[ THEME MUSIC ] >> ON THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "NEW YORK NOW," STATE LAWMAKERS LEAVE ALBANY FOR THE YEAR NEXT WEEK.

WE'LL LOOK AT WHAT'S EXPECTED TO PASS AND WHAT'S NOT WITH KATE LISA FROM JOHNSON NEWSPAPERS AND OUR OWN DARRYL CAMP.

THEN, NEW YORK COULD ADOPT A SINGLE-PARENT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM BUT BUSINESS GROUPS SAY THAT'S A BAD IDEA.

WE'LL DISCUSSION.

LATER, LAWMAKERS ARE CONSIDERING A MEASURE TO CAP EMISSIONS IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR.

WE'LL EXPLAIN.

I'M DAN CLARK AND THIS IS "NEW YORK NOW."

[ THEME MUSIC ] >> WELCOME TO THIS WEEK EDITION OF "NEW YORK NOW."

I'M DAN CLARK.

THE CLOCK IS TICKING IN ALBANY.

THERE'S NOW LESS THAN A WEEK LEFT IN THIS YEAR'S LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND WE DON'T KNOW IF LAWMAKERS ARE PLANNING TO PASS ANY BIG-TICKET ITEMS BEFORE THEY LEAVE FOR THE YEAR, BUT ONE ISSUE THAT'S GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION AT THE STATE CAPITOL IS CRIME AND SPECIFICALLY GUN CONTROL.

AND THAT'S NOT OUT OF THE BLUE.

CRIME IS UP ACROSS NEW YORK COMPARED TO PAST YEARS WITH A SPIKE IN SHOOTINGS STATEWIDE.

CITIES LIKE ALBANY, ROCHESTER AND NEW YORK CITY HAVE ALL SEEN SHOOTINGS SKYROCKET IN RECENT MONTHS IN A YEAR THAT'S TURNING OUT TO BE DEADLIER THAN BEFORE THE PANDEMIC AND DEMOCRATS SAY THAT'S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE AS THE WEATHER GETS WARMER.

ASSEMBLY MEMBER DIANA RICHARDSON.

>> WE KNOW THE SUMMER MONTHS ARE AHEAD OF US.

WE KNOW WHAT THAT BRINGS FOR BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES AND WE KNOW THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY MORE TIME ON OUR SIDE TO DECIDE WHEN IS THE RIGHT TIME TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT.

NOW IS THE TIME.

>> SO DEMOCRATS ARE TARGETING CRIME BY SETTING THEIR SIGHTS ON ILLEGAL GUNS HOPING THAT BRINGS DOWN THE NUMBER OF SHOOTINGS.

THE SENATE PASSED A PACKAGE OF GUN BILLS THIS WEEK, BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF THE ASSEMBLY PLANS TO TAKE THEM UP.

ONE OF THOSE BILLS WOULD SET NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR GUN OWNERS LIKE MENTAL HEALTH SCREENINGS AND DRUG TEST AND WHILE ANOTHER WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO SUE GUN MANUFACTURERS WHEN THEIR PRODUCTS ARE USED IN A CRIME.

BUT REPUBLICANS SAY THAT DEMOCRATS ARE MISSING THE POINT.

THEY SAY THE PROBLEM ISN'T JUST ILLEGAL GUNS.

IT'S A SHIFT IN CULTURE.

SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER ROB ORTT.

>> BUT THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HOLD GUN MANUFACTURERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS OF PEOPLE-- ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE ALREADY COMMITTING A CRIME BY POSSESSING AN ILLEGAL WEAPON, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT CHANGES ANYTHING.

CRIMINALS, THE VERY PEOPLE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY THAT WE NEED TO HELP, WE NEED TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM, THEY, BY DEFINITION, DON'T FOLLOW LAWS.

THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CRIMINALS.

>> AND THAT'S JUST ONE ISSUE THAT LAWMAKERS ARE CONSIDERING BEFORE SESSION ENDS ON THURSDAY.

LET'S BREAK IT DOWN WITH THIS WEEK'S PANEL, OUR OWN DARRELL CAMP IS HERE AND KATE LISA IS FROM JOHNSON NEWSPAPERS.

WELCOME BOTH.

KATE, LET'S GO TO YOU FIRST.

WE'RE WATCHING A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS FOR THE END OF SESSION.

ONE BIG ISSUE THAT COMES UP IS PAROLE REFORM.

WHAT'S GOING ON THERE?

>> YEAH.

SO ACTIVISTS HAVE BEEN RALLYING HARD ACROSS THE STATE.

WE HAVE BEEN SEEING RALLIES GOING ON CONCURRENTLY IN CITIES AT THE SAME TIME I THINK EVERY DAY THIS WEEK.

PEOPLE REALLY PUSHING FOR ELDER PAROLE AND FAIR AND TIMELY PAROLE PASSAGE.

IT'S BEEN BIG CONVERSATION.

A LOT OF LAWMAKERS SEEM TO BE GETTING BEHIND THE ISSUE, TOO.

JUMPING ONBOARD SAYING THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE THIS SESSION.

ELDER PAROLE SPECIFICALLY WOULD ALLOW FOR THE PAROLE HEARING FOR ANYONE IMPRISONED OVER THE AGE-- 55 OR OLDER WHO SERVED 15 YEARS ON THEIR SENTENCE AT LEAST AND THAT-- THE FAIR AND TIMELY PAROLE ACT WOULD ALSO JUST ACCELERATE-- >> IT'S A PRESUMPTION OF PAROLE.

>> LIKE THE PAROLE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO IF THEY WANTED TO NOT GRANT PAROLE BASICALLY PROVE WHY SOMEBODY SHOULD BE KEPT IN PRISON.

>> BUT AFTER THEY SERVED THE MINIMUM.

NOT JUST AUTOMATICALLY ARBITRARILY.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A STANDARD THERE.

>> RIGHT.

>> I THINK THIS WEEK, TOO, THE REPUBLICANS HAD A BIG PRESS CONFERENCE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THEIR OWN PAROLE REFORM THAT THEY HAVE, WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY STRENGTHEN THE REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SOMEONE TO BE CONSIDERED OR EVEN RELEASED.

SO I THINK THAT SHOWS THAT CLEARLY THE CONVERSATION IS GOING TOWARD MAYBE THIS AND WE'LL GET PAST THIS WEEK BEFORE THE END OF SESSION.

>> I THINK PART OF IT IS-- AND I SAID IT BEFORE IS THAT WE JUST DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON FOR THE NEXT SEVEN DAYS.

SESSION ENDS NEXT THURSDAY WHICH IS JUNE 10TH, SO WE HAVEN'T REALLY HEARD WHAT LAWMAKERS ARE DOING ON ANY BIG TICKET ITEMS.

DARRELL, WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING FOR END OF SESSION?

>> WELL, TWO THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL, SOMETHING REALLY IMPORTANT.

YOU'RE THE EXPERT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND THAT'S APPOINTMENTS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.

THEY SHOULD PROBABLY BE DEALING WITH THAT RIGHT NOW BUT THE PUSHBACK AGAINST MADELINE SINGAS AS A PROSECUTOR IS SIGNIFICANT.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT WILL ACTUALLY STIFLE HER BUT IT'S MAJOR.

AND THE OTHER THING IS GUN REFORMS.

IN RESPONSE TO STREET VIOLENCE, WHICH IS AN INTERESTING THING IF YOU WATCHED LAST WEEK'S SHOW, PAT FAHY WAS ON AND SHE TALKED ABOUT THAT FOR A WHILE.

THAT'S THE MAJOR BILL, THE ONE THAT WOULD ALLOW MANUFACTURERS TO BE SUED.

IT'S STRANGE, THOUGH.

IT'S A LITTLE ODD BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, IN THEORY THIS IS LIKE SUING ANHEUSER-BUSCH OR SOME EQUIVALENT FOR DWI CRASHES IF YOU WANT TO SUE GUN MANUFACTURERS FOR CRIMES THAT THE MANUFACTURERS THEMSELVES ARE NOT INVOLVED IN.

I THINK TO ADJUST STREET VIOLENCE TO A POINT WHERE PEOPLE FEEL SAFE, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A CULTURAL SHIFT.

SIMILAR TO WHAT WE SAW WITH DWI WHERE YOU HAVE MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING AND SIMILAR THINGS.

YOU HAVE EVERY HOLIDAY WHERE DRINKING IS INVOLVED.

THE GOVERNOR COMES OUT AND SAYS, HEY, DON'T DO THIS AND LOWER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT DO THE SAME THING.

WE HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN THE SAME THING AS FAR AS A CULTURAL SHIFT IN THE URBAN CENTERS AND WITH URBAN LEADERS.

SO THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY LEGISLATIVE.

>> SO I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.

I WANT TO STICK ON THE GUN CONTROL BILLS FOR JUST A LITTLE BIT.

WE HAVE THE BILL THAT YOU MENTIONED WITH PAT FAHY INTERVIEW THAT WE HAD ON LAST WEEK'S SHOW.

FEEL FREE TO GO ON OUR WEBSITE AND CHECK THAT OUT.

IT'S AN INTERESTING BILL.

THE WAY THAT IT'S FRAMED-- AND I WILL PUT ON MY LAWYER CAP FOR JUST A FEW SECONDS-- IS THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SUE IF THE GUNS CALLED A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THAT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH FOR PEOPLE IN COURT FOR PEOPLE TO SAY THIS SHOOTING HAPPENED AND HERE'S A PUBLIC NUISANCE.

>> WELL, GOING BACK TO THE ALCOHOL ANALOGY, WE KNOW THAT PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK.

SO WE'VE COME UP WITH WAYS TO SHIFT THINGS CULTURALLY.

PROHIBITION, IT'S NOT ABOUT GETTING RID OF ALL GUNS AS THEY'VE SAID, BUT SORT OF CLAMPING DOWN AND MINIMIZING THE TRAVEL BETWEEN STATES OR BETWEEN OWNERS OR BETWEEN OWNERS AND ILLEGAL THIEVES.

SO WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IS, ALTHOUGH THE OPTION IS AVAILABLE, I THINK, IT WON'T NECESSARILY BE USED.

MEANING, IT WON'T HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL AFFECT ON GUN CRIME.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING, TOO.

ANOTHER PART OF IT IS EDUCATION, TOO.

IF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THAT THEY CAN FILE THESE LAWSUITS WHICH HAS A LOT TO DO WITH LITIGATION, MAYBE THEY WON'T END UP FILING THEM.

SO THAT'S A BIG ISSUE THAT WE'RE WATCHING.

A PACKAGE OF GUN CONTROL BILLS PASSED THE SENATE.

AS WE SAID, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TOL HAPPEN IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

SOMETHING THAT DID HAPPEN THIS WEEK IN THE SENATE IS THEY PASSED THE ADULT SURVIVOR'S ACT.

KATE, I WANT TO GO TO YOU.

WHAT IS THE ADULT SURVIVOR'S ACT?

DO WE SEE IT GOING ANYWHERE IN THE ASSEMBLY?

>> THE ADULT SURVIVOR'S ACT WAS MODELED AFTER THE CHILD VICTIM'S ACT THAT WAS PASSED IN 2019.

SO IT OPENS A LOOKBACK WINDOW ALLOWING ANY VICTIM OF SEXUAL ABUSE WHO IS OVER THE AGE OF 18 TO FILE A CASE FOR AND SEEK JUSTICE AGAINST THEIR ABUSER.

THE CHILD VICTIM'S ACT WAS FOR INCIDENTS HAPPENED WHEN SOMEONE WAS 18 YEARS OLD OR YOUNGER, SO THIS IS FOR INCIDENTS-- AND I GUESS THERE'S CASES IN THE FASHION INDUSTRY, MODELS TALK ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF THING, LIKE PROCESSION THE TRAUMA, THEY NEED THIS LOOKBACK WINDOW NOW IF IT'S OUTSIDE THE STATE'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THESE KINDS OF CRIMES.

SO THAT PASSED THE SENATE.

IT STALLED IN THE ASSEMBLY.

I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

HAS BEEN FOR A WHILE.

I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO LEADING ACTIVISTS ON THE CHILD VICTIM'S ACT, GARY GREENBERG.

HE'S A SURVIVOR OF CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE AND HE TALKED ABOUT HOW THERE IS SIGNIFICANT FLAWS WITH THE CHILD VICTIM'S ACT IN HOW VICTIMS HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING TO GET LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THEIR CASES BECAUSE UNLESS THEY WERE-- UNLESS THEY'RE TRYING TO FILE SUIT AGAINST SOMEONE WHO HAS MONEY OR AN INSTITUTION THAT HAS MONEY, ATTORNEYS REALLY AREN'T INTERESTED IN PURSUING THEIR CASES.

SO HE'S SAYING THE ADULTS ACT IS MODELED EXACTLY LIKE THE CHIDE VICTIM'S ACT AND IT WILL CREATE THE SAME PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE WHO HAD THIS HAPPENED TO THEM WHEN THEY WERE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

>> THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING.

BECAUSE THAT ISSUE WITH THE CHILD VICTIM'S ACT HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE THEY PASSED IT.

ADVOCATES SAID THIS DOESN'T ENCOMPASS EVERYBODY WHO EXPERIENCED CHILD SEX ABUSE.

ONE ADVOCATE THAT I TALKED TO FREQUENTLY, CONNIE ALTAMIRANO, AND HER VIEWS ARE LIVE IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY AND DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY.

SHE HAD TROUBLE FINDING REPRESENTATION AS WELL, AND IT'S AN ONGOING PROBLEM.

THERE'S SO MANY ISSUES THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT AROUND THE END OF SESSION, BUT WE HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

OUR OWN DARRELL CAMP, THANK YOU.

KATE LISA FROM JOHNSON NEWSPAPERS, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ANOTHER BIG ISSUE WE HAVE OUR EYE ON IS HEALTHCARE.

FOR THE FIRST TIME, A MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY SIGNED ON TO SUPPORT WHAT IS CALLED THE NEW YORK HEALTH ACT.

THAT BILL WOULD OVERHAUL THE STATE'S CURRENT HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND REPLACE WIT A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM.

THAT MEANS EVERYONE IN NEW YORK WOULD BE PUT ON THE STATE'S HEALTHCARE PLAN RATHER THAN PRIVATE INSURANCE.

SUPPORTERS SAY THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS ABOUT THAT.

LIKE HOW NEW YORKERS WOULDN'T PAY ANYTHING OUT-OF-POCKET FOR HEALTHCARE EVER AGAIN.

BUT BUSINESS GROUPS SAY THE LEGISLATION, AS IT'S WRITTEN, COULD BE BAD FOR THE STATE'S ECONOMY.

I SPOKE ABOUT THAT WITH LEV GINSBURG FROM THE STATE'S BUSINESS COUNCIL AND ED FARRELL FROM THE RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.

LEV FROM THE BUSINESS COUNCIL, ED FROM THE RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NEW YORK HEALTH ACT, SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE IN NEW YORK.

IT'S A BIG IDEA THAT DEMOCRATS IN THE LEGISLATURE ARE TRYING TO PUSH THROUGH BEFORE THE END OF THIS YEAR'S LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

IT WOULD BASICALLY CREATE A WHOLE NEW HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FOR NEW YORK CALLED SINGLE PAYER, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE DETAILS ON THAT.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS BILL.

LEV, I WANT TO START WITH YOU.

BUSINESS GROUPS HAVE SAID THAT THIS BILL MAY CAUSE ECONOMIC CONCERNS FOR THE STATE AND MAY ACTUALLY BE BAD FOR NEW YORK'S BOTTOM LINE.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM HERE?

>> YEAH.

SURE.

I THINK IT'S AN UNDERSTATEMENT TO SAY IT MIGHT BE BAD FOR NEW YORK STATE, IT MIGHT BE BAD FOR THE BUSINESS CLIMATE, IT MIGHT BE BAD FOR THE ECONOMY.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF STUDIES THAT PRICE RANGE OF THIS PACKAGE RUNS ANYWHERE FROM OVER $100 BILLION A YEAR TO $250 BILLION ANNUALLY.

THERE'S A PROJECTED JOB LOSS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK OF 161,000 JOBS IMMEDIATELY AT THE INCEPTION OR THE ENACTMENT OF THE BILL TO BECOME LAW.

IT WOULD COMPLETELY CHANGE A NUMBER OF THINGS INCLUDING TAX STRUCTURE OR PUT A 10% PAYROLL TAX ACROSS THE BOARD.

80% OF THAT PAID BY EMPLOYERS.

20% OF THAT PAID BY EMPLOYEES.

SO YOU WOULD SEE YOUR AVERAGE EMPLOYEE HAVE AN INCREASE IN THEIR TAXES OF-- JUST PAYROLL TAXES ON THE LOW END OF 18% AND THAT WOULD BE FOR LOW EARNERS.

I THINK IT WOULD NOT BE HYPERBOLIC TO SAY IT WOULD BE AN ECONOMIC DISASTER IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

>> WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SINGLE PAYER, SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE BRING UP IS-- WELL, IT'S GOING TO COST A LOT OF MONEY, OBVIOUSLY.

BUT WILL THAT OUTWEIGH WHAT WE'RE ALREADY PAYING IN HEALTH PREMIUMS?

HAS THERE BEEN ANY ANALYSIS ON THAT IN TERMS OF THE NEW YORK HEALTH ACT?

WOULD IT COST MORE THAN PEOPLE ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR INSURANCE OUT-OF-POCKET NOW?

>> SURE.

IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON WHO YOU ASK.

IT'S GOING TO DEPEND INDIVIDUALLY.

BUT -- AND YOU CAN ALWAYS FIND FOLKS WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE, BUT BY IN LARGE, YOU'RE SHIFTING FROM PREMIUM TO TAXATION WITH NO CAP ON THE TAXATION.

THERE'S VERY LITTLE QUESTION THAT IT'S GOING TO COST MANY, MUCH, MUCH MORE.

AND JUST TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE, A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.

ONE WOULD BE IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE A LOWER EARNER, YOU'RE CURRENTLY NOT PAYING INTO THE TAX SYSTEM AS MUCH AND YOU MAY BE TAKING PART IN A MEDICAID PROGRAM OR YOU MAY BE TAKING PART IN ONE OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS THAT ARE BOTH STATE AND FEDERALLY FUNDED WHERE YOU ARE GETTING LOW COST COVERAGE.

THAT'S GOING TO GO AWAY.

YOU ARE GOING TO START PAYING THIS 18% TAX INCREASE THAT I MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO.

SO FOR THAT PERSON, IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE A VERY BIG DEAL.

FOR THE EMPLOYER, ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU ARE PAYING WHATEVER YOU ARE PAYING IN PREMIUM.

YOU ARE GOING TO BE SUPPLANTING THAT WITH AN 80% OF THIS 10% OVERALL TAX.

IF YOU REMEMBER BACK, MAYBE 10 YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE ACA, OBAMA CARE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE KEPT HEARING, THE MANTRA OUT OF WASHINGTON WAS, IF YOU LIKE YOUR PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PLAN.

>> RIGHT.

>> THIS PLAN MAKES ALL PLANS IN NEW YORK ILLEGAL EXCEPT THIS.

THE ABSOLUTE MANTRA HERE IS IF YOU LIKE YOUR PLAN, TOO BAD.

IT'S GONE.

>> YOU WOULD BE FORCED TO GO ONTO THIS.

YOU CAN'T KEEP YOUR PLAN.

>> IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL TO COVER SELL ANY OTHER INSURANCE PLANS OTHER THAN THIS.

>> THAT'S A GOOD SEGUE TO ADD.

THE NEW YORK STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION HAS THE POSITION THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE BENEFITS OF RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNDER THIS LEGISLATION.

OR, MAYBE YOU DO.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION?

>> CERTAINLY.

RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES HAVE SPENT THEIR WHOLE CAREER WAITING FOR THIS MOMENT.

>> BUILDING TOWARD THAT.

>> TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS THAT THEY'VE EARNED.

THERE'S A PROVISION IN THIS BILL THAT TALKS ABOUT LESSENING BENEFITS, WHICH IS QUITE ALARMING.

SPECIFICALLY IT SAYS IF, IN FACT, THIS NEW PLAN, THIS NEW YORK HEALTH ACT DIMINISHES YOUR BENEFITS, THAT YOU WOULD GO BACK TO WHERE YOU USED TO BE TO GET YOUR BENEFITS FROM THAT PROGRAM.

AS LEV JUST SAID, THAT PROGRAM NO LONGER EXISTS.

>> WOULD IT BE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE AS MUCH COVERAGE?

DO WE KNOW HOW THE PLANS WOULD CHANGE?

IS IT THAT CERTAIN THINGS WOULDN'T BE COVERED ANYMORE?

WOULD ANY COSTS GO UP FOR RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES?

>> WELL, WE DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S THE UNCERTAINTY.

THEY'RE ASKING US TO BELIEVE THAT IF WE GO INTO THIS NEW PLAN THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE BETTER.

SPECIFICALLY ALSO FOR-- YOU COULD BE A RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO NO LONGER LIVES IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU ARE GETTING BENEFITS EITHER, ONE, YOU'RE ON MEDICARE, WHICH A LOT OF OUR MEMBERS ARE, OR TWO, YOU HAVE A SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN MAYBE FROM YOUR LOCAL JURISDICTION, YOUR MUNICIPALITY OR YOUR COUNTY, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BASED IN NEW YORK AND THOSE PLANS WOULD NO LONGER EXIST.

>> IT'S TOUGH.

I COULDN'T IMAGINE BEING A RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEE AND BEING UNCERTAIN ABOUT THAT.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE BILL SPONSORS AS TO ACTUALLY HOW THIS IS ALL GOING TO WORK FOR THEM.

I DO WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE JOBS QUESTION WITH YOU, LEV.

YOU MENTIONED THAT WE WOULD LOSE THE-- THE STATE WOULD LOSE 160,000 JOBS IF THIS WENT INTO LAW.

CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT JOBS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE?

ARE WE JUST TALKING ABOUT JOBS IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY?

I GUESS, WHO ARE WE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF WHO WOULD NO LONGER BE EMPLOYED?

>> OF COURSE, YOU'D BE TALKING ABOUT JOBS IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY BECAUSE THEY WOULD CEASE TO EXIST.

YOU WOULD ALSO BE TALKING ABOUT JOBS IN THE PRODUCER COMMUNITY OR THE BROKER COMMUNITY.

PEOPLE THAT MAKE THOSE CONNECTIONS AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT SORT OF MOVES OUT FROM THERE.

THERE'S ALL KINDS OF ANCILLARY BUSINESSES THAT RELY ON THOSE BUSINESSES, QUITE FRANKLY, TO EXIST.

SO IT GOES DOWN TO EVEN AS MUCH AS THE LUNCHEONETTE DOWN THE ROAD FROM THE FACILITY WHERE A THOUSAND PEOPLE MIGHT BE LOSING THEIR JOB, AND IT'S NOT CONCENTRATED IN ONE AREA OF THE STATE.

THERE'S REALLY LARGE JOB LOSSES ON LONG ISLAND.

CERTAINLY IN NEW YORK CITY, ALL THE WAY UP THE HUDSON VALLEY AND THEN THROUGHOUT THE I-90 CORRIDOR.

SO THE PAIN WOULD BE FELT REALLY SORT OF ACROSS THE BOARD.

I THINK 161,000 IS THE NUMBER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN THE BILL IS ENACTED, WHEN IT GOES INTO EFFECT RATHER THAN SORT OF WHAT THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF THIS BILL COULD BE, WHICH COULD BE MUCH WORSE.

>> SO WE'RE ALMOST OUT OF TIME.

I HAVE ONE CLOSING QUESTION FOR BOTH OF YOU BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE-- EVERYBODY CAN AGREE THAT HEALTHCARE IN NEW YORK AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY IS TOO EXPENSIVE AND HEALTH INSURANCE IS UNAFFORDABLE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.

FROM BOTH OF YOUR PERSPECTIVES AND I'LL START WITH YOU FIRST, ED, HOW, IF NOT THE NEW YORK HEALTH ACT, CAN WE LOWER THE COSTS OF HEALTHCARE AND HEALTH INSURANCE IN NEW YORK?

>> WELL, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON LOWERING THE COSTS.

I CAN TELL YOU THIS.

THAT MOST PEOPLE LIKE THE INSURANCE THEY HAVE.

LET ME JUST ADD ONE OTHER THING THAT'S REALLY SCARY.

IF THE STATE WERE TO TAKE OVER ALL THE HEALTHCARE AND WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED, WE, SENIORS, RETIREES WHO ARE IN THE FIRST WAVE OF PEOPLE TRYING TO GET VACCINATED, IT WAS A DISASTER AND IT WAS HORRIBLE AND THE PROCESS WAS UNWORKABLE.

>> VERY DISORGANIZED.

>> ESPECIALLY FOR SENIORS.

>> YES.

>> WHO ARE NOT COMPUTER LITERATE, WHO NEEDED HELP AND GOING INTO THIS BRAVE, NEW WORLD I DON'T THINK IS THE WAY TO GO.

>> LEV, GO AHEAD.

>> I THINK THAT ED IS RIGHT.

WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE 95% COVERAGE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

WE HAVE TO CLOSE THE SMALL GAP AND THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS WE CAN DO IT.

AS FAR AS CONTROLLING COSTS OF HEALTHCARE, THERE ARE A SLEW OF THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE.

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD START MAYBE AT TAKING A LOOK AT SOME MALPRACTICE REFORM, LOOKING AT THINGS THAT ARE DRIVING UP THE COSTS UNNECESSARY TESTING, WHAT WE WOULD CALL DEFENSIVE MEDICINE AND WHEN IT COMES TO PLAN DESIGN, YOU KNOW, PLANS ARE REALLY-- THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE FROM A VERY, VERY NARROW SORT OF FIELD OF PLANS.

THERE WAS A TIME WHEN YOU COULD HAVE A MORE ROBUST CHOICE OF PLANS.

ONE THAT WAS MORE NARROWLY TAILORED TO MEETING YOUR NEEDS.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS CAN BE DONE ONE AT A TIME OR TOGETHER IN MORE OF A UNIVERSAL PACKAGE WITHOUT-- WITHOUT DOING SOMETHING SO UNBELIEVABLY EXTREME AND CREATING A HEALTH PLAN THAT'S, HONESTLY, MORE DRACONIAN THAN ANY IN THE WORLD WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CUBA AND BELARUS.

>> IT'S A REALLY INTERESTING CONVERSATION AND I THINK IT'S ONE THAT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE-- I DON'T KNOW, IN PERPETUITY UNTIL EVERYBODY IS HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY'RE PAYING FOR HEALTH INSURANCE AND WHAT WE'RE GETTING FROM HEALTH.

LEV GINSBURG FROM THE BUSINESS COUNCIL; ED FARRELL FROM THE RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.

THANK YOU BOTH SO IN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT.

>> AS OF NOW, IT'S ANYONE'S GUESS WHETHER DEMOCRATS WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEW YORK HEALTH ACT BY THURSDAY, BUT WE'LL KEEP NEW THE LOOP.

MOVING ON NOW, ANOTHER TOP AREA WE'RE WATCHING FOR THE END OF THE SESSION IS LEGISLATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

SOURCES TELL NEW YORK NOW THAT THE CLIMATE AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT ACT LIKELY WON'T PASS THIS YEAR.

THAT WOULD HAVE CHARGED A FEE ON FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES FOR CARBON EMISSIONS.

BUT A SIMILAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION STILL HAS LEGS.

THAT BILL WOULD CREATE A LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD, WHICH IS TARGETED AT VEHICLE EMISSIONS.

IT'S ALSO REFERRED TO AS A CLEAN FUEL STANDARD BY SUPPORTERS.

FOR MORE ON THAT, I TURN THIS WEEK TO JULIE TIGHE FROM THE NEW YORK LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS.

JULIE, THANKS 0 SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON TODAY.

>> OF COURSE.

LET'S START FROM THE BASIC.

WHAT THE CLEAN FUEL STANDARD, AND WHAT SHOULD PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT IT?

>> A CLEAN FUEL STANDARD IS A TECHNOLOGY-NEUTRAL APPROACH TO REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR.

IT REQUIRES ANY FUELS THAT EXCEED A STANDARD, WHICH WOULD BE A REDUCTION IN POLLUTION ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSPORTATION FUELS.

ANY FUEL DALLAS EXCEED THE STANDARD.

SO FOSSIL FUEL, THE DIRTY FUELS, GASOLINE AND DIESEL WOULD HAVE TO BUY CREDITS FROM ANY FUELS THAT ARE BELOW THE STANDARD AND THAT INCLUDES ELECTRICITY, IT INCLUDES RENEWABLE LIQUID FUELS, LIKE RENEWABLE DIESEL AND THAT WILL HELP US MOVE OFF OF FOSSIL FUELS AND INTO A CLEANER TRANSPORTATION FUTURE WHICH IS REALLY CRITICAL BECAUSE TRANSPORTATION POLLUTION IS 36% OF OUR CLIMATE POLLUTION THAT'S OUT THERE.

SO WE REALLY NEED TO TACKLE FOSSIL FUELS IN ORDER TO CLEAN UP OUR TRANSPORTATION SECTOR.

>> SO THEY BUY THE CREDITS.

WHERE DOES THAT MONEY GO?

IS IT USED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE?

ARE THERE ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSES?

>> ACTUALLY, IT STAYS WITH IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR.

SO IT GOES FROM THE DIRTY FUEL PROVIDERS TO THE CLEAN FUEL PROVIDERS TO HELP TO DEVELOP AND DEPLOY THE USE OF CLEAN FUELS, INCLUDING ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

WE THINK THIS IS REALLY CRITICAL.

IT COULD HELP TRUCK FLEETS.

IT COULD HELP TRANSIT FLEETS, TRANSITION TO CLEANER FUELS AS WELL AS ENTITIES LIKE WE KNOW LYFT, FOR EXAMPLE, MADE A COMMITMENT TO TRANSITION THEIR FLEETS TO ALL ELECTRIC BY 2030 ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE SOME SUPPORTS OR INCENTIVES TO HELP THEM GET THERE.

A CLEAN FUEL STANDARD WOULD GO TO THOSE PROVIDERS FROM THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY.

SO REALLY MAKING THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY PAY FOR THIS TRANSITION TO A CLEAN TRANSPORTATION FUTURE, WHICH MAKES SENSE TO US BECAUSE THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY IS REALLY THE ONES WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLIMATE CRISIS WE FIND OURSELVES IN.

>> SO THE STATE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY PANEL HAS RECOMMENDED THAT NEW YORK ADOPT A CLEAN FUEL STANDARD.

THERE IS A BILL IN THE LEGISLATURE THAT WOULD DO JUST THAT.

CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE BILL?

WHAT'S IN IT?

WHAT ARE THE GOALS AND PARAMETERS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT?

>> SO SENATOR PARKER AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN CARRIE WOERNER CARRY LEGISLATION THAT DOES EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY PANEL MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE A CLEAN FUEL STANDARD GOING FORWARD.

THE BILL WOULD REQUIRE A REDUCTION OF 20% OF POLLUTION FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR BY 2030 JUST FROM THE FUELS AND THAT IS A VERY NICE COMPLEMENT TO LEGISLATION THAT THE LEGISLATURE PASSED EARLIER THIS YEAR REQUIRING ZERO EMISSION SALES BY 2045 OF ALL VEHICLES, INCLUDING MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES WHICH MEANS WE HAVE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME WHEN WE'RE EXPECTING THAT VEHICLES ARE SUDDENLY USING SOME KIND OF COMBUSTION ENGINE.

THIS WOULD ENABLE US TO START REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF POLLUTION FROM THOSE FUELS DURING THAT TIME WHILE REMOVING-- ACCELERATED THAT MOVE, FRANKLY, TO ELECTRICITY.

THE BILL WOULD SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE A 20% REDUCTION BY 2032.

IT WOULD APPLY TO ALL FUEL PROVIDERS AND AGAIN, WE LOOK AT THIS AT A LIFE CYCLE BASIS.

IT REQUIRES THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION TO SET UP THAT STANDARD AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING ACTION TO REDUCE THOSE EMISSIONS.

IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR FUELS THAT WE OTHERWISE THE STATE OF NEW YORK COULDN'T REGULATE, LIKE AVIATION FUEL TO BE INCLUDED.

THEY COULD VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATE IN A MARKET WHICH WOULD HELP US TO REALLY WORK ON REDUCING AIR POLLUTION FROM AIR TRAFFIC THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO OTHERWISE TACKLE.

>> SO A BIG PART OF THIS IS THAT IT REPLACES THE BURDEN ON FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES TO PAY FOR IT.

THAT OBVIOUSLY COMES WITH SOME COSTS.

CAN WE SEE THAT TRICKLE DOWN TO CONSUMERS?

IN OTHER WORDS, COULD WE PAY MORE AT THE PUMP IF THIS PASSES?

>> YOU KNOW, THE PRICE OF GASOLINE AT THE PUMP AND THE PRICE OF DIESEL FUEL AT THE PUMP IS PART OF A MUCH BIGGER GEOPOLITICAL SENSITIVITY.

WE SEE THAT GAS PRICES JUST WENT UP BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TRAVELING ON MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND.

GAS PRICES WENT UP WHEN THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE PIPE LINE.

GAS PRICES GO UP WHEN THERE'S POLITICS HAPPENING IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

WE HAVE NOT SEEN IN CALIFORNIA AND OREGON, WHERE THEY HAVE HAD A CLEAN FUEL STANDARD FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, WE HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN ANY IMPERICAL STUDIES THAT SHOW A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE PRICE OF LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD AND THE PRICE AT THE PUMP, BUT WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN FOSSIL FUEL USAGE.

WE HAVE SEEN IN CALIFORNIA IN 2019, 2.5 BILLION LESS GALLONS OF FOSSIL FUELS WAS USED AS A RESULT OF CLEAN FUEL STANDARD.

20% OF THE CREDITS WENT TO ELECTRICITY OR FOR EV-RELATED WORK AND THEY ARE NOT 20% OF THE FUEL MARKET RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE LOWER THE CARBON INTENSITY OF YOUR FUEL, THE MORE CREDITS YOU'RE GOING TO GENERATE FROM THAT, AND WE KNOW THAT BASED ON THE PRICES IN CALIFORNIA AND THE AMOUNT OF FOSSIL FUELS THAT WE USE IN NEW YORK WERE JUST ABOUT 5.6 BILLION GALLONS OF GASOLINE AND 1.3 BILLION GALLONS OF DIESEL FUEL THAT IN NEW YORK THIS WOULD GENERATE ABOUT $1.4 BILLION OF INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN FUELS, INCLUDING EVS HERE EVERY YEAR.

THAT'S NOT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.

THAT'S EVERY SINGLE YEAR WE COULD BE GETTING A BILLION DOLLARS OF INVESTMENTS THAT THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY PAYS FOR AND GOES INTO THIS WITHOUT PARTICULARLY SEEING ANY PRICE IMPACTS FOR THE CONSUMER.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WELL, THIS IS ONE THAT WE'RE WATCHING.

JULIE TIGHE FROM THE NEW YORK LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS.

THANK YOU HAVE MUCH.

>> GREAT.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON >> WE SHOULD NOTE THAT A FEW STATES ALREADY HAVE A LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD, INCLUDING THE ENTIRE WEST COAST, BUT WE DO HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

THANKS FOR WATCHING THIS WEEK'S "NEW YORK NOW."

HAVE A GREAT WEEK AND BE WELL.

[ THEME MUSIC ]