Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Dwagner6 t1_j5dbell wrote

Reply to comment by miltonfriedman2028 in NYC Council has no plan to pass bill that would let Mayor Adams charge retired city workers for health care: ‘It’s dead’ by F_T_N_32

Hudson Yards received something like $6 billion in public subsidies. I’m alright with some better than average benefits for retired city workers.

55

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j5ddnlc wrote

It seems like there is some fuzzy math here. While there is no doubt Hudson Yards got some benefits. Half the 6 billion was the cost if the 7 line extension. That is something that should of happened one way or another. It's not fair to say the cost of a subway extension is a subsidy to a large building project.

−14

miltonfriedman2028 t1_j5dcg97 wrote

That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Just because one bad thing happened (and its arguable if subsidies are even bad), doesn’t mean we should allow a seperate unrelated bad thing to happen.

−34

Dwagner6 t1_j5dcv43 wrote

I don’t think it’s a bad thing that retired city workers are enjoying nice benefits. I’d rather they get tax payer subsidies than some vacant, soulless parking lot for obscene wealth.

41

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j5de6qg wrote

It makes no sense that city workers don't go on Medicare like every other American. It's unaffordable to fund retirees Healthcare when there is a good federal system. I have read 20% of the city budget goes towards retire costs. Then ask yourself why city infrastructure and many other programs are underfunded.

−40

mowotlarx t1_j5dh4c3 wrote

Medicare Advantage isn't Medicare.

18

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j5e2kw0 wrote

I did not say Medicare advantage. I said why does NYC pay for retirees Healthcare at all. Almost every other American relies on Medicare in retirement. If it's good enough for every other American why is it not good enough for workers in NYC.

Paying for Healthcare for city in retirement cost the city I bet costs at least 10% of the NYC budget and there is zero reason for it.

−26

danroman79 t1_j5ej0s3 wrote

Because it was negotiated and earned by these workers, period.

25

Myotherside t1_j5enyoj wrote

People waste time trying to argue why someone else should have less, without ever stopping to ask if we all deserve basic human dignities like medical care or retirement

16

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j5esu1r wrote

OMG some people parrot the same lines over and over again without critical thought or reading. I am not proposing the workers don't have Healthcare. I am proposing they just have the same government funded Healthcare that is good enough and every other American in the country.

Why does NYC have to pay for lifetime Healthcare when a the federal government will pay the bill.

−3

PuzzleheadedWalrus71 t1_j5fcfe7 wrote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe retirees do go on Medicare at 65, and the city pays the 20% that Medicare doesn't cover.

5

danroman79 t1_j5h04bh wrote

This was negotiated with concessions from the union side. To now come in and take that away is ridiculous. The same deal would t have been reached if the employees knew this benefit was bullshit.

2

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j5esk4k wrote

Ugh yes I get that and it's unaffordable. The city needs to take a stand and stop this wasteful and unaffordable practice in contract negotiations. Everyone complains how expensive things are and then wonder how could this be. Why is the infrastructure crumbling? Because money that should be used for infrastructure or additional teachers or cops is used to pay a good portion of its budget for something that would be provided by the feds. It's stupid.

−5