How Much Will You Pay for Health Care Under Medicare for All?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Once it's phased in - 4 years for Bernie or Lizzie, 10 for Kamala - how much will you pay?

Anybody know?

I'm on Medicare. I pay over $4000 a year for Part B, Part D and a supplemental. And then there are the deductibles and copays.

Would I still pay those things? Or would I suddenly be $4000 a year richer?

And, yes, I understand that I might pay part of that back in taxes, but still....

I'm assuming some of those costs will go away, but maybe not all. But is that true?

And what about those who are currently buying regular insurance? Or those with no insurance? Will all their costs go away, most, or just some?

We hear a bunch of bitching from well-off folks and some union types saying they don't want to give up their Cadillac plans. But I'm pretty sure they represent a tiny minority of Americans. And I know that Bernie has talked about grandfathering in some of the union-negotiated benefits. Seems to me we should be focusing more on the rest of us.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

I pay about 450/mo. now with medicare for some, that covers only 15% of the population...

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I pay about 450/mo. now with medicare for some, that covers only 15% of the population...

So you're basically in my boat. Any idea if Medicare for All will save you all (or most) of that outlay?

I wonder why I never hear discussion of that?

Not everybody votes their wallet, of course, but old folks are said to lean R, so why not point it out if MfA will save them $4-6K per year?

 

[Funky Bunch]

$69

 

[Joes Place]

I'm less a fan of "free Medicare for all" than "Medicare buy-in", where people have some incentive to lower their overall healthcare costs.

Absent some element of personal responsibility and price-based incentives to keep your own costs low, free healthcare for all isn't a good formula IMO.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Has Obamacare saved the average family $2500/year yet?

 

[Repubic]

free healthcare for all isn't a good formula IMO.

It isn't free healthcare. It is private tax to profit driven corporations versus publicly funded.

 

[SoMplsHawkI]

Once it's phased in - 4 years for Bernie or Lizzie, 10 for Kamala - how much will you pay?

Anybody know?

I'm on Medicare. I pay over $4000 a year for Part B, Part D and a supplemental. And then there are the deductibles and copays.

Would I still pay those things? Or would I suddenly be $4000 a year richer?

And, yes, I understand that I might pay part of that back in taxes, but still....

I'm assuming some of those costs will go away, but maybe not all. But is that true?

And what about those who are currently buying regular insurance? Or those with no insurance? Will all their costs go away, most, or just some?

We hear a bunch of bitching from well-off folks and some union types saying they don't want to give up their Cadillac plans. But I'm pretty sure they represent a tiny minority of Americans. And I know that Bernie has talked about grandfathering in some of the union-negotiated benefits. Seems to me we should be focusing more on the rest of us.

Your post is pretty thought provoking (in a good way). It's not easy to find answers to specific questions but Vox does a fair job:
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942587/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-explained

Personally I think that the MFA plans are way too ambitious. Better to pass incremental change than fail on one big change.

BTW I have Part B and an Advantage plan w/Part D that puts me, with $400 drug deductible, at about $2700/year.

 

[Joes Place]

It isn't free healthcare. It is private tax to profit driven corporations versus publicly funded.

Again.....when there's no relation on the tax you're paying to any incentives to maintain your own health and keep system costs low, it's not a great formula.

I'm much more onboard with States setting up their own self-insurance options - like Colorado did to compete directly with United Health, Cigna, etc, and offered plans at about $0.75 on the dollar in comparison. That required people to pay something AND had incentives for preventive checkups, etc.

 

[Joes Place]

Has Obamacare saved the average family $2500/year yet?

Well, since ACA prices are as much as 10% lower this year, I'd say we're trending in that direction.

If the GOP had not sabotaged the system, and the Colorado Health OP insurer were still in business, the 25% cost savings vs. the Big Insurers EASILY saved families $2k or more out here. That's why Cigna and others spent millions lobbying to put it out of business. Then, their rates jumped up again, because that offsetting competition was gone.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

So you're basically in my boat. Any idea if Medicare for All will save you all (or most) of that outlay?

I wonder why I never hear discussion of that?

Not everybody votes their wallet, of course, but old folks are said to lean R, so why not point it out if MfA will save them $4-6K per year?

The problem with this discussion for Republicans is that it's not just a financial discussion. It's a jealousy issue.

Have a friend at work who is moderately conservative. His objection to free college for example ultimately isn't the cost. His objection is that it's no fair because he (And I'm pretty sure he means mostly his parents.) had to paid for college and it's not fair that other people could go there for free when he couldn't.

One of the things you are going to have to get past is a lot of people are going to look at it like they spent their entire lives paying for this exclusive benefit they get when they hit retirement age only for the benefit to no longer be made exclusive. And that they will say is unfair.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Again.....when there's no relation on the tax you're paying to any incentives to maintain your own health and keep system costs low, it's not a great formula.

I'm much more onboard with States setting up their own self-insurance options - like Colorado did to compete directly with United Health, Cigna, etc, and offered plans at about $0.75 on the dollar in comparison. That required people to pay something AND had incentives for preventive checkups, etc.

I don't think that is necessary. People maintain their health for their own reasons of living longer and feeling good. Not because they think it's going to lower their healthcare bills (Although it likely will.) I really doubt people are going to say "Free Healthcare, we'll I was working out 4 days a week and maintaining a strict diet of mostly fruits and veggies but now that healthcare is free for everyone I'm just going to stop exercising completely and eat McDonalds every meal.

That said if this was the concern I've advocated before for a sales tax on junk food.

 

[Tom Paris]

Once it's phased in - 4 years for Bernie or Lizzie, 10 for Kamala - how much will you pay?

Anybody know?

I'm on Medicare. I pay over $4000 a year for Part B, Part D and a supplemental. And then there are the deductibles and copays.

Would I still pay those things? Or would I suddenly be $4000 a year richer?

And, yes, I understand that I might pay part of that back in taxes, but still....

I'm assuming some of those costs will go away, but maybe not all. But is that true?

And what about those who are currently buying regular insurance? Or those with no insurance? Will all their costs go away, most, or just some?

We hear a bunch of bitching from well-off folks and some union types saying they don't want to give up their Cadillac plans. But I'm pretty sure they represent a tiny minority of Americans. And I know that Bernie has talked about grandfathering in some of the union-negotiated benefits. Seems to me we should be focusing more on the rest of us.

If we do it like other countries, you walk out of the doctors office paying ZERO out of pocket. I'm convinced that less will come out of my paycheck, when I don't have to pay health insurance, but my taxes go up to help pay for M for All. The insurance companies, big pharma, and the Republicans want you to think differently.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Your post is pretty thought provoking (in a good way). It's not easy to find answers to specific questions but Vox does a fair job:
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942587/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-explained

Personally I think that the MFA plans are way too ambitious. Better to pass incremental change than fail on one big change.

BTW I have Part B and an Advantage plan w/Part D that puts me, with $400 drug deductible, at about $2700/year.

If you are willing to share, I'd be interested in knowing who your Advantage provider is, and how well that's working for you.

 

[Jan Itor]

So you're basically in my boat. Any idea if Medicare for All will save you all (or most) of that outlay?

I wonder why I never hear discussion of that?

Not everybody votes their wallet, of course, but old folks are said to lean R, so why not point it out if MfA will save them $4-6K per year?

I haven't followed it closely, but has Bernie and Warren said anything about Congress? Would they also be on Medicare or would they keep their Cadillac plan?

 

[Run&Blade]

Only interested in plans where the provider has to accept government payment as full payment.

also like to see a plan where you can get a physical every year and if you hit BMI target you get $1,000 cash. Obesity is the biggest problem in this country and IMO you give people a good reason to lose weight they will. Some People at my work damn near look like Ethiopians after the company weight loss contests.

 

[BrunoMars420]

I pay $450 a month for a family of 4 for pretty good employer coverage. Idk what the employer chips in though. Personally I like what we have for insurance and what we pay so I am against going towards this Medicare for all unless the end game is cheaper coverage and same quality of care but I have my doubts on that.

 

[Joes Place]

Idk what the employer chips in though.

You should, because that's a "fixed" aspect of your salary.

 

[BrunoMars420]

You should, because that's a "fixed" aspect of your salary.

It is through my wife’s employer which is why I don’t know.

 

[ClarindaA's]

Need people to not overuse health care. ER visits. Obesity, Diabetes, other preventable issues

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Your post is pretty thought provoking (in a good way). It's not easy to find answers to specific questions but Vox does a fair job:
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942587/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-explained

Personally I think that the MFA plans are way too ambitious. Better to pass incremental change than fail on one big change.

BTW I have Part B and an Advantage plan w/Part D that puts me, with $400 drug deductible, at about $2700/year.

Excellent link. Thanks. Addresses the strengths and weaknesses of her plan. More strengths.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I pay $450 a month for a family of 4 for pretty good employer coverage. Idk what the employer chips in though. Personally I like what we have for insurance and what we pay so I am against going towards this Medicare for all unless the end game is cheaper coverage and same quality of care but I have my doubts on that.

Suppose it merely gives you the same coverage for the same cost.

Wouldn't it still be worth it? Consider that it's helping millions of Americans who are now uninsured or underinsured.

Isn't that worth doing?

 

[Hawkeye_311]

The problem with this discussion for Republicans is that it's not just a financial discussion. It's a jealousy issue.

Have a friend at work who is moderately conservative. His objection to free college for example ultimately isn't the cost. His objection is that it's no fair because he (And I'm pretty sure he means mostly his parents.) had to paid for college and it's not fair that other people could go there for free when he couldn't.

One of the things you are going to have to get past is a lot of people are going to look at it like they spent their entire lives paying for this exclusive benefit they get when they hit retirement age only for the benefit to no longer be made exclusive. And that they will say is unfair.

So all the professors are going to work for free?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

So all the professors are going to work for free?

Not completely free, I mean free to the student and his or her family. But you are missing the point entirely.

 

[MplsHawk]

The problem with this discussion for Republicans is that it's not just a financial discussion. It's a jealousy issue.

Have a friend at work who is moderately conservative. His objection to free college for example ultimately isn't the cost. His objection is that it's no fair because he (And I'm pretty sure he means mostly his parents.) had to paid for college and it's not fair that other people could go there for free when he couldn't.

One of the things you are going to have to get past is a lot of people are going to look at it like they spent their entire lives paying for this exclusive benefit they get when they hit retirement age only for the benefit to no longer be made exclusive. And that they will say is unfair.

Jealousy is an odd way to describe that situation. A fairness issue, of course. A personal responsibility issue, definitely. Jealousy makes it sound like he is envious of something others have earned.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Jealousy is an odd way to describe that situation. A fairness issue, of course. A personal responsibility issue, definitely. Jealousy makes it sound like he is envious of something others have earned.

Jealousy doesn't have to be something earned either. It's just has to be something that someone has access to that you didn't.

In terms of fairness and personal responsibility for the record the right doesn't seem to want to address the unfairness and extra responsibility that seems to be put upon people who have to pay 5 times as much when accounting for inflation.

Now me personally, I'm not concerned about fairness so much as I'm concerned about what's best for everyone. You don't have to forgive my student loans, I'm happy to pay them off. But I also know that it's best for everyone that they don't have to experience paying back massive student loans like I and so many others have experienced. So my view is that college needs to be made more affordable if it's not made free to the student and his/her family.

Honestly if you made college cost what it cost in the 1970's accounting for inflation and I don't think we need to make it available free of charge to the student and their family. They could pay that with reasonable loans or just by working their way through college and I don't have a problem with that.

But my student loans where the price of a low end luxury car. Today student loans are the size of a small mortgage.

It's a problem that needs to be fixed. Not having screams about personal responsibility or blaming the problem on the very vehicles which would allow poorer people to have a chance to go to college in the first place.

 

[Run&Blade]

Jealousy doesn't have to be something earned either. It's just has to be something that someone has access to that you didn't.

In terms of fairness and personal responsibility for the record the right doesn't seem to want to address the unfairness and extra responsibility that seems to be put upon people who have to pay 5 times as much when accounting for inflation.

Now me personally, I'm not concerned about fairness so much as I'm concerned about what's best for everyone. You don't have to forgive my student loans, I'm happy to pay them off. But I also know that it's best for everyone that they don't have to experience paying back massive student loans like I and so many others have experienced. So my view is that college needs to be made more affordable if it's not made free to the student and his/her family.

Honestly if you made college cost what it cost in the 1970's accounting for inflation and I don't think we need to make it available free of charge to the student and their family. They could pay that with reasonable loans or just by working their way through college and I don't have a problem with that.

But my student loans where the price of a low end luxury car. Today student loans are the size of a small mortgage.

It's a problem that needs to be fixed. Not having screams about personal responsibility or blaming the problem on the very vehicles which would allow poorer people to have a chance to go to college in the first place.

two years of junior college and a state school for two years doesn’t add up to a mortgage.

if you need to borrow every penny I suggest taking online classes at a JUCO and working full time for a while.

nobody pays sticker price for college. If you do then you must have shit grades and junior college is the way to go.

 

[jasonrann]

Wife (no pic) and I pay about $9,000/year for our portion of our health insurance through work. For that, we get $3,000 deductibles for the three of us, including our daughter. I'd be happy to pay the same amount of money for better benefits, whether in the form of premium reimbursement or tax.

 

[Rifler]

Those of us who currently pay for health insurance can expect to be paying more,.. Someone will have to carry those who can't afford it and we will be the most likely source....

 

[Run&Blade]

Those of us who currently pay for health insurance can expect to be paying more,.. Someone will have to carry those who can't afford it and we will be the most likely source....

That is true. Which is why I would like to read about what they are going to do that lowers the cost of healthcare. All we get is cost shift talk. IMO those that work in collections and billing at hospitals are not the highest paid employees so those savings will be minimal.

is anybody suggesting reimbursement rates will go down? If not there will be no savings.

 

[MplsHawk]

Jealousy doesn't have to be something earned either. It's just has to be something that someone has access to that you didn't.

In terms of fairness and personal responsibility for the record the right doesn't seem to want to address the unfairness and extra responsibility that seems to be put upon people who have to pay 5 times as much when accounting for inflation.

Now me personally, I'm not concerned about fairness so much as I'm concerned about what's best for everyone. You don't have to forgive my student loans, I'm happy to pay them off. But I also know that it's best for everyone that they don't have to experience paying back massive student loans like I and so many others have experienced. So my view is that college needs to be made more affordable if it's not made free to the student and his/her family.

Honestly if you made college cost what it cost in the 1970's accounting for inflation and I don't think we need to make it available free of charge to the student and their family. They could pay that with reasonable loans or just by working their way through college and I don't have a problem with that.

But my student loans where the price of a low end luxury car. Today student loans are the size of a small mortgage.

It's a problem that needs to be fixed. Not having screams about personal responsibility or blaming the problem on the very vehicles which would allow poorer people to have a chance to go to college in the first place.

The unfairness and extra responsibility of today's college costs have little to do with the right. Making college more affordable is going to cut into liberal institutions, not conservative ones. These "free college" proposals likely will do nothing to reduce the costs of education, but will just pass the responsibility to the taxpayers. There has to be personal responsibility or people will continue to make poor decisions. You shouldn't be willing to spend $100k+ to get a degree in something that provides no real career opportunities. If students continue to make those types of decisions, colleges will keep taking as much of their money as they can. Two of my three children are through college or just finishing up. They both chose degrees with great employment prospects and they both worked multiple jobs through college to keep from needing student loans. With debt avoidance as a motivating factor, they made great decisions. If it was all "free" to them, I doubt that they would have.

 

[MplsHawk]

That is true. Which is why I would like to here about what they are going to do that lowers the cost of healthcare. All we get is cost shift talk. IMO those that work in collections and billing at hospitals are not the highest paid employees so those savings will be minimal.

is anybody suggesting reimbursement rates will go down? If not there will be no savings.

Reimbursement rates will have to go up relative to current medicare reimbursement rates. Average overall reimbursement rates will have to stay the same I would think.

 

[Rifler]

is anybody suggesting reimbursement rates will go down? If not there will be no savings.

Medicare reimbursement rates are already below the cost of service. The entire program only exists because it's being subsidized by private insurance,... Eliminate private insurance and Medicare reimbursements will have to increase across the board...

 

[BrunoMars420]

Suppose it merely gives you the same coverage for the same cost.

Wouldn't it still be worth it? Consider that it's helping millions of Americans who are now uninsured or underinsured.

Isn't that worth doing?

But the thing is, it won’t be. I’d be more interested in ways we can lower the costs of health insurance where my employer or myself wouldn’t have to pay as much compared to getting taxed to death.

There have been mentions in numerous threads of what we can do to lower these healthcare costs. Why do we have to go to one extreme of Medicare for all when we can work on lowering costs?

 

[Rifler]

If we are serious about wanting to lower health care costs we need to go after end of life services,... people will not like it though.

 

[orod741]

According to the July 1 Total Compensation Statement that I received from the University, I was compensated $22,582 for insurance benefits and credits the past fiscal year. With my wife and I both being University employees, we qualify for the double spouse status so don't pay a monthly premium. The only out of pocket we paid was for $10 copays for office visits and 10% co-insurance for procedures. Our plan has a $1,700 OOP max which we are nearing due to our son being born in January. With the University changing their plan options, I will be paying 5% of our premiums for our current plan starting in 2020.

For those of you currently with MC Part B and a supplement plan, have you done a cost analysis of the premiums for the supplement vs what MC co-ins you would be responsible for? From what I'm familiar with, it doesn't seem to be a very good investment for anyone that is relatively healthy.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

But the thing is, it won’t be. I’d be more interested in ways we can lower the costs of health insurance where my employer or myself wouldn’t have to pay as much compared to getting taxed to death.

There have been mentions in numerous threads of what we can do to lower these healthcare costs. Why do we have to go to one extreme of Medicare for all when we can work on lowering costs?

I don't know that it has to be medicare for all per se but the countries which have universal healthcare pay much lower healthcare costs per capita.

I believe part of the reason for this is the reduction in costs for medical billing. Medical billing is an entire specialized field in and of itself and hospitals and clinics often have to employ several people just to make sure they get paid.

I would be interested in looking at the books of insurance companies and hospitals and clinics in this country and in others and trying to locate the major cost drivers that could be eliminated.

 

[BrunoMars420]

I don't know that it has to be medicare for all per se but the countries which have universal healthcare pay much lower healthcare costs per capita.

I believe part of the reason for this is the reduction in costs for medical billing. Medical billing is an entire specialized field in and of itself and hospitals and clinics often have to employ several people just to make sure they get paid.

I would be interested in looking at the books of insurance companies and hospitals and clinics in this country and in others and trying to locate the major cost drivers that could be eliminated.

You would think these non profit would have plenty of books to go through in regards to these major cost drivers.

 

[Rifler]

From what I'm familiar with, it doesn't seem to be a very good investment for anyone that is relatively healthy.

Of course not, but that's how insurance works...

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

You would think these non profit would have plenty of books to go through in regards to these major cost drivers.

I'm not sure but I don't think not for profits are required to make their financials available to the public.

Another possible issue is most books that I have seen just have one line for all the wages they paid to employees. This presents a problem because it doesn't break it up into types of employees or what the employees do. So it's hard to see how much is going to nurses, cafeteria staff and how much is going to the billing specialists which is one place where many see a major excess cost.

I'm going to poke around a bit though.