces family chaos and since they're healthier they can work longer or hold down a job.

And that's just for diabetes... not other things.

a reply to: namehere
Price restrictions and haggling for the best deal won't be stopping anytime soon in nations with tax funded healthcare. They are all chasing the cheapest price and if US companies refused to offer deals the EU nations would just buy a generic copy cloned in countries like India who have basically flipped the finger to US drug companies, making their own copies.

The prices are high in the US because the drug companies can get away with it. Don't blame foreign nations for the problems in the US healthcare system, that is ridiculous.

a reply to: namehere

either way i think a universal healthcare system will never work in America and would actually drive up prices many times higher than it already is, so canada, Europe, all western friends how about reducing those pricing regulations to help us out a bit, otherwise America will never be able to accept your ideas on universal healthcare or whatever you call it because it will fail horribly when we try as things currently are.

New York is going to learn a hard lesson if they go through with this as things currently are.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

corporations are part of a global market so how is it ridiculous to point out that one nation forcing prices down artificially will drive prices up in another nation? the more nations that do it the higher the price goes up for other nations not doing it.

originally posted by: namehere
New York is going to learn a hard lesson if they go through with this as things currently are.

That we find agreement on
Anyone with cancer or whatever is just going to either move to NY or use a friends address to qualify.
I can even see criminals renting out scam addresses on paper so people can register and get treatment.
...unless the whole nation has tax funded healthcare there will be 'health tourism' as there is in the UK.

On a related note, I have two different friends who have married US friends just so they could get life threatening treatment in the UK which they couldn't afford. I have a dear US friend and I'd do the same for her if she had cancer or whatever and was facing losing her house. She knows this and it is a health survival plan between friends.

Another thing people do is arrive in the UK on a tourist visa when chronically sick, present themselves at an NHS hospital then get treatment with a bill chalking up in the background, say major surgery or similar. Once treated they get given the bill and simply leave the country. The NHS will never see the money once they are back in their home nations.
This story is an excellent example. The debt is civil, not criminal so the patient cannot be detained at the airport when fit to fly home. www.bbc.co.uk...

originally posted by: namehere
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

corporations are part of a global market so how is it ridiculous to point out that one nation forcing prices down artificially will drive prices up in another nation? the more nations that do it the higher the price goes up for other nations not doing it

Nations outside of the US strike their own deals with drug companies. Why would the UK NHS accept a deal of £300 a pill if they can haggle the price down to £30?
The drug companies still profit from the sale and they agree to the cheaper price because frankly, big bucks and the UK will buy it elsewhere if the price is too high.
As I said, India copies loads of US drugs now, no way will the NHS volunteer to pay higher prices, they'd go elsewhere.

It's like me being at the market and not haggling the price because some other poor customer will pay more than I did. That ain't happening any time soon lol

a reply to: Byrd

I may have missed you posting earlier---but I'd be curious to see the stats on emergency room visits. While I am sure there is a healthy percentage of people that can't afford routine care eventually getting sick and having to go to the er---how does that stack up against the hypochondriacs----the ones desperate for a scrip (which I know has been made much more difficult so that might be moot) but also what about the ones who go because they simply know the hospitals cannot turn them down.

One of the main problems with ACA----and I am blowing past all the political bs--is that quite simply--people that never had to pay a bill before don't want to pay a smaller one now. This is the most common complaint I hear from people in the medical industry--people expect top notch care and crack diagnosis but they just don't want to pay.

I want it to work----but it seems like so many of these proposed plans don't touch upon a huge issues---sure costs are bad---prices are up. But people are just not paying.

Something has to change. I also forgot about on of the biggest issues with government run health care plans---no private practices want to take them. Or they get over burdened quickly and then people are left without options.

March 11, 2019

De Blasio made a curious statement when he eliminated meat from Monday meals, at NYCity schools today.

“Cutting back on meat a little will improve New Yorkers’ health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” De Blasio said. “We’re expanding Meatless Mondays to all public schools to keep our lunch and planet green for generations to come.”

Source: saraacarter.com...

Do people expel less gas, if they eat less meat? Maybe only if we're in a greenhouse?