Need Clarity On Bernie's Healthcare Numbers

[stopbush]

I'm a bit confused by who and what Bernie is talking about when he says that the average American family will pay $500 a year and save on average $5000 a year in healthcare costs/premiums.

Is that $500 the cost to each individual in the family, or is that $500 covering the entire family? If it's an individual tax, then the average family of 4 would be paying $2000 a year, not $500. If it is $500 for a family, then the cost per individual in only $125 a year.

Which is it?

Also, Bernie proposes an income tax of 2.2% on all family incomes to support his health plan. The median family income in the USA in 2015 was $54,000. A 2.2% tax on $54000 is $1188. Not $500. So how do we get down to the $500 number?

Thanks in advance for providing any insight you can.

[pacalo]

1. You must be looking for google.

[jeff47]

2. Here ya go.

https://valadian.github.io/SandersHealthcareCalculator/

[stopbush]

5. Thanks. But it doesn't answer the question if the $559 tax you pay is for the entire family

or just the "employee."

And $559 tax on $54000 is only a 1% tax, not the 2.2% tax in Bernie's plan, which would be $1188.

If I take the standard deduction on $54000, adjusted income is $43,850. A 2.2% tax on that amount is $964.

Is the Bernie calculator calculating incorrectly?

[jeff47]

9. Sure it does. Put in a family of 4. Put in a family of 1. Compare results. (nt)

[stopbush]

10. OK. Now I see how the calculator works.

So, using Bernie's calculator, the tax for a family of 4 where the income is $54000 a year is $559.

The tax for a single person making $54000 a year is $961 a year.

The tax for a married couple with no kids with an income of $54000 is $735.

The tax for a family of 6 with a household income of $54,000 is $383.

So in other words, the larger your family, the less you pay not only for each person, but for the family as a whole.

So basically, single people and marrieds without kids who make the same household income as a family are subsidizing the families, correct?

And if you're an older couple whose kids are no longer claimed as a deduction, your rates go up.

How does that work?

[kristopher]

13. That's called "progressive taxation" -

- Perhaps you are in the wrong place.

[Ferd Berfel]

17. never mind. You can't convince someone who has an interest in not being convinced

[delrem]

3. If you don't think the US is capable of emplacing universal health care,

with a single payer (not private) system when so many other countries have,
then I don't have any pity for you.

None.

I think you never even tried.

[stopbush]

6. How many countries have a true single payer system and nothing else?

Not many. Name the countries that have only a single payer option.

Most countries that have a single-payer option also have a mix of private insurance options.

BTW - single payer refers only to the question of who pays. It doesn't have anything to do with the delivery system for the health care itself.

[kristopher]

14. It has EVERYTHING to do with the delivery system

That is how cost control is effected. In policy terms it is a form of regulatory control over a natural monopoly.

[taught_me_patience]

4. A better question is how an 8%payroll tax will be enough

When countries like Germany pay 15%payroll tax. Germany has much greater efficiencies across the entire health care system than we do. Economists like Krugman have pointed out that Bernie'S numbers fall way short.

[stopbush]

7. Simple math: we now all pay a 2.9% payroll tax to fund a program that covers 1/6 of the population.

Stands to reason that if you're now going to cover 100% of the people with Medicare for all, that the payroll tax would need to increase 600% to cover the six-fold increase in Medicare beneficiaries.

That puts you at a 17.4% payroll tax, not the 6.2% BS is saying.

It's simple math.

[mythology]

11. Not necessarily

Medicare members have higher than average expenses than the public at large. End of life care is really expensive.

[dsc]

12. but Medicare can have lower reimbursement rates than it otherwise could

since private patients subsidize it with their higher rates. This is more true of Medicaid than Medicare but the idea is similar.

[stopbush]

18. Medicare members also pay on average $1200 a year in premiums.

BS does away with that, eliminating a large revenue stream to fund the program. That's what? $60-billion a year in revenue to fund the program.

Medicare beneficiaries are all over 65. They have lots of expenses as they get older but they only live for so long.

Medicare doesn't cover some expenses (like long-term care).

Medical expenses for the average senior on Medicare for 5-15 years pale in comparison to the expenses the rest of the population will have from the day they are born until they hit age 65. You are talking 65-80 years of expenses for 350-million people compared to 5-15 years of expenses for 50-million people over 65.

[kristopher]

15. The cost savings that Medicare can exercise is far more limited than ...

...a national single payer system could achieve.

[Recursion]

20. Wishful thinking

You've said that for months and never presented any actual evidence for it; you've just made it very clear you hope that's true.

[kristopher]

22. It is basic to the system.

It's FUNdamental, as they say.

[thesquanderer]

28. re: "not the 6.2% BS is saying"

He's not saying 6.2%. He's saying 6.2% employer, plus 2.2% individual, plus higher income tax rates for income over $250k, plus taxing capital gains and dividends at normal income rates, plus capping deductions at 28% for income over $250k, plus increased estate tax. See the last two pages at
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Medicare-for-All-Leaving-No-One-Behind.pdf

[stopbush]

30. Who do you think will end up paying the 6.2% that the employer

supposedly pays?

It will be the employees, through fewer raises, fewer benefits, fewer paid vacation days, etc, not to mention that employers will hire fewer people and hire at lower wages. They will find the $ to pay for the 6.2% and it will not come out of their pockets.

The employer currently pays 1.9% of each employees wage into the Medicare fund. You're requiring them to increase that contribution by 325%.

And what about all the entry level jobs where kids work part time and don't have insurance? Their employers will now be paying that 6.2% for them as well. It's not like those employers have a pool of $ to draw from that they are now using to provide insurance for their part-time employees. That doesn't exist. That will translate into lower pay for those kids as their employer takes $ out of their pay to afford the 6.2%.

Yeah, the employer pays. Another Bernie fantasy.

[thesquanderer]

31. I thought you were just asking for clarity on Bernie's healthcare numbers. Nevertheless...

The 6.2% paid by the employer is largely offset by no longer having to pay insurance premiums for those employees (as companies with over 50 employers are currently required to do, and which many smaller companies do as well).

BTW, your arguments there are basically identical to the arguments against raising minimum wage. Are you sure you're in the right party?

[stopbush]

32. I've been in the D party for 44 years, and I'll still

be in the D party when Hillary is elected in Nov.

[stopbush]

33. Not really. It's an open secret that what % employers pay of

their employees insurance premiums can be little or nothing.

See here: http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-health-insurance-employer-contribution-percentage/

BTW - I'm fortunate that my employer pays 100% of my premium, which at my age of 61 is over $1100 a month.

[thesquanderer]

34. Here are the real numbers you're looking for, in terms of what employers pay

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs2.t04.htm - on average, they're paying closer to 70%, not "little or nothing."

BTW, kudos to your employer for covering your $1100/month premium. So what is your employer doing? Giving you fewer raises, fewer benefits, fewer paid vacation days, etc? Hiring fewer employees? BTW, if you happen to make less than $18k per month, your employer will come out ahead if he only has to pay 6.2%.

[stopbush]

35. Thanks for the link. Good info there.

As far as my employer, they have not given a COLA increase in 9 years. They have had a freeze on raises for 4 years. They have given a few raises to employees who announced they might quit.

There are only 7 full time employees in my shop. Only 3 of us are on the company offered plan. One employee is on a COBRA from their last job (cheaper than the company plan) and the other 3 are on their spouse's insurance. Of the seven employees, 5 have worked here less than 3 years. I and another employee have been with the company for around 14 months.

What I make a month is my business.

As far as the 6.2%, I don't believe that number for a second, and neither do many economists who insist that Sanders is drastically lowballing what the tax number actually needs to be. I've seen estimates as high as 18%.

[thesquanderer]

36. As I said, it's *not* 6.2%, so you don't HAVE to believe it for a second.

See post #28.

[Recursion]

8. The plan is a joke, which is kind of the point

He got liberals to spend a month talking about "how much would single payer cost?" rather than "is it actually the right idea to begin with?". It worked in that sense. I wouldn't look at it for any sort of realistic policy recipe.

[kristopher]

16. It is exactly the right idea for 99% of the country.

For the 1%, not so much.

[Recursion]

19. Nah, I'd prefer a European-style system and I think most Americans would too

Single Payer has a lot of problems which is why so few countries use it; I think it would be particularly bad for the US, given how much power lobbyists have.

[kristopher]

23. Really? I raised my family with single payer and I LOVED it. US SUCKS.

This is from the first link I clicked on.
As far as cost control, the two tier benefits from essentially the same cost control mechanism as single payer.

Country System Type

Norway Single Payer
New Zealand Two Tier
Japan Single Payer
Germany Insurance Mandate
Belgium Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom Single Payer
Kuwait Single Payer
Sweden Single Payer
Bahrain Single Payer
Brunei Single Payer
Canada Single Payer
Netherlands Two-Tier
Austria Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates Single Payer
Finland Single Payer
Slovenia Single Payer
Denmark Two-Tier
Luxembourg Insurance Mandate
France Two-Tier
Australia Two Tier
Ireland Two-Tier
Italy Single Payer
Portugal Single Payer
Cyprus Single Payer
Greece Insurance Mandate
Spain Single Payer
South Korea Insurance Mandate
Iceland Single Payer
Hong Kong Two-Tier
Singapore Two-Tier
Switzerland Insurance Mandate
Israel Two-Tier

System Types:

Single Payer: The government provides insurance for all residents (or citizens) and pays all health care expenses except for copays and coinsurance. Providers may be public, private, or a combination of both.

Two-Tier: The government provides or mandates catrastrophic or minimum insurance coverage for all residents (or citizens), while allowing the purchase of additional voluntary insurance or fee-for service care when desired. In Singapore all residents receive a catastrophic policy from the government coupled with a health savings account that they use to pay for routine care. In other countries like Ireland and Israel, the government provides a core policy which the majority of the population supplement with private insurance.

Insurance Mandate: The government mandates that all citizens purchase insurance, whether from private, public, or non-profit insurers. In some cases the insurer list is quite restrictive, while in others a healthy private market for insurance is simply regulated and standardized by the government. In this kind of system insurers are barred from rejecting sick individuals, and individuals are required to purchase insurance, in order to prevent typical health care market failures from arising.

http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/

[Recursion]

24. Sweden isn't single payer. Neither is Norway or Denmark. I could go on.

People really need to stop pretending it just means "universal health care"

[kristopher]

25. This site says otherwise.

The entire list is "universal health care".

[Recursion]

27. If doctors are legally allowed to bill outside of the system, it's simply not single payer, period.

I have no idea what weird definition that site is using.

[kristopher]

29. That is a crock of BS.

You have no idea of this at all, do you. All of the single payer countries' doctors can "bill outside the system" if they can find anyone stupid enough to pay for something they can get under insurance. Off the top of my head I can think of two examples - say a dental inlay costs $30 using a composite resin material. The dentist is free to offer gold for whatever the market will bear.

Or say the country is one like Costa Rica and they promote medical tourism - they are perfectly free to charge the foreigners anything they can get the non-insured to pay.

Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about. If you had single payer for 5 years you would be forced by your high ethical standards to go outside and bang your head against a concrete wall as a form of penance for obstructing the change.

[jillan]

21. Here ya go - all the info you need right at your fingertips.....

http://chrome-64-bit.en.softonic.com/download?ex=SWH-1830.1

[itsrobert]

26. The numbers don't add up. Has he submitted them to the CBO?

No, because it wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny.