New study touts benefits of single-payer health care for New York; health plans disagree

March 13, 2015


Research on a proposal for universal healthcare in New York says the benefits of a single-payer insurance system would reach beyond the economy. Advocates and opponents of the bill agree on that that note, but in very different ways.




WBFO’s Avery Schneider reports on the opposing views towards the New York Health Act

If the New York Health Act were passed, it would eliminate the need for private healthcare companies in the state. Leslie Moran of the New York Health Plan Association says the bill’s sponsor, Democratic State Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, isn’t considering the job loss the bill would create.

Inside a hospital room in Buffalo, NY.

Inside a hospital room in Buffalo, NY.

Credit WBFO News file photo

“We’re talking about thousands, tens of thousands of jobs in the state that would be eliminated if he had his way and said we don’t need insurance companies, therefore we don’t need the people who work for them,” said Moran.

But the study, conducted by University of Massachusetts Economics Professor Gerald Freidman,says not only were those jobs considered, but there is an expectation of what would happen to them. The bill would provide a program for up to two years of unemployment benefits and job retraining.

Friedman said the savings from getting rid of private healthcare would lead to a development boom in New York that would wash out the job concern.

“Two hundred thousand new jobs will be created and those will more than soak up the unemployment created by displacing people,” Friedman said.

The bill still needs to garner more attention in the capitol, something Gottfried is convinced the results of the study will help with.



2 Responses to “New study touts benefits of single-payer health care for New York; health plans disagree”

  1. bill shaver on March 15th, 2015 8:53 am

    You are dreaming in technicolour if you think for a miniute your going to get rid of the health insurance companies.
    There may be less of them but they will be selling policies to the state and fed govts to cover all, paid for revenue collections from the collection pot, pure and simple.

  2. Dablyo on December 3rd, 2015 8:29 pm

    ?????? I see you have no grasp of what employment is all about. You see, somneoe is hired to WORK, for which they are PAID so that they have money to LIVE on. People aren’t going to work for no compensation, and just starve to death in the streets in return for their work. One necessity of life is access to medical treatment as needed, and preventive care on a regular basis. Thus, if people can’t get this from the compensation they get from their work, uh, well, there is no other way for them to get the money to pay for health care. Insurers offer discounted rates to groups. That’s why most people have gotten their health care through their employers it’s cheaper. If an employer won’t buy the cheaper insurance, they’d have to pay a vastly higher salary, so their employees can afford the more expensive rates. I really don’t get what wing-nuts don’t understand about all this. Do wing-nuts really think the reason people take jobs is for fun? Where do wing-nuts expect people to get the means to survive, if not from their employers? Uh, whoever told you the purpose of making sure people who have jobs can get access to health care was job creation is either a liar or deeply brain-damaged. The purpose of affordable health care is to prevent needless suffering and death, NOT to create jobs. Yes, it seems right to all SANE people that employees are compensated for their labor sufficiently to maintain their lives. Why doesn’t that seem right to YOU? Why do YOU think people work? If people aren’t supposed to be compensated for their labor, how do YOU expect them to live?