New York’s Disastrous Single-Payer Healthcare Plan

One World Trade Center, New York, New York City
(Photo by Joe Mabel) (CC BY-SA) (Resized/Cropped)
The New York Assembly and Senate held a joint hearing on May 28th to hear testimony regarding the New York Health Act (NYHA), with a good variety of views represented, but the underlying premise was that something is broken with New York’s healthcare system, and that politicians need to do something about it. The NYHA is what they plan to do.
The act would radically alter healthcare and insurance in the state, eliminating traditional health insurance coverage, replacing it with a comprehensive, single-payer plan. It is being touted as being publicly funded, and that no New Yorker would have to pay premiums, copays, or deductibles. Since employers would have to pay premiums to the state, though, and employee cash pay is reduced for health insurance, it is absolutely not true that people would not pay premiums. They would just be hidden in employer contributions. More dishonest is the progressive income taxes in individual incomes. The premiums you would pay for insurance will simply be new taxes you pay to the state. Publicly funded doesn’t mean that the healthcare fairy magically rains down money to pay for medical care. Premiums convert to taxes.
Promoters of the plan propose that everybody in the state can be covered for everything with no personal responsibility, and that the people of the state will miraculously save money over the current system. One of the presenters at the hearing, Dr. Peter Arno, a research fellow at the progressive think tank, Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), was typical of those who support the idea, stating that “Evidence from around the world demonstrates that publicly financed universal healthcare systems resulted in improved health outcomes, lower costs, and greater equity.”
Dr Arno’s evidence certainly isn’t comprehensive, and has many hidden assumptions within aggregate statistics that make it very difficult to compare systems. Around the world means including universal coverage countries like Venezuela. While the people there certainly share greater equity in misery, I don’t think that they view that as a benefit.
The claim of better outcomes includes assumptions embedded in gross aggregate statistics of health outcomes that make it very unlikely that performance of actual health services in vastly different national and regional environments can be easily and reasonably compared. For whatever reason, Americans tend to be risk takers more than most. If twenty year olds die when a parachute doesn’t open or a speeding car crashes, that is not a health system outcome. If more Americans get lung cancer because more Americans smoke, or more die as a result of higher obesity levels, that is not a health system outcome. Aggregate statistics don’t eliminate out those factors. Actual American care for those things is as good or better than anywhere when you look at actual outcomes of medical procedures.
Yes, American care is expensive. It has gotten excessively more costly in proportion to the increase in government intervention in healthcare and insurance over a number of decades. The high cost is the direct result of politics and not of healthcare markets. Those markets have been increasingly strangled all the while being blamed for everything that is wrong.
Decreasing overall costs while giving everyone everything they want is another progressive pipe dream. Countries that are used as examples of success have been cutting back on the welfare state for decades. The government of Finland stepped down in March because of the problems of healthcare cost. We would be headed in the direction they are moving away from or presently suffocating under.
New York does need reform. It needs to roll back the decades of regulation so actual markets, competition, and consumer choice can function as they did before politicians decided they know better.
Originally published on Townhall Finance.
Daniel J. McLaughlin is the author of “Compassion and Truth-Why Good Intentions Don’t Equal Good Results.” Formerly a finance executive, he is now focused primarily on writing on economics, business, and politics. You can find him at daniel-mclaughlin.com.
Trending Now on Affluent Christian Investor
Sorry. No data so far.
The Affluent Mix
Biden Oblivious To Illegal Immigration Issues... August 2, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Rob Arnott On Bubbles, Inflation, And Once-In-A-Generation Investment Opportunit... August 2, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

The Federal Reserve’s Massive Theft Of Stability... August 2, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

What To Do About This Difficult Market? August 2, 2021 | David Bahnsen

Letter On The Politicization Of Corporations... July 26, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Peak Of The Fake Bull Market July 26, 2021 | Michael Pento

Woodrow Wilson’s Administrative State vs. Gold... July 26, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

Dividends, Energy, And Crypto July 26, 2021 | David Bahnsen

Whose Side Are You On? July 26, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Media, Left Ignore These Dangers July 19, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Mark Skousen On FreedomFest And How To Measure The Whole Economy... July 19, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Quantifying The Quantitative, Or Making Easy The Easing... July 19, 2021 | David Bahnsen

The Gold Standard Means A Rising Standard Of Living... July 19, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

Book Review: Brian Domitrovic Reveals The Monetary Genius Of Arthur Laffer... July 19, 2021 | John Tamny

Steve Forbes: Time To Worry About Inflation, Not Hyperinflation... July 12, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

UFOs Rescue Biden July 12, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Read This Classical Economist’s 200 Year Old Warning About Paper Money... July 12, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

How Central Banks Murdered The Markets July 12, 2021 | Michael Pento

Everything There Is To Know About The Stock Market... July 12, 2021 | David Bahnsen

AT&T CEO: We’re Ill Equipped For Politics, And We’re Spending A Lot Of ... July 6, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Internet Bias Distorts National Conversation... July 6, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

The Halfway Point Of 2021 July 6, 2021 | David Bahnsen

Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.