Posted on 06/21/2013 1:56:49 AM PDT by markomalley
Would-be mayor Anthony Weiner believes he has found a way for New York City to stand up to rising health care costs: the government, if he gets to helm it.
The former Congressman revealed Thursday he wants New York City to act as a “single-payer laboratory,” funding employees’ medical expenses directly instead of paying the employees through insurance companies.
As such, Weiner wants city workers to pay 10% of their own salaries for health care—and if they are smokers, a whopping 25%.
He claimed that the savings from this model's first three years could amount to $1 billion, saying, “I refuse to accept that these are non-controllable costs.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
O yeah! Another 10% (or 25%) tax, excuse me, fee to NYC. This is going to go well.
What a weener....
OK ... so those who already have been forced into Obamacare will get the pleasure of paying into Weinercare as well.
How you control costs in government healthcare is easy.
The government decides how much to put in healthcare, and that’s all that’s available.
The fact that people will die on waiting lists is secondary.
Actually, having public employees pay a portion of their healthcare is a good start.
NYC is unionized. Did “Flash” Weiner check with AFSCME on this?
What makes you think they don’t?
It’s like Leftists wake up each morning and say how can come up with a more dumbass idea then my fellow Leftists? Do they love to compete for dumbass of the day awards?
This is NYC. Ninety percent of NYC employees pay zero on their healthcare:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/city-workers-pay-share-article-1.1253576
How much of their salaries should they pay if they are perverts, and take pictures of their naughty parts and send them to unsuspecting cell phone users?
I'm sure NYC unions will be more than happy to tell their members that their health care costs are going from 0% to 25%. Obviously, this pie-in-the-sky scheme will never happen.
“and if they are smokers, a whopping 25%.”
What about those who engage in risky sexual practices and contract STS’s, AIDS/HIV and HepC? -—ALL lifestyle choices along with smoking.
You hit it partially. Why pick on smokers?
Shouldn’t homosexuals pay more?
One of the ways of lying about this issue is the change of language. Single payer is monopoly. Economists have studied monopolies and they are NEVER mysterious. You pay more and get less. And they are enforced by Government.
Anyone who believes a monopoly will result in savings, has to be an insider to the monopoly...they are the only ones who save.
DK
What an idiot. That isn’t “single-payer,” it’s called “self-insuring.” A lot of companies do that, and it isn’t a laboratory for anything.
This is the problem with politicians who have never lived and worked in the real world. He proposes establishing health care financing for a single employer (New York City) using a means available to all employers (and used by many) right now, and thinks it is a “laboratory” for destroying the very system he’ll still be part of.
I truly cannot even find the words to describe how ignorant he is.
Actually, I will correct myself here - BigGovernment’s summary is a bit misleading. Following the links back to the Daily News article does not give a much clearer summary, but it does sound like he actually is proposing a single payer system within the city of New York, in addition to the City employee coverage changes mentioned above. The summary conflates these two different aspects of his plan.
Still idiotic, but for many more complicated reasons...
If he were to be honest it would 50% forale homosexuals.
But I thought there were no more pre-existing conditions.
I’m a smoker. I often wondered how the rumored “smokers tax” would be enforced. As for me, if anyone asks, I just quit! What are they gonna do? Blood test for nicotine?(probably)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.