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.
So medicare for all is passed,the cost is $2.3 trillion a year.
So the fedgov would have to levy a tax on everyone to pay for it correct?
Every person in the USA would have to pay over $144 a week to pay for the system.
And of course the cost would probably go up as we are an aging society.
EVERY person's taxes would have to increase by $7500 a year???
You seem to be missing the point of a Medicare for all option. That plan has Medicare eligible people paying about $1200 for part B coverage. They already paid for the part A coverage. They can choose to purchase part C coverage or opt for an Advantage fiasco plan. Those not eligible, would be allowed to buy part A, B and C. What they would pay, would be the cost of the plans absent the need for Corp profit, excessive salaries, advertising, etc. Basically, the cost of a public plan. So the additional people on a Medicare for all system, would add $0 to the Medicare system cost, as those people would be paying for their care delivery demand.
US auto makers spent more on health insurance for their employees than they did for the steel to make their cars. So,
I believe the consumer, the worker, and everyone would
benefit from "Medicare for all".
This is a perk,it is not a right,so there is nothing to suggest employers would increase your pay by the amount of the insurance costs once they are no longer paying it...
I cut the cost per person in half when doing the calculations...
From $13,000 to $7,500.
But then there is the issue of those who cannot afford to pay,right now that is 50 million people who cannot afford insurance.
The costs for those would have to be divided amongst the remainder correct?
Let's say a person is on welfare, gets food stamps, and is in section 8 housing. There is no reason a deduction can
not be made from their welfare check to help offset medical charges they may incur if "all were enrolled in
Medicare". Just because you are poor, even dirt poor, you can pay something even if it's a dollar
The percentage for those on medicaid presently would have to be decided - but they have to pay something.
You seem to be missing the point of a Medicare for all option. That plan has Medicare eligible people paying about $1200 for part B coverage. They already paid for the part A coverage. They can choose to purchase part C coverage or opt for an Advantage fiasco plan. Those not eligible, would be allowed to buy part A, B and C. What they would pay, would be the cost of the plans absent the need for Corp profit, excessive salaries, advertising, etc. Basically, the cost of a public plan. So the additional people on a Medicare for all system, would add $0 to the Medicare system cost, as those people would be paying for their care delivery demand.
Medicare costs so many billions to cover so many millions of people.
If you increase the number of people,the cost of medicare will increase...
But 'Medicare for all' would cost $7500 for each person,so a family of four would pay $30,000.
That is flawed logic, considering that is not how health insurance works. Let me start with asking you. How much does an average individual health insurance cost? For an average household coverage (assuming four people), does it multiply four times? Also, how much would a 70 year old person pay for health insurance if Medicare didn't exist? Would it be the same as that for a 35 year old?
So their share of the costs would have to divided up among the remaining people.
How much would that push the payments up???
Your premiums have been covering the costs of those who don't have health insurance but use it anyway. Billions of dollars are wasted everywhere in ERs considering the added costs of services there, and a massive chunk of it is absorbed by the government and by individuals with insurance.
I would say the impact would at least be equal, if not reduce the waste (considering that many without health insurance would not wait for an ER service or wait for Medicare, until it is too late). Prevention is better and more responsible approach to fiscal wellness.
Let's say a person is on welfare, gets food stamps, and is in section 8 housing. There is no reason a deduction can
not be made from their welfare check to help offset medical charges they may incur if "all were enrolled in
Medicare". Just because you are poor, even dirt poor, you can pay something even if it's a dollar
The percentage for those on medicaid presently would have to be decided - but they have to pay something.
LOL...you are funny.
Someone who cannot afford food,shelter or clothes without assistance is going to be able to afford to pay $7500/year????
This is a perk,it is not a right,so there is nothing to suggest employers would increase your pay by the amount of the insurance costs once they are no longer paying it...
They may not increase your pay - maybe they will lower the price of their cars It's good for the worker because he
isn't dependent on who he "works for" based on their health
care package. A happy employee is one who doesn't feel
trapped. How many times have you heard someone say,
I'd like to change jobs, but I'll loose my health care insurance.
That is flawed logic, considering that is not how health insurance works. Let me start with asking you. How much does an average individual health insurance cost? For an average household coverage (assuming four people), does it multiply four times? Also, how much would a 70 year old person pay for health insurance if Medicare didn't exist? Would it be the same as that for a 35 year old?
Your premiums have been covering the costs of those who don't have health insurance but use it anyway. Billions of dollars are wasted everywhere in ERs considering the added costs of services there, and a massive chunk of it is born by the government and by individuals with insurance.
I would say the impact would at least be equal, if not reduce the waste (considering that many without health insurance would not wait for an ER service or wait for Medicare, until it is too late). Prevention is better and more responsible approach to fiscal wellness.
Everyone would pay the same in to medicare for all,why would some pay less than others?
And the easiest method of working out the costs is to divide the cost by the number of people who will be covered.
How much is paid now by private companies is immaterial,if you choose not to buy into your company's insurance plan you don't get all the money it is costing the company do you?
They may not increase your pay - maybe they will lower the price of their cars
You mean like moving production overseas for goods has lowered the price we pay???
Quote:
It's good for the worker because he
isn't dependent on who he "works for" based on their health
care package. A happy employee is one who doesn't feel
trapped. How many times have you heard someone say,
I'd like to change jobs, but I'll loose my health care insurance.
I haven't really, it didn't even enter into my decision to quit my job.
Medicare costs so many billions to cover so many millions of people.
If you increase the number of people,the cost of medicare will increase...
???? Hard to make a blind man see, when they refuse to.
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.
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.
