New York – R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

Governor Zeldin?

David Posnett — Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:17:51 +0000

April 16, 2021: by Barbara Weber-Floyd from her blog.

I have learned a great deal about Lee Zeldin over the last few years. While my journey as an activist began in response to Hillary losing the presidential race in 2016, Indivisible taught me that protesting my own Republican member of Congress sends a powerful message. We had a lot to protest with Zeldin. In his first congressional race in 2014, he ran on a platform of lies, hate and fear; Trumpian before Trump was even a candidate. Under President Trump, Zeldin went from bad to worse.

Unfortunately, despite our protests and the attention we brought to his radical right-wing record, Zeldin kept winning. He squeaked by in 2018 despite it being a blue wave year and won again last year, this time by a comfortable 10% margin, even though Biden-Harris won New York with over 60% of the vote.

One of Zeldin’s winning strategies is outlined in my October 29^th, 2020 blog post: Two Zeldins. He plays a shell game, hiding his true voting record from the electorate in a fog of fake bipartisanship. Analyzing last year’s loss, it is clear we need to do two things if we are going to defeat him in 2022. First, we need a stronger Democratic candidate, not weakened by a divisive primary, and second, we need a better strategy to expose the Real Zeldin.

After the election, Real Zeldin upped the ante with his embrace of Trump’s Big Lie. He was one of the most vocal GOP voices in the House supporting the conspiracy theory of rampant voter fraud that stole the election from Trump. His social media posts, always divisive, were virulent. Then came January 6^th. In my first blog post of 2021, entitled Complicity, I wrote about the blood on Zeldin’s hands.

Zeldin’s shamelessness makes it even more important that we find a way to erase that fake moderate veneer and defeat him once and for all. This district deserves better than Lee Zeldin. Though we will be busy this year campaigning for our local candidates, both East End Action Network (EEAN) and the Southampton Town Democratic Committee (SHDems) have begun discussing initiatives that would keep the pressure on Zeldin. One idea from both is a letter-to-the-editor writing campaign.

Then, last week, Zeldin upended everything with an announcement that he is running for governor. Because of the scandals attached to New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo, a lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle are eyeing this race. Zeldin has started raising money and is conducting a tour of upstate New York. He does not have to withdraw from running for reelection here yet. Next year’s primary dates for the governor’s and congressional races have not yet been announced but when they are, he will then have to decide which ballot line to be on since you can’t be on two ballot lines at the same time. I have heard he has to decide by next April.

Over the coming weeks, I will be reaching out to many of my sources in the Democratic Party and the grassroots to ask them their thoughts about Zeldin running for governor. What do they think it means, for the governor’s race, for Zeldin and for our district? And just how worried should we be that this radical politician could now climb to higher, statewide office, despite his complicity in the COVID deaths in our district and the insurrection, not to mention his complete absence from any policies or legislation that would have helped us in our district?

To begin, I started with the EEAN leadership team. We held a Zoom meeting to discuss Zeldin, which I recorded. In attendance were Sharon Adams, Rebecca Dolber Ray, Patricia Callan, Cindy Salwen and new member Corinne Bernath. Absent leadership members Syma Gerard, Lisa Marrin and Wendy Turkington emailed me their reactions.

Syma: I can only hope that it’s a wonderful decision on Zeldin’s part. That he loses in the governor’s race and is gone from the House. If both primaries are the same day, I’ve read that he can’t do both.

Lisa: I hope that Cuomo doesn’t run. He is still very popular, but in my opinion, he has been governor long enough. Zeldin is a nightmare. I am hoping he faces a primary (against Guiliani’s son, perhaps) to split the party. At the end of the day, I think we need a strong, popular Democrat and then this whole Zeldin debacle goes away. Who? I don’t know. I am staying minimally involved right now but resting up for the fight.

Wendy: I feel hopeful that Zeldin’s decision to run for governor of New York will enable the Democratic Party to find a terrific candidate to run for CD#1 and we will finally have fair, intelligent, and impassioned representation in Congress. I don’t think the great state of New York will make the mistake of electing a failed, superficial, biased, and minimally informed former Republican representative such as Zeldin to its gubernatorial seat.

Below is a lightly edited and condensed transcript of our conversation. My first question to the group was about the wisdom of a right-wing Republican trying to win statewide in Democratic New York.

Right after Zeldin’s announcement, a grassroots activist posted on Facebook, “this may be the stupidest political decision of all time.” Voter registration in New York is two to one registered Democrats. I had the same reaction and wondered why he would want to lose a race for governor rather than probably win reelection to the House?

Sharon: I don’t think he cares about Long Island anymore. So, what does he have to lose?

Cindy: I think he thinks he can win.

Rebecca: I do, too. When I heard that he was running and I know the statistics and the numbers in New York and that everyone says a Republican can’t win statewide, but after 2016, I believe none of it anymore. I think anybody can win on any given day. This is intuition not based on any set of facts, but I feel that Lee Zeldin is the kind of man who does what he is told. So, if he was told to run for governor, Lee Zeldin is going to run for governor, and I think that he probably is going to have a lot of money behind him. I’ve been told that Republicans fall in line. So, I imagine if Lee Zeldin is running in the primary, it’s because they think Lee Zeldin is going to win. If he didn’t think he could win that primary, he seems like the kind of guy that would not do it.

Corinne: I agree. I come from a family of Republicans and I had six family members last week repost his announcement, and say, “Where do I sign up? What do we need to do to get Lee elected?”

Patricia: They love him.

Rebecca: This is his time. I feel it. I feel that he is the person that could unite enough of them to change the conventional wisdom of New York politics. I also don’t know what’s going on with all these voting machines in New York. Not to get too conspiracy-minded, but there’s a lot going on. I don’t think that we should ever say there’s no way he’s going to win which is what everybody said about Trump.

One thing that scares me is the press attention he has gotten so far, when he made his announcement and on this tour of upstate New York. They are buying into the fake Zeldin. Lazy reporters just took his press releases verbatim, never even mentioning Trump, January 6th and Zeldin’s vote to decertify the presidential election. The exception was the article in The New York Times.

Patricia: That’s why I think he has a shot because there are enough crazies still out there and because the upstate people don’t really know him. If their local press just takes everything he gives them, and we know he claims things that aren’t true, then they can be fooled.

Rebecca: Not to mention that Cuomo is weak right now. If he doesn’t resign and decides to seek out another term…

Patricia: Then Democrats might not vote and then we could be done.

Cindy: I’m even more cynical. I think he views the New York governorship as his stepping-stone to run for President.

Corinne: Agreed.

Patricia: Yes. I think he has always had higher aspirations. He’s got an inflated ego and being aligned with Trump has only increased that. I could see him going first for governor then trying to go against Gillibrand or Schumer for the Senate, all in preparation for a run for the presidency.

All the more reason why we have to get the word out there about the Real Zeldin.

Rebecca: My first question is what changes for us now that he’s running for governor? Do we just wait? Do we put together a plan to attack him in the primary?

Cindy: I don’t think we should get involved in any way in the Republican primary, except for something like letters-to-the-editor to a newspaper that was so lazy that they didn’t say anything about who he actually is or fact-checked his bio. That might be worthwhile. But I don’t think we should consider trying to stop him getting the nomination.

Patricia: For the governorship or further out here?

Cindy: For the governorship. I don’t want him to be governor, but we vote in our primary, they vote in theirs and then we try to knock him out.

Rebecca: Let the primary play out because we’re not part of it and then if he wins it, then we take up the cause.

Patricia: I don’t feel comfortable just waiting. Maybe there are postcards we could write to people or let them know what Zeldin’s voting record really is, like how bad he’s been for the environment, for women. He’s such a total hypocrite. People need to know this statewide. Who better to tell them than the people he inflicted this pain on?

Rebecca: Well, I would agree with you there and I think that this might be the thing that brings all the grassroots groups together, especially if he wins the nomination. We are going to need a collaborative effort to let the state know how horrible he actually is.

Sharon: Well, going back to our list of original initiatives, we had letters-to-the-editor on our list. It might be a good time now, when we don’t have a lot of other things on our plate, to start writing those letters. We have the resources from groups that have been tracking his voting record. Also, I have a lot of back letters regarding Zeldin from The Southampton Press that I have cut out and saved. Now might be a good time for us to jump on that initiative and each take a turn to do a letter. That would be what Patty was mentioning, letting people know now about how he’s voted or hasn’t voted.

Patricia: Yes. People across the state don’t really know him just like we don’t know their Congress people.

Rebecca: I think people across the state who have been paying attention know Zeldin. But I agree, the average voter probably doesn’t. I think your idea is a good one, Sharon. In fact, what you’re saying is making me think that maybe, in addition to the letter writing, we can do something with video to tell our stories about our experiences with Zeldin. I always tell the story about how before Trump was elected, I moved back to Center Moriches from New York City and Lee Zeldin was running for his first term in Congress. He took up an office in the King Kullen shopping center and I remember thinking, “Oh, who is this guy?” So, I read about him and learned just how horrible he is on gay marriage. Having this person with his main office in my hometown, just made me feel sick and sad.

I wonder if we could do a video-based project where we all tell stories about how this congressman has affected us. Just little snippets that could be passed around on social media. It might even be easier than writing a letter. Even if you don’t have a personal story about Lee Zeldin, you can talk about how it felt to have your congressman give that disgraceful speech on the floor of the House on the same day that the Capital was attacked. We could do a whole campaign about it. “We are not actors. We are constituents of Lee Zeldin.”

I have read about the short, 30-second videos on TikTok and when they go viral, they reach a lot of people, particularly a lot of young people. This video story project would powerfully expose the fake Zeldin that he’s pushing. He is even trying to take credit for the federal funds that saved the Long Island Railroad from further cuts, even though he voted against Biden’s American Rescue Plan.

Patricia: Right. We live in his district; this is who he is.

Cindy: But wouldn’t this be more useful to the general election if he is the candidate?

Rebecca: I agree. It’s a lot to take on now.

Cindy: Besides, who knows how Republican primary voters think? They might think these are good reasons to vote for him! It would probably be like a badge of honor that he’s being attacked so much by these “radicals” or whatever he calls us these days.

Patricia: No, I disagree with that because that’s like saying he is right and we are those radicals when the truth is that he’s the radical. We’re just saying what his voting record is, what he’s done and how he’s made us feel as his constituents. That’s not radical, that’s pretty straightforward.

Rebecca: But you know what? I don’t care what they think, because I’m not trying to change their minds. I think these videos are for new voters. If I was a young person and I saw this it would make me energized to vote. We have been talking about new ways to reach out to younger voters. This may be another way to do that.

What do you think the impact is going to be on the congressional race here in our district if he isn’t running?

Rebecca: Well, my first thought was he leaves a huge hole for a Republican who could be worse than him to run, which could be a good or bad thing. That was my thought.

Cindy: I think it will be a free-for-all on both sides. But at least with a primary on both sides, then we are not as screwed as in the past when there was a contentious primary on our side and an incumbent on the other.

Is the Curve Flattening in NY City?

David Posnett — Thu, 09 Apr 2020 16:00:45 +0000

There has been talk about the flattening of the curve of new reported COVID-19 cases indicating at the very least a slowing growth of the caseload in New York City. I found the following data in an interesting “working paper” by Jeffrey E. Harris from the National Bureau of Economic Research: The Coronavirus Epidemic Curve is AlreadyFlattening in New York City. It was posted April 7th. Others have also opined on the same topic: Joseph Goldstein in the NY Times; Bob Herman on Axios.

Here is a brief summary of the Harris paper.

Note the inflection of the curve of new reported cases/day around March 20, 2020, in NYC but not in Los Angeles. Also note the different case numbers: Y-axis 1-1000 for LA, 1-100,000 for NYC. Most certainly the situation in LA reflects an earlier time point in the progression of the local Coronavirus outbreak. NYC may be an indicator of what is yet to come in LA.

The most valuable part of the Harris paper (I think) is the discussion of the possible confounding variables.

(1) Constraints on Testing: on March 20 New York City issued a directive “Healthcare resources must be saved to treat the sickest patients who require inpatient and critical care.” The Department directed providers and hospitals to “immediately stop testing non-hospitalized patients for COVID-19 unless test results will impact the clinical management of the patient. In addition, do not test asymptomatic people, including HCWs [healthcare workers] or first responders.”

In deed there was an immediate dip in the number of tests by about 50% and a simultaneous dip in the number of reported cases by about 30%. But the dip in hospitalizations was much less prominent (about 10%) and they provide further data that show that the tests performed on hospitalized patients remained constant at about 17-23% of all tests performed:

Note: the Y axis is a logarithmic scale.

(2) Asymptomatic cases not considered: as many as 50% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic and untested, yet infectious and contributing to the rise in the counts of newly diagnosed each day. But Harris argues: “…there is no clear reason to believe
that the extent of understatement has changed significantly since the one-month takeoff period covered in Figure 1. So long as the ratio of undetected asymptomatic cases to detected symptomatic cases has remained constant”

(3) We are missing the false negatives: tests based on nasal swabs (RT-PCR tests) have a false negative rate in the range of 26.7–46.4% (Yang et al. 2020). That means routine nasal swab testing could be missing a lot of coronavirus infections. But has the percentage of false negatives changed significantly during the month of March 2020 to explain the flattening of the curve in NY City?

(4) What is the breakdown of the data by borough: There are reports of hospitals in Queens and the Bronx being overwhelmed and a heat map from the Dep. of Public Health, shows high levels of pos. tests in the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn. Harris presents data on new cases since March 21 broken down by borough. All the doubling times remain longer than the initial 1.3 days doubling time in early March, regardless of the borough. But the data for Manhattan are particularly good suggesting a flattened peak and leveling off.

(5) Diaspora from the city: assuming that those that fled the city (for their Hamptons 2nd homes, for example) have equal rates of infection than those that did not or could not, Harris has calculated that 90% of the New York City’s inhabitants would have needed to flee the city in order to cause the flattening of the curve in the top figure.

(6) Is the initial rapid progression realistic? The Ro number (‘basic reproductive number’, or number of people infected by one positive person) differs slightly depending on the city:

New York City: Ro=3.4 population density 27,016/square mile

Los Angeles: Ro=1.8 population density 7,544/square mile

Wuhan: Ro =2.2 -2.4 population density 3,200/square mile

This is most consistent with the high population density in NYC compared with LA, or even Wuhan. Population density in NYC has previously been discussed in the context of the pandemic. This is the most plausible cause of the rapid progression observed in New York City.

(7) Super-Spreaders: this theory suggests that the apparent flattening of the incidence curve is a result of extreme heterogeneity in the infectivity of the New York City
population, with a small proportion of the total population – on the order of 5,000 individuals – subject to the super-spread of the virus. While there are anecdotal reports of such super-spread in the New York City area (Williamson and Hussey 2020), Harris has not found clear evidence of a major source comparable to the 77 COVID-19 cases reportedly emanating from a late February Biogen meeting.

(8) Supporting Ancillary Data? Harris correctly discusses daily death rates as a poor and lagging indicator. By one estimate, it takes an average of 16 days from the onset of symptoms until a patient dies of complications and the time from initial
infection to death may average about 3 weeks. Harris also looks at thermometer data from Kinsa! I have previously posted on this blog about this exciting new way of assessing pandemic progression.

The downward slope of the red line is interpreted as a resolution of the Coronavirus outbreak. BUT it is very indirect data and there is no data presented for Los Angeles !!! Why not? If Harris is correct there should be no downward slope for Los Angeles.

In asking what makes the curve flatten, Harris discusses the obvious: social distancing, aggressive case tracking and effective public policy such as De Blasio’s order limiting gatherings, closing gyms and other places of congregation and reinforced by subsequent orders that all New Yorkers (except workers in essential businesses) must stay at home.

The discussion of voluntary behaviors is very relevant. Ridership on New
York City subways was already down 19 percent by March 12 and 60 percent by March 16 (Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2020).

The critical ingredient in the public policy mix may have been the successful communication of consistent, clear, accurate and timely information to millions of individuals, who responded by taking action without government coercion. Put bluntly, what flattened the curve was no more than the naked truth.

Finally, in NY City about 1/226 residents have so far contracted COVID-19. In Los Angeles, by contrast, it is about 1/4,100. The corresponding probability of knowing at least one infected person in a comparable size social circle is much less in L.A. than in NYC. People are therefore more motivated to take action to reduce risk in New York.

Harris, Jeffrey E., The Coronavirus Epidemic Curve Is Already Flattening in New York City (April 1, 2020). Forthcoming, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper Series Electronic . Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3563985 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3563985

Rally to protest Zeldin/Bannon fundraiser

David Posnett — Tue, 12 Dec 2017 02:54:18 +0000

Today, Dec 11th, in Patchogue we rallied to protest Bannon as the featured speaker in a Zeldin fundraiser scheduled for Dec. 14th in NYC. Today we submitted a petition with over 5000 signature to Rep. Zeldin’s office in Patchogue and rallied with speakers and chants. By my count there were 150 supporters in attendance and a small handful of bigoted Zeldin/Bannon/Trump supporters.

“Incensed residents…” says Patch.com. Darn right. https://patch.com/new-york/easthampton/constituents-protest-petition-bannon-zeldin-fundraiser

Enjoy these videos:

Trump’s DACA decision could strip thousands in New York of Medicaid coverage

David Posnett — Wed, 06 Sep 2017 14:57:01 +0000

When President Barack Obama created the DACA program in 2012, thousands of New Yorkers who were brought to the United States at a young age were suddenly eligible for Medicaid. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Trump administration’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program could strip thousands of New Yorkers of their health insurance, a consequence unique to New York that could focus the debate in Albany when the Legislature returns in January.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Tuesday that the Obama-era program, which granted legal status to approximately 800,000 children brought to the United States by their parents, would begin to unwind in six months.

That provides Congress a brief window to solve one of the nation’s most divisive issues. Should Congress fail, New York could face its own difficult choice: whether to continue providing Medicaid to the DACA population.

There are approximately 42,000 DACA recipients in New York. The vast majority are at risk for losing their job-based health insurance if they lose their legal right to work. The Department of Health could not say how many DACA recipients currently rely on Medicaid but estimates are between 5,000 and 10,000.

New York is one of the few states that provides health insurance to non-citizens, or people residing under the color of law (PRUCOL). That’s because of a 2001 Court of Appeals ruling that said denying Medicaid to any legal resident violated the equal protection clauses of the New York and U.S. constitutions. As a result, immigrants in New York who are not citizens, but are living in the state lawfully, are entitled to Medicaid.

When President Barack Obama created the DACA program in 2012, thousands of New Yorkers who were brought to the United States at a young age were suddenly eligible for Medicaid. It also allowed them to pay taxes.

Because the federal government does not recognize the state court’s decision, New York, which usually receives a 50 percent match for Medicaid expenses, pays the full cost for insuring these immigrants.

If they lose their DACA status and revert to being undocumented immigrants in the eyes of the law, they may also lose their right to Medicaid.

Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president of health initiatives for the Community Service Society and a co-founder of Health Care For All New York, said the status of these immigrants is unclear.

She pointed to Trump’s statement, which said these DACA recipients would not be a priority for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That may mean they are still residing under the color of law because they are not under immediate threat of deportation.

It’s a bit of a legal stretch, but even if the law isn’t on her side, she said, Gov. Andrew Cuomo should continue to have the state Medicaid program cover DACA recipients.

“I would advocate they be covered under state-only Medicaid,” she said.

Will they?

“That’s the $64,000 question,” she said.

Cuomo’s office did not immediately say whether the state would extend coverage to DACA recipients who lost their protected status. The Department of Health did release a statement, saying Trump’s decision “not only displaces roughly 42,000 innocent New Yorkers whose young lives are intertwined in the very fabric of our communities, it jeopardizes access to affordable health care for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who call America home. New York State believes it has a legal and moral obligation to exhaust every available avenue to protect immigrants and their families by providing comprehensive access to health care, regardless of circumstance.”

Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, a Democrat from Manhattan and chair of the health committee, said the Assembly “will do whatever is necessary to fill gaps caused by federal action.”

“New York has for years provided health coverage for many undocumented immigrants using State-only dollars, including Child Health Plus coverage for children regardless of immigration status,” Gottfried said in an email. “We will not change this regardless of Federal policy.”

Presumably, this would mean helping to insure those who lose their employer-sponsored coverage and need Medicaid. In New York that would mean the state could potentially fund Medicaid for all 42,000 DACA-status immigrants.

Rep. Tom Reed, a Republican from western New York, said Trump was “very wise” to recognize that DACA is not something that can be done by executive order.

“That which is done by the pen can be undone by the pen,” said Reed, who favors a legislative solution that protects children brought here by their parents.

But if that effort fails, Reed had reservations about the state picking up the Medicaid tab, given its already sizable Medicaid budget, which Reed called “mind boggling.”

The problem, he said, is how to draw the line. How can the state award Medicaid to some undocumented immigrants but not all? And if it is offered to all, then how can the state afford to cover them?

“From my perspective, if Albany wants to do that, I’ll defer to the state,” Reed said. “But they really should let folks know what they are doing in terms of expanding the program.”

While the state might have to cover more people, Benjamin drew a distinction between the DACA population and other undocumented immigrants. The DACA group, she said, has already made themselves known to ICE, further bolstering the argument the state could make that they are residing under color of law, while other undocumented immigrants are not.

“It is the state who decides who is PRUCOL and who is not,” she said.

Senate’s health care bill will cost New York’s Medicaid program billions

David Posnett — Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:59:30 +0000

Posted on Politico

New York was one of only two states to take advantage of the Essential Plan, also known as the Basic Health Plan, a program funded with the Affordable Care Act’s tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies. | Getty

ALBANY — The Senate’s version of the American Health Care Act would cost New York’s Medicaid program billions of dollars over the next decade, putting Albany in the position of having to choose between raising taxes or cutting services and programs for hundreds of thousands.

The bill, which is certain to change before coming to a vote, would also upend New York’s individual health insurance market, likely saddling many with higher deductibles and more expensive premiums.

“The Senate bill presented today, which was crafted behind closed doors by 13 men, would fundamentally harm Americans young and old, do severe damage to a fragile economy, and bankrupt state governments across the country,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said in a statement. “The cuts to Medicaid in particular are galling. … To end the Medicaid expansion created under the Affordable Care Act is a cruel joke.”

The state’s Essential Plan, which enrolls nearly 700,000 New Yorkers in low-cost health insurance plans, likely would not survive in its current form because it relies on federal funding that would disappear. The program provides health insurance for $20 per month to those with incomes between 150 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Those with incomes below 150 percent of the federal poverty level, who do not qualify for Medicaid, receive health insurance with no premium.

That would, on its own, be enough to severely handicap the Essential Plan but Republicans also propose prohibiting “lawfully present” immigrants from receiving tax credits. In New York, there are a couple of hundred thousand lawfully residing immigrants taking advantage of the Essential Plan. Without their tax credits, the state would have no method for funding their health insurance unless Albany decided to subsidize the insurance without federal help, a multi-billion dollar proposition.

A 2001 state Court of Appeals ruling requires that those residents, known as People Residing Under the Color of Law, receive Medicaid, which the state would once again have to pay for without any help from the federal government. That alone would cost the state $1.19 billion, according to an estimate from the state Department of Health.

On top of that, the Senate bill includes an amendment sponsored by Reps. John Faso and Chris Collins that would effectively prohibit the state from using county taxes to pay for the Medicaid program. That is expected to shift roughly $2.3 billion from county budgets to the state budget, and though it may ease the property tax burden in upstate New York, it will do nothing to ease the budget woes facing Albany in 2019.

The more severe Medicaid cuts would hit between 2020 and 2024, according to the Senate bill, which phases out the enhanced federal match states such as New York received from the federal government because of Obamacare.

In its place, there would be a per-capita cap assigned to each state. The per-capita cap would be based on what a state spent between 2014 and 2017, but high-cost states such as New York would see their per capita reduced by the secretary of Health and Human Services by as much as 2 percent.

Shoppers on the individual insurance market would see the value of their subsidies decrease. The Affordable Care Act pegged subsidies to a silver plan, which has an actuarial value of 70 percent, meaning insurers pay for 70 percent of the costs. The Senate version pegs subsidies to plans with an actuarial value of 58 percent. That will almost certainly mean New Yorkers who rely on subsidies will need to purchase skimpier plans with higher deductibles. Those who wish to buy the equivalent of silver plan will spend more out of their pocket on premiums.

The cutoff for income-based subsidies under the Senate plan is reduced to 350 percent ($42,210 for an individual) of the federal poverty level from 400 percent. Subsidies tied to the federal poverty level always hurt high-cost states such as New York where incomes tend to be higher than average, as does the cost of living. Basically, $43,000 goes a lot further in most other parts of the country so subsidies for health insurance aren’t as needed.

The Senate’s version is also worse for New York hospitals compared to the House version, according to the Greater New York Hospital Association, which pointed out that the House bill repeals the cuts to the Disproportionate Share Hospital program for Medicaid expansion states in 2020. The Senate does not, costing hospitals billions of dollars.

“It’s every bit as bad as the House bill. In some ways, it’s even worse,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday on the floor of the Senate. “The president said the Senate bill needed heart. The way this bill cuts health care is heartless. The president said the House bill was mean. The Senate bill may be meaner.”

The state Department of Health would not provide an estimate of how many people with incomes between 350 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level buy plans on the exchange, although the state does collect income information.

The agency also declined to predict the total cost of the Senate’s bill on New York, or its effects on the Essential Plan, providers or insurers.