U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-28-2017, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Haiku
4,188 posts, read 2,607,728 times
Reputation: 6178

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Romano View Post
Baloney.

The average cost per person for healthcare (I'm basing this on my experience over the years in managed care and self funded plans) is now about $300 to $500 per month per person (including Rx). Of course it varies by age and gender. How does this translate to less than $100 per month in taxes according to Sanders??? If it's based on savings with single payer, where do the savings come from?

Read the link I put in there for the details. And read what I wrote - I gave you the average cost for someone making $50k, not the cost for everyone. People who make more will pay more. And there are other sources of funding besides individual taxes.

BTW, your average cost per person is way off. The US spent $3.2 trillion in 2015 on healthcare which comes out to about $10k per person, or about $800/month. But that includes all existing healthcare: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Military Health Systems, and private. But the biggest consumer of healthcare is the over-65 segment which is already on Medicare.

Bernie's plan is the incremental cost of adding people to Medicare. Average age of that segment is around 30 for which health costs are way less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-28-2017, 02:41 PM
 
Location: NNV
1,526 posts, read 987,004 times
Reputation: 3103
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
Read the link I put in there for the details. And read what I wrote - I gave you the average cost for someone making $50k, not the cost for everyone. People who make more will pay more. And there are other sources of funding besides individual taxes.

BTW, your average cost per person is way off. The US spent $3.2 trillion in 2015 on healthcare which comes out to about $10k per person, or about $800/month. But that includes all existing healthcare: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Military Health Systems, and private. But the biggest consumer of healthcare is the over-65 segment which is already on Medicare.

Bernie's plan is the incremental cost of adding people to Medicare. Average age of that segment is around 30 for which health costs are way less.
I don't believe my numbers are that far off. I understand the age/sex/employee/dependent/retiree variations to health care costs. My average cost per person considers medical cost only for people in a managed care or self funded environment. Employees of companies and their dependents. No additional administrative costs. No retirees. So we're talking about adding an average of $300 to $500 per month per new enrollee to the Medicare system. How much more will we have to spend to administer this (fraud control, third party payments, etc...)? Don't know.

So are you saying the average tax increase for single payer healthcare is more than 2.2%? If so, what is that number? Again, I just don't see the significant savings that are implied.

An earlier post mentioned there is a 14% "fee" for healthcare in Germany. For a very controlled system. THAT sounds more realistic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2017, 12:53 AM
 
Location: Haiku
4,188 posts, read 2,607,728 times
Reputation: 6178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Romano View Post
I don't believe my numbers are that far off.
As I said, your numbers are very far off. Average is $9,990 according to Medicare:
https://www.cms.gov/research-statist...act-sheet.html

Quote:
So are you saying the average tax increase for single payer healthcare is more than 2.2%? If so, what is that number? Again, I just don't see the significant savings that are implied.
Tax increase is 2.2%. For a person who earns $50k that comes out to $1100. But the total US payroll last year is $15 trillion. Take 2.2% of that and it is $330 billion.

Average cost of health care per person in the age bracket 0-44 is about $2000/year. The number of people in that bracket is about 150 million for a total cost of about $300 billion. The 2.2% payroll tax covers it.

As to your point about whether it is a net savings: We will save about 15% by eliminating insurance companies because that is the profit they make. The same services will still be delivered but Medicare is pretty stingy about what they pay so that should lower overall costs also.

What Medicare-for-all also does is make healthcare coverage more affordable for those on the lower end of incomes.

This is just a high level overview and there are more details. Read the link I posted earlier to get those.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2017, 04:27 PM
 
Location: NNV
1,526 posts, read 987,004 times
Reputation: 3103
Ok, maybe I'm not making myself clear.

1) The average cost is $10,000 per year (rounded). But we take out the people already on Medicare (basically 65 and over plus an expensive disabled population) because they already have coverage. So we are taking about adding the population 0-65. This population on average is much less than $10,000 per year. I can tell you the members in our health plan cost under $400 per member per month (again, without administrative costs). And you can't tell me the numbers in our health plan are way off.

2) Why are you only considering the enrollees 0-44 when comparing to the payroll tax? What happened to the 45-64 group? The 45-64 group is much more expensive to cover and must be included. Early retirees don't work. Where will the money come to pay for them if they're not on a payroll?

3) Within any population and especially within the younger group there is a population that is not covered. They cannot afford or choose not to buy insurance. Therefore they are not within the NHE's cost calculation (or at least, their cost is understated). When this population gets access to healthcare, there will be additional utilization of services which is not considered in historical data.

4) The other thing about Medicare for all...do we keep the same benefits as what we have now? A good portion of Medicare is 80/20 coverage. There are limits on certain benefits. I can tell you those benefits are more limited than what many receive now. Will I have to buy supplemental coverage to match benefits I have now? Do we increase benefits to reduce the 20% paid by the enrollee? If so, where is that cost considered?

5) Please give me your source for the profit margins of insurance companies. I can tell you there is NO managed care health plan that has a profit margin of 15%.

Bottom line, I don't believe the 2.2% tax implied (or whatever low single digit number you want to insert) will cover a single payer system. Trying to come to a conclusion using the government's high level numbers is not valid. We'll just have to agree to disagree...

Last edited by Vic Romano; 03-29-2017 at 04:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2017, 12:31 AM
 
Location: Haiku
4,188 posts, read 2,607,728 times
Reputation: 6178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Romano View Post
2) Why are you only considering the enrollees 0-44 when comparing to the payroll tax? What happened to the 45-64 group? The 45-64 group is much more expensive to cover and must be included. Early retirees don't work. Where will the money come to pay for them if they're not on a payroll?
I am not "only considering...". I am giving you an overview (as I said in the post). I am not regurgitating the entire proposal of Bernie's. I keep telling you to go look at the details in the link I posted.

Quote:
5) Please give me your source for the profit margins of insurance companies. I can tell you there is NO managed care health plan that has a profit margin of 15%.
Source for insurance profitability
Actually the profitability is much less. I was including administrative costs in that 15% figure.

Quote:
Bottom line, I don't believe the 2.2% tax implied (or whatever low single digit number you want to insert) will cover a single payer system. Trying to come to a conclusion using the government's high level numbers is not valid. We'll just have to agree to disagree...
I never said it would. I showed how it can easily cover parts of it. Most people want to know the tax hit they will experience, and that is 2.2%. But Bernie's proposal has other revenue sources besides the 2.2% payroll tax. I keep telling you: Go read it yourself. I posted the link.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top