Current Events > Does M4A account for the fact that many employer health plans are subsidized?

(+) Yeah! (+)

So the idea on paper as it's been explained is that the cost per-person for healthcare won't go up that much because instead of paying out of pocket for healthcare it'll come out of your taxes instead. Okay, cool. Currently employers cover as much as 80% of the costs for plans and the employee covers the remaining 20% through payroll deductions. When M4A hits and I'm suddenly being taxed for 100% the cost instead of 20% and not suddenly getting a huge pay raise how does M4A adjust? Or are people with employer insurance just going to get completely fucked over?

Source for the 80% estimate: https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/what-percent-of-health-insurance-is-paid-by-employers

---

The idea is that the companies will pass the savings of no longer having to pay for insurance to employee salaries, like the tax cut

it accounts for the fact we wont need those at all making people spend LESS MONEY and giving every one health care

like every other first world nation which does just fine with the system

---

CruelBuffalo posted...

The idea is that the companies will pass the savings of no longer having to pay for insurance to employee salaries, like the tax cut

So M4A literally relies on trickle down economics?

---

Havent thought about it like this. If thats the case you know full well theyd barely pass any savings at all to the employees. And I reaaally cant believe that my company would pay the amount they say they do on my insurance as it is.

---

Someone has to have an answer for this. I looked it up out of curiosity, and couldn't find any obvious references to how these plans will address this problem. Further complicating things, the employee subsidized coverage is tax-free, meaning even if employers were to cover the difference which seems extremely unlikely, you would still be taxed fully on that additional income.

In terms of a plans, we're talking literally $5,000 to $15,000 more a year per person if the cost of plans stays the same.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/story-medicare-all-and-taxes-complex-warren-and-sanders-have-tell-it

In actual dollars, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that a typical plan in 2019 costs $20,576. Employers pay an average of $14,561 and workers pay $6,015.

The employer share is tax-free to workers. If your employer pays $15,000 annually for your family plan, you pay no income or payroll tax on that benefit. But if you are in the 32 percent tax bracket and your firm gives you $15,000 in cash, youd owe roughly $5,000 in extra federal income tax (plus additional payroll tax and possibly state income tax).

---

people will not be paying more stop listing that propaganda people in every other first world country pay LESS than we do for health care

its just the rich will have to pay more in taxes its pure propaganda from greedy rich bastards who want to keep stealing from the poor

---

AceMos posted...

people will not be paying more stop listing that propaganda people in every other first world country pay LESS than we do for health care

its just the rich will have to pay more in taxes its pure propaganda from greedy rich bastards who want to keep stealing from the poor

But how? Nothing about the proposed Medicare for all plans would reduce the costs of pills are procedures. The cfrb estimates that the actual net cost for healthcare would barely shift over the next decade. That means that everything else above about the burden shifting from employers to individuals holds true.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost

---

CruelBuffalo posted...

The idea is that the companies will pass the savings of no longer having to pay for insurance to employee salaries, like the tax cut

Nobody has said this

---

The tax burden will disproportionately fall on the wealthy; you won't get a tax bill for the amount your current plan costs
---

s0nicfan posted...

But how? Nothing about the proposed Medicare for all plans would reduce the costs of pills are procedures. The cfrb estimates that the actual net cost for healthcare would barely shift over the next decade. That means that everything else above about the burden shifting from employers to individuals holds true.

The way i saw it phrased was that the cost Medicare pays vs the proposed cost is almost always significantly cheaper, so this would in theory drive all Healthcare costs down.

s0nicfan posted...

Nothing about the proposed Medicare for all plans would reduce the costs of pills are procedures.

Price-fixing is an inevitability.

My concern would be the quality of care provided and wait times. These quotes are pretty scary:

"The Fraser Institute researchers also calculated the value of all the waking hours that patients lost because they couldn't fully function. The toll was staggering -- almost $5,600 per patient, totaling $5.8 billion nationally. And those calculations ignore the value of uncompensated care provided by family members, who often take time off work or quit their jobs to help ill loved ones.
Canada isn't an anomaly. Every nation that offers government-funded, universal coverage features long wait times. When the government makes health care "free," consumers' demand for medical services surges. Patients have no incentive to limit their doctor visits or choose more cost-efficient providers.
To prevent expenses from ballooning, the government sets strict budget caps that only enable hospitals to hire a limited number of staff and purchase a meager amount of equipment. Demand inevitably outstrips supply. Shortages result."

"Those delays were excruciatingly long. After receiving a referral from a general practitioner, the typical patient waited more than 21 weeks to receive treatment from a specialist. That was the longest average waiting period on record -- and more than double the median wait in 1993.
Rural patients faced even longer delays. For instance, the average Canadian in need of orthopedic surgery waited almost 24 weeks for treatment -- but the typical patient in rural Nova Scotia waited nearly 39 weeks for the same procedure."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/06/11/canadians-are-one-in-a-million-while-waiting-for-medical-treatment/#1ac213cb3e7d

---

Wait times get longer when you dont let people die in the streets lol

---

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-2019-financing?id=860FD1B9-3E8A-4ADD-8C1F-0DEDC8D45BC1&download=1&inline=file

---

Houston posted...

My concern would be the quality of care provided and wait times. These quotes are pretty scary:

Of course, private healthcare will still exist, especially so if it's technically banned.

Just tax the corporations to make up the difference. Shouldn't matter if it's an equal amount as what they were paying. Well, except to all the Republicans who took that stupid Norquist pledge.

---

Blighboy posted...

Wait times get longer when you dont let people die in the streets lol

That doesn't really happen. Yes, it is true you will get worse care without insurance and you won't get "the whole nine yards treatment" if you're poor. But you're not getting the whole nine yards treatment to begin with in these countries, either.

Instead of just some people not having the option to choose their doctors, specialists, when they get care, how much care they wish to receive, etc. --- pretty much everyone just gets mediocre care and long wait times.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Of course, private healthcare will still exist, especially so if it's technically banned.

That doesn't help the middle/upper middle class too much, though, which happens to be most people in the U.S. I have good employer provided insurance and it's pretty damn cheap, provided I remain a healthy young adult and don't constantly require procedures or operations every year. If in the unfortunate event something like that were to occur, I would have to pay more, but would receive excellent care without waiting for months and would have a choice in my providers.

Under this plan, it seems I would perpetually be paying for care I'm not using now, and, if I were to need it, would not have much say in the matter and would have to wait sometimes weeks or months for treatment.

---