SUFFOLK CLOSEUP - Bridge Over Sound Discussion Decades Old

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP

By Karl Grossman

Heading off Long Island and being stuck in traffic on the Long Island Expressway, I daresay most people have thought about why there’s no tunnel or bridge extending north before one reaches New York City and the Throgs Neck and Bronx-Whitestone bridges.

Indeed, following Governor Andrew Cuomo’s call in his 2018 State of the State speech for a tunnel north off Long Island, Newsday editorialized: “Unless you have time for a ferry to Bridgeport or New London, there’s only one way out of here—through New York City. That’s life on the giant cul-de-sac that is Long Island….Whether you are visiting a college in Boston or vacationing upstate…chances are at some point you’ve asked yourself the same question that’s vexed generations of Long Islanders: Why do I have to go west to go east? Or to go north.”

The answer to that is despite repeated drives, there’s been strong public opposition on Long Island, the cost has been high, and in the case of the first push exactly 80 years ago, the death of the man behind that scheme.

He was Royal Copeland, a three-term U.S. senator from New York. His plan advanced in 1938 was for an island-hopping span from Orient Point and across Plum, Great Gull and Fishers islands landing in Groton, Connecticut or Watch Hill, Rhode Island. But he died that year and his plan with him—for a while.

Two decades later, in 1957, a former New York State superintendent of public works, Charles Sells, advanced a proposal for two bridges—one from Orient Point in Suffolk to Watch Hill, and a second, from Oyster Bay in Nassau, to Rye in Westchester County.

Suffolk’s first county executive, H. Lee Dennison, was supportive of a Long Island bridge during his term in office from 1961 to 1973. An engineer, he loved bridges—for example, he pushed for the construction of bridges on the north and south sides of Shelter Island but was stopped by the then Suffolk Board of Supervisors. “If Dennison wants to rape Suffolk County, we want him to leave Shelter Island alone,” said Shelter Island Supervisor Evans K. Griffing.

But it was an even bigger fancier of highways, tunnels and bridges, Robert Moses (the person responsible for the LIE and instrumental in insufficient resources going towards a balanced mass transit system for this region) who was central to the biggest battle over a Long Island bridge. That was in the mid-1960s when Mr. Moses, whom that Newsday editorial identified as the “original master builder,” pushed anew for a bridge from Oyster Bay to Rye. 

Intense public and governmental opposition stopped this Moses plan. A leader was former Congressman Lester Wolff of Muttontown. Two weeks ago, Congressman Thomas Suozzi, who represents parts of Nassau and Suffolk, announced he was introducing a bill to rename the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge in honor of Mr. Wolff. Creation of the refuge helped block the bridge. Mr. Wolff, at 99 the oldest living former U.S. congressman, was at a meeting a day later in Locust Valley, at which hundreds gathered to organize against the Cuomo tunnel plan, recommended having Congress designate the Long Island Sound as a marine park to aid in stopping the tunnel. “The Long Island Sound is a national treasure,” he said.

Governor Hugh Carey in 1979 set up a tristate advisory committee that considered bridges from sites at Port Jefferson, Wading River, Riverhead, East Marion and Orient Point. But its report found expanding ferry service as preferable.

Governor Cuomo, whom the Newsday editorial referred to as “New York’s modern master building,” said of a Long Island tunnel in his State of the State speech: “It would be underwater. It would be invisible. It would reduce traffic on the impossibly congested Long Island Expressway and would offer potential significant private investment.”

A study released since by the state, done by WSP of Montreal, determined that a tunnel or bridge, or a bridge-tunnel combination, would cost $31.5 billion to 55.4 billion. It recommended as “feasible” two routes—from Oyster Bay to Rye or Port Chester in Westchester, or from Kings Park to either Bridgeport or Devon in Connecticut. It dismissed a link between Wading River and New Haven or Branford, Connecticut as not fostering economic development and being too expensive.

The Kings Park link would necessitate an extension of Sunken Meadow State Parkway. This, said State Assemblyman Michael Fitzpatrick of St. James, “would destroy Sunken Meadow State Park. That’s not going to go over.” As to other environmental damage, at the gathering in Locust Valley, James Gaughran, chairman of the Suffolk County Water Authority, warned of damage to the underground water table on which Long Island depends for its potable water from the tunnel and its construction. It would be, he said, “an environmental disaster.”

Karl Grossman is a veteran investigative reporter and columnist, the winner of numerous awards for his work and a member of the L.I. Journalism Hall of Fame. He is a professor of journalism at SUNY/College at Old Westbury and the author of six books.  

Op Ed- Zeldin's Op Ed On Prescription Drug Cost Is Wrong

By Perry Gershon

The United States is home to some of the world’s best pharmaceutical research and doctors; nevertheless, the world’s richest and most powerful country has worse medical outcomes and higher drug costs than the rest of the developed world. The United States should be a leader in affordable health care, not drug addiction. Something is deeply wrong when American patients scream in anguish over the ever-rising cost of prescription drugs. When our patients are forced to take only half the prescribed number of pills for an ailment because they can’t afford their medication, and when they suffer from higher and higher rates of drug abuse, we need to act to cure our broken prescription drug system and we need to act now!

I come from a medical family. My mother was a lead researcher in the development of the chickenpox vaccine, which improved the quality of life for millions of Americans. My father has done ground-breaking research discovering how the nervous system of the gut (“the second brain”) controls the behavior of the bowel. My mother’s dad was a Colonel in the US Army Medical Corps who participated in the liberation of Dachau. I grew up around practitioners and doctors who would do anything for their patients. Trust me when I say that even though the Affordable Care Act was a great first step, it is not enough. America needs Medicare for All to improve the American healthcare delivery system and curb the excessive costs of prescription drugs once and for all.

Republicans like Lee Zeldin want you to believe that buying prescription drugs could be like buying a shirt or a television set. The problem with this simplistic analogy is that while consumers of shirts or television sets have a choice, sick patients do not. One can skip the purchase of another shirt or television set, shop around for a discount, or bargain with the seller. Sick patients have none of the options; they need medical care and they often need it immediately. One can get another opinion, but one cannot ask people to search for the cheapest brain surgeon. Sick patients are free neither to choose their care nor to skip it. Delays in treatment and avoidance of preventive care lead to higher costs in the end. These delays are a major reason that that American healthcare costs so much in aggregate. Too many people defer preventative healthcare and resort to emergency rooms (where costs are multiplied) for treatment when they are in extremis. The alternative is not a cheap neurosurgeon or a discounted heart valve, but pain and suffering, or even death. This lack of effective choice opens the door for exploitation, providing an opportunity for people like Martin Shkreli to gouge patients for life-saving HIV treatments for HIV. It makes it possible for unscrupulous companies like NextSource to raise the price of its life-extending cancer drug Lomustine by 1400%. Pharmaceutical companies charge this much because they can. They know, unlike other businesses, that their customers are at their mercy, and fundamentally cannot say no.

The misleading assertion that deregulation of pharmaceutical companies will not lead to price-gouging uses the same logic that led to the assertion that deregulation of banks would not lead to fraud and speculation. Theft is controlled by law and regulation, not by asserting that thieves will not steal if only they could be deregulated. It is not only wrong—it is an example of how willfully complicit Republicans are in corporations putting profits above people. Corporations exist to maximize profit. Patients, who have no ability to shop around for medical care, are required to pay what private corporations charge and, as a result, are typically overcharged for health care. Deregulation cannot change behavior. It is inherent in the business model. 

Medicare for All is the best way to correct this imbalance and to ensure that patients get a fair price on their prescriptions. In his Op-Ed, Lee Zeldin claims that “doctors, often small practitioners who lack the market power to bargain effectively,” enable pharmaceutical companies to overcharge. Zeldin implies that the government leaves the negotiating to people without marketing power because the government is incompetent, negligent or mean. In fact, the Republicans pushed through a prohibition that forbids the Government from using its great purchasing power to negotiate favorable drug prices. This Republican-passed prohibition accounts for why drugs are cheaper in Canada than in the USA. Zeldin destroys his own argument. He illustrates the importance of governmental action. Reducing regulations has not and will not lower costs; it may make drugs less safe, but not less expensive. I can think of no better argument for Medicare for All. Medicare for All will allow patients to maximize their market power and enable all 325 million Americans to bargain collectively to get the best prices for their prescription drugs. Medicare for All will ensure that pharmaceutical companies are no longer able to exploit their customers. We must act now, before even the most basic prescriptions are out of reach of all but the wealthiest Americans. 

Perry Gershon is a businessman and entrepreneur who is running for elected office to represent the people residing in New York’s First Congressional District. Mr. Gershon is a candidate in a Democratic primary on June 26.

Suffolk County To Establish Protect Suffolk Taxpayers Task Force

L-R Suffolk County Budget Review office Director Robert Lipp, Presiding Officer DuWayne Gregory, Dr. Ronald Masera, superintendent of Remsenbur-Speonk UFSD, Ralph Scordino, mayor, Village of BabylonThe Suffolk County Legislature will vote tomorrow Tuesday, June 19, to create the Protect Suffolk Taxpayers Task Force. The task force, announced earlier today at a press conference held by the Legislature’s Presiding Officer (PO) DuWayne Gregory, will study the potential costs and benefits associated with school districts and local governments establishing charitable gift reserve funds and offering tax credits to persons who donate to the funds to reduce the impact of changes to the Federal Tax Code that limited the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction to $10,000.

“While the damage to Long Island’s economy from these changes in the tax law can only be estimated at this time, we do know it could be in the billions. We need to understand if these options outlined by New York State are a real possibility for assisting our residents with easing the additional tax burden that this federal policy has created,” PO DuWayne Gregory

The Protect Taxpayers Task Force will consist of nine members and have ninety days to study, hold a public hearing, and issue a report of its findings with recommendations before it will be disbanded.

At the press conference PO Gregory introduced three of the nine panel members of the proposed task force: Suffolk County Budget Review office: Director Robert Lipp; Dr. Ronald Masera, superintendent of Remsenbur-Speonk UFSD; and Ralph Scordino, mayor, Village of Babylon.

Op Ed- Congressman Zeldin Lowering Cost Of Prescription Drugs

Lowering the Burdensome Cost of Needed Prescription Drugs

Part 1 of a 2 Part Op-ed by Congressman Lee Zeldin (R, NY-1)

The rising cost of prescription drugs has dealt a crushing blow to the wallets of everyday Americans and put a great strain on the government supported programs some of our country’s most vulnerable populations, our seniors, children, disabled and impoverished communities, rely on.

According to a report by Express Scripts, a prescription benefits company, between 2008 and 2015, name brand drug prices increased by 164%. These price spikes frequently make life-saving medications unaffordable. When it comes to driving down the cost of prescription drugs for those who need it most, we must consider every option.

This Congress, in an effort to keep pace with an ever-changing marketplace and ever-evolving scientific innovation, the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (H.R. 2430) was passed into law to bring lower-cost generic drug alternatives and biosimilars to market faster by increasing competition and lowering drug costs. With an increase in authority and flexibility, this reauthorization streamlines the process for reviewing and approving new treatments and cures for patients, ultimately delivering new and innovative therapies, drugs and devices to patients more quickly.

Under current law, the federal government has the ability to negotiate the prices of the prescription drugs government purchases from manufacturers, but the negotiating authority is insufficient and outdated. Currently, the federal government has the ability to negotiate prices under Medicare, but even when the government can negotiate prices, it is hamstrung by overregulation that ensures it cannot push for the same prices charged throughout the rest of the world. 

Under Medicare Part D, before reimbursing doctors, Medicare adds 6% to the sales price reported by pharmaceutical companies, then forces patients to cover 20% of the total cost. The burden to negotiate for prices is disproportionately left to doctors, often small practitioners who lack the market power to bargain effectively. As a result, Medicare pays significantly more than European countries for the same drugs, passing costs along to taxpayers and patients alike. The drug companies receive a windfall from Medicare’s lack of negotiating ability, reporting profit margins more than double market averages and earning upwards of an additional $50 billion annually in revenue from overcharging consumers. 

So what else can government do to lower the price of prescription drug prices? With some reforms, Medicare Part D could provide the rough outlines of a solution. Within Medicare Part D, private non-profit and for-profit health insurance companies bid to provide prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries and separately negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies. The incentive for Part D plan sponsors to negotiate lower prices comes from the fact that they can then reduce their premiums for Medicare beneficiaries and therefore attract more customers. Due to the fact the taxpayer subsidy depends on the bids submitted by plan sponsors, this competition benefits not only Medicare beneficiaries, but taxpayers overall. Medicare Part D should be reformed to provide plans increased flexibility to enhance negotiating power with drug manufacturers and drive down costs for beneficiaries.

Notably, the bid system within Medicare Part D could ensure that cheap and effective generic products reach consumers. By forcing companies to bid for Medicare’s business, the government could promote competition within the marketplace, driving down prices on name-brand products. While depression medication Welbutrin costs, on average, $6,000 per 100 pills, its generic counterpart, Bupropion, costs only $50-$60 for the same quantity. Though name-brand anxiety drug Adivan also costs, on average, $6,000 for 100 pills, an equal supply of Lorazepam costs only $2-$3. The shocking discrepancies in price continue across the board, from asthma medication to EpiPens to blood pressure drugs to cancer treatments. The recent price spike in a 2-pack of EpiPens from around $100 to over $600 epitomizes the monopoly power of the drug companies. The producer of EpiPens could overcharge customers at will, confident that few generic counterparts could compete. Similarly, the price of insulin to treat diabetes tripled within 10 years, the cost of asthma medication increased 6% and the price of Betaseron spiked from $8,000 per year to close to $60,000.

Americans who rely on EpiPens and other drugs in potentially life and death situations have been railroaded with a lifesaving medication at a price they cannot afford and we must work to drive down the increasingly burdensome cost they have been saddled with.

Congressman Lee Zeldin represents the First Congressional District of New York in Congress where he services on both the House Financial Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP - $ 7.6 Billion Subsidy (Tax Increase) Buried In Electric Bill

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP

By Karl Grossman

Long Island Power Authority ratepayers—including those in Suffolk County—will be and already are paying a disproportionate share of the $7.6 billion bailout of four upstate nuclear power plants pushed by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The bailout runs for 12 years. It kicked in last year with an added charge in the electric bills of all New York State residents, businesses and other entities including schools and governments.

A lawsuit is underway in New York State Supreme Court to end the bailout. It follows unsuccessful efforts in the State Legislature to stop it, of which State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr. from Suffolk, was a leader. “The lawsuit is our hope now,” he said last week.

The disproportionate share LIPA ratepayers are being charged is based on a complicated formula developed by Exelon, which owns in whole or part the four plants, and approved by the state. Tim Judson, executive director of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, calculates that LIPA ratepayers are being hit with an overcharge of many millions of dollars a year in contrast to what should be their share.

The bailout is based on a claim by Governor Cuomo supported by the State Public Service Commission that nuclear power plants don’t generate greenhouse or carbon gases and thus should receive “zero emissions credit”—an assertion the lawsuit strongly challenges. 

The lawsuit points to the full “nuclear cycle” or “nuclear chain”—including mining, milling, fuel enrichment—in which large amounts of greenhouse or carbon gasses are emitted and also emissions in the operation of the plants themselves, among them daily discharges into the air of methane and radioactive carbon. 

The claim that “nuclear power is carbon-free is preposterous,” says Mr. Judson. And to provide a bail-out on this basis “is a massive waste of ratepayer funds which should be going to renewable energy and energy efficiency.”

Susan Shapiro, an attorney for the plaintiffs, comments: “The $7.6 billion hand-out is based on the ludicrous claim that nuclear power is somehow good for the environment while ignoring the continuous radiation pollution and the continuous thermal emissions—as well as the release of various greenhouse gasses. Nuclear energy is the dirtiest form of energy and has no business being subdidized in a clean energy program. Moreover, with nuclear power getting a lion’s share of funding, the state is preventing renewables from rapidly developing.”

The true reason for the bailout is that the upstate nuclear power plants can’t make it in today’s energy market—they’re unable to compete. Indeed, just before the bailout there was a move to close one of the plants because it wasn’t viable economically.

In addition to the enormous lobbying power of Exelon, the biggest owner of nuclear power plants in the U.S., the other factor in promoting their continued operation are some politicians and business people in communities in which they are located. Indeed, says Mr. Thiele, the legislation he and other State Assembly members had been sponsoring to stop the deal received “no support” in the State Senate where senators from upstate constitute an important bloc.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Clearwater, NIRS, Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy and Goshen Green Farms. The plants, all on Lake Ontario, are Ginna near Rochester and Nine Mile Point 1 and 2 and FitzPatrick in Scriba.

Meanwhile, the bailout in New York State has become a model for other states which have been developing their own nuclear power plant subsidy programs financed by ratepayers. These include Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio and Connecticut. Thus the deal “by spreading nationally will cut back the advance of safe, clean, renewable energy throughout the U.S.,” said Ms. Shapiro.

Although promoting the continued operation of the nuclear plants upstate, Mr. Cuomo has been working for the closure of the Indian Point nuclear plants 30 miles north of the New York City. Mr. Thiele describes the governor’s contradictory nuclear stance as “schizophrenic.”

“Long Islanders are no strangers to bad energy policies,” says Mr. Thiele of Sag Harbor citing the Shoreham nuclear plant debacle. “In excess of $6 billion were spent on the construction of Shoreham without ever considering whether or not there was a viable evacuation plan for Long Island’s three million people. There wasn’t. Shoreham never operated.” Now there’s “another energy disaster” happening, the $7.6 billion bailout “to keep open four aging and expensiv9+e upstate nuclear power plants. In a free market, without the subsidies, these plants would close because there are cheaper and safer source of energy available…Instead of propping up the failed policies of the past, we should instead be investing in a sustainable energy future…Make no mistake about it, this $7.6 billion subsidy is nothing more than a tax increase. It is one of the largest tax increases in recent history and it will be buried in your electric bill.”

Karl Grossman is a veteran investigative reporter and columnist, the winner of numerous awards for his work and a member of the L.I. Journalism Hall of Fame. He is a professor of journalism at SUNY/College at Old Westbury and the author of six books.