Medicare for all, doing the math....

[Humanist_Activist]

OK, first, in one of my initial posts, I made a mistake and accidentally doubled by health insurance premium because I was combining monthy/bi-weekly paychecks, my bad.

I'm going to pull this from my most recent paycheck, so we can figure how much a M4all plan would actually cost me. Full disclosure, this is my full time job(I work 2 jobs, one full, one part-time) and these are figures from my full time job only, for a two week pay period, so I get paid twice this monthly. Oh, and this is the only job that gives me any benefits, obviously.

I'm basing my M4all figures on this post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11036982

So let's begin:

Gross Pay: $1,036.17

Net Pay: $732.14

My Current FICA Burden:

Medicare: $13.81

Social Security: $59.04

---------------------------

Private Health Insurance: $83.69

According to that post, I would be paying 7.25% on my income instead of 1.45% for Medicare, so that would increase my tax burden about 62 dollars over what I currently pay, to a total of $75.12, which is quite a savings over paying the premium for private insurance. So calculating this over a month, I would pay under a M4all scheme $150.24 over $167.28. This is assuming that post is accurate, and that the overall tax structure for FICA taxation remains relatively the same. Even assuming that actual health care coverage remains under the same copay/deductible scheme as my private insurance, which isn't great, I would still save money overall.

Then again, I'm just one data point, and the post in question could be completely wrong, but I thought it was food for thought.

[stopbush]

1. Current Medicare patients pay a MONTHLY premium of $134.

That’s $50 over your current monthly premium of $83, so where are you saving money?

[Humanist_Activist]

2. That is a decent point, I am just talking about the tax burden, would that premium decrease or...

increase as a large influx of healthy people are added to the risk pool?

There's also the fact that there are differences to how Medicare is paid out versus health insurance, for example, my health insurance sucks, doesn't cover the first 2000 dollars, co-pays for medications are high, as are co pays for going to specialists or the hospital. The only "affordable" thing is going to a GP once a year.

I contrast this with my fiancee who is on SS disability and Medicare, and the overall health care costs are much lower. I, thankfully, don't require constant care, nor am I taking any medication long term, if I were, my health insurance wouldn't be affordable at all. In addition, there's the fact that if I were to add her, just as one dependent, onto my health insurance, it would quadruple my premium, which is ridiculous.

[stopbush]

3. But you cannot consider the tax burden in isolation.

You make sure you include your current monthly private insurance premium when attempting to show how Medicare for All would cost less overall, so how can you not include the monthly Medicare premium in your analysis?

Payroll taxes only PARTIALLY fund the current Medicare system, and that will not change in a Medicare-for-all system. Additional revenue in the form of PER-PATIENT monthly Medicare premiums will still be required to fund the program, just as they are needed to fund the current program.

[Humanist_Activist]

5. I think the problem is that there are far too many unknowns....

Even calculating in the premium for Medicare may still reflect an overall costs savings for the majority of Americans, my premium burden is actually on the low side for employer provided plans, and for those who don't have employer provided plans, such as my father, the savings would be very dramatic.

For example, you assume that health care costs will scale up at the same rate as current Medicare expenditures under a Medicare for all plan, which makes no sense when a lot of those people added to the plan will be healthy, working adults. Most people on Medicare now have chronic health conditions attributed to age and/or disability. Frankly speaking, their premiums don't really cover total costs for Medicare as is. Also remember that Medicare is literally forbidden from using its current risk pool to negotiate pricing for prescription drugs, which is ridiculous. This would and should change under a M4all scheme.

Also there's going to end up being costs saving for people on current private plans due to reduction of redundant administrative costs, increase in size of risk pool, etc. Per capita we pay more than other countries with UHC programs in place. I'll be honest and say I don't care if its Multi-payer or Single payer, as long as it covers everyone, cradle to grave. But politically, Medicare for all seems at least viable and simple enough for people to grasp since it would be an expansion of a current program.

[poetshepherd]

4. You compare apples to oranges

The 1.45% medicare tax you pay is an annuity, whose benefits aren't reaped for years.
You have no idea how much Medicare would cost, regardless that the 'average' [but not the median] payment
currently is. Medicare is for OLD PEOPLE who could otherwise not buy insurance.
These elderly are being subsidized by those not on Medicare, who, if they were on
Medicare, would change the monthly premiums and costs.

Here is what makes sense: [hint, not bernie/AOC] Medicaid-For-All, first as Public Option sold on ACA Exchanges.
Full cost: $500/month for an individual, less per person/family.

Medicare-4-all= $3.2 trillion/yr
Medicaid-4-all= $1.95 trillion/yr.

duh.

[Humanist_Activist]

6. Right now I subsidize co-workers on our insurance that are less healthy...

the difference is instead of being part of a risk pool of a few hundred individuals, I'd be part of a risk pool for millions of people, and this is with already subsidizing, at a much lower rate, people on Medicare now.

Also, the cost of the Public Option you estimate there is prohibitively expensive for most people.

[cbdo2007]

7. The point isn't that it will cost more or less, it is that people won't die from not having coverage

[Humanist_Activist]

8. True, but people love there nitty gritty details, its trying to kill UHC ideas through a thousand...

cuts.