How much will you save when Bernie Sanders' healthcare plan is implemented?

[nageov3t]

http://berniecare.org/

$2244.6 in additional costs

whomp whomp... this is for a childfree-dual-male-tech-industry-income household, though, with 2 pretty good insurance plans from our employers.

 

[OverVolt]

IS this anything like how much I will save switching to comcast, no thanks.

 

[Strk]

If I still have the same job (which I'm hoping not to), it will cost me around $800. My insurance is 100% company paid before anyone asks.

However, if I get to leave my company, I went with $60 a week and it went to around $2k in savings.

 

[MixMasterTang]

It's hard to say but anywhere from $500 to $3500 it looks like. $500 on a year where I don't have any out of pocket expenses/co-pays, deductibles, etc. and $3500 if I hit my max out of pocket on my current health plan (which covers me + 2 kids).

 

[senseamp]

Not going to happen.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Right now I am insurance, fiancee is not insured and costs are out of pocket for her. its expensive. I do not trust anybody who says they won't raise my taxes, because I know that is part of the game plan, but, even if my income tax goes up significantly, I will probably save 2-3K a year.

Now, if it was just me, on my own, then I wouldn't really save anything because my insurance coverage is not very expensive and I dont visit very many doctors.

When I marry, I will get a lot more tax benefits, and woman will be on my insurance plan, will save me significantly more $$$ each year. But, we dont wanna rush into anything ... so we will do it when we are good and ready

 

[Ken g6]

I'd save over 2K. But my employer would pay something like 3-4K more. (He now pays $0. D Also...

Not going to happen.

 

[SP33Demon]

$2024.50, lol.

 

[bozack]

Boom

"$2575.5 in additional costs"

And we are well below the 250K household threshold he keeps touting as "upper class" and that takes both of us working.

What a joke and a sham.

 

[Moonbeam]

What do I care! Everybody will have health insurance. There are parents around I would bet, who would self sacrifice if it meant their kids could get needed medical attention. What kind of fucking piece of shit would I be if I looked at my money before the lives of others? A lot of you can probably tell me.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

What do I care! Everybody will have health insurance. There are parents around I would bet, who would self sacrifice if it meant their kids could get needed medical attention. What kind of fucking piece of shit would I be if I looked at my money before the lives of others? A lot of you can probably tell me.

I could say that, too, but I have a family member whose medical risk, longevity and comfort took a turn for the better after the ACA.

I have a pretty good deal with Medicare A, B and an established secondary insurer. My only prescription costs me about 9x what he pays, but it isn't a major burden. My premiums have only increase annually as they did before the ACA for many years.

My relative, with SSDI, doesn't have a pot to piss in. So I feel good about the improvement in his life for the ACA.

 

[realibrad]

What do I care! Everybody will have health insurance. There are parents around I would bet, who would self sacrifice if it meant their kids could get needed medical attention. What kind of fucking piece of shit would I be if I looked at my money before the lives of others? A lot of you can probably tell me.

Money represents a numerical value to labor and resources. If we did not factor cost into healthcare, then we would not care about the resources being used on healthcare. Resources are limited for this world as it is now. If we spend resources on healthcare, it literally means we did not spend it on something else.

You would never spend all your money on healthcare and zero on say housing, because you need to have both. Overspending on healthcare is a bad idea, and its really hard to tell when you have.

Look at it like this. Steve Jobs flew around the world spending lots of money trying to save his life. Now, its his money and he can do what he wants with it, but for sure it could have been better used than hopeless attempts at a cure.

Look at it like this. In 2008 Medicare paid $50 billion for the last 2 months of patients lives. That is more than what we spent on the Dept of Edu. If we are talking about expanding a system that furthers this type of thing, then I would be against it. Its people who understandably do not want to die, but are using others money to try and live just a little longer. Nobody wants to die, but its a horrible incentive to say that you can fight a little longer and have others sacrifice. Imagine what $25 billion could have been used to do for this world.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Well, we have the costliest health-care system in the world, and it has multiple markets and industries. The ACA is organized as a hybrid with promotion of markets.

If health care is either a right or a universally valued measure of a fair society, there's no reason it can't be had with better cost-control, even with a single-payer system.

But I'll say this is the "Hillar-istic" aspect of my thinking. The private health insurance industry grew up to be a major player. You can't just say you're going to abolish an entire industry or force it to convert itself to marketing whole-life policies and let go of its established market.

And there's the other aspect to this. How is it that two dentists located two blocks apart in a city may offer to do the same mouth-repair for $28,000 and $8,000, respectively?

 

[soundforbjt]

The health care industry and the insurance industry has the most lobbyists of anyone, they get what they want.

 

[realibrad]

Well, we have the costliest health-care system in the world, and it has multiple markets and industries. The ACA is organized as a hybrid with promotion of markets.

If health care is either a right or a universally valued measure of a fair society, there's no reason it can't be had with better cost-control, even with a single-payer system.

But I'll say this is the "Hillar-istic" aspect of my thinking. The private health insurance industry grew up to be a major player. You can't just say you're going to abolish an entire industry or force it to convert itself to marketing whole-life policies and let go of its established market.

And there's the other aspect to this. How is it that two dentists located two blocks apart in a city may offer to do the same mouth-repair for $28,000 and $8,000, respectively?

I would disagree with what you said in that the US has the "costliest". It is true that we spend more per person, but we also do a lot more than other countries. We run far more tests than say Canada. The US people expect far more to be done when going to the Dr than what is done in other countries.

If you were to compare the cost of procedure x in the US and Say the UK, then it would appear that the US is overpaying. The mistake is that what is done in the procedure is not apples to apples. Equipment, methods, treatment ect are all in the cost of the procedure.

 

[Subyman]

I saved about $160 a month when ACA went into effect. I'll be happy if we just keep cruising with what is already established. I wouldn't be against saving more though

 

[Moonbeam]

Money represents a numerical value to labor and resources. If we did not factor cost into healthcare, then we would not care about the resources being used on healthcare. Resources are limited for this world as it is now. If we spend resources on healthcare, it literally means we did not spend it on something else.

You would never spend all your money on healthcare and zero on say housing, because you need to have both. Overspending on healthcare is a bad idea, and its really hard to tell when you have.

Look at it like this. Steve Jobs flew around the world spending lots of money trying to save his life. Now, its his money and he can do what he wants with it, but for sure it could have been better used than hopeless attempts at a cure.

Look at it like this. In 2008 Medicare paid $50 billion for the last 2 months of patients lives. That is more than what we spent on the Dept of Edu. If we are talking about expanding a system that furthers this type of thing, then I would be against it. Its people who understandably do not want to die, but are using others money to try and live just a little longer. Nobody wants to die, but its a horrible incentive to say that you can fight a little longer and have others sacrifice. Imagine what $25 billion could have been used to do for this world.

I see several ways to respond to this, one of which would be flat out agreement, with the point of my earlier post something other than a desire to ignore cost all together. I am going to respond then as an intellectual divorced from reality as I normally see it, much like I feel that you do regularly, and simply say that the obvious answer to the conundrum you propose is to stop medical payments to all people two months before their deaths.

 

[cliftonite]

$4872 in additional costs

 

[realibrad]

I see several ways to respond to this, one of which would be flat out agreement, with the point of my earlier post something other than a desire to ignore cost all together. I am going to respond then as an intellectual divorced from reality as I normally see it, much like I feel that you do regularly, and simply say that the obvious answer to the conundrum you propose is to stop medical payments to all people two months before their deaths.

Having a bad day? I put effort and thought into my response, and you come back with that post.

 

[Moonbeam]

Having a bad day? I put effort and thought into my response, and you come back with that post.

Well, in the first place I tried to tell you that I could have simply agreed with what you said, that your effortful and thoughtful post made very good sense, but I chose, additionally, to put some effort and thought of my own into what I posted back, with the expectation you put some thought and effort into my reply. What you regularly do with my posts is to completely miss the point.

Your posts while generally quite rational and well thought out, lack something I would maybe call wisdom, an inner sense of grounded centeredness I feel your posting lacks, exactly as if you never connect to the fact that we don't really know when people will die, while everything else I suggested would otherwise make perfect sense. You see, I don't so much care about any of your individual posts so much as I care about you. I will always aim to show you something I don't think you see. Intellectual debate is of little interest to me. For you it's safe ground, where you want to stay.

But don't worry that you don't see my depth or perspicacity or devote effort to help you as best I can. I do so because I like you and expect no reward.

 

[child of wonder]

$4976.40 in additional costs

Not to mention the money I'd lose since my wife and I both max out 401k and invest extra money on our own that would be taxed as regular income when we retire instead of long term capital gains.

 

[mrjminer]

Thinking you will save anything is stupid. You will pay, it might just not be on a bill for your health insurance. Money doesn't grow on trees, and thinking the hands of the federal government is somehow going to shred costs across the board that will not be made up for somewhere else is stupid.

You tools who think insurance companies are going to just eat losses or reduce their profits without making up for it somehow have another thing coming. Let's start small with a hypothetical: I am taking 20% off your wages because... fuck you, that's why. Now, would you just sit back and let that happen? Or would you instead find some way to gain that 20% back? Or would you get rid of a comparable number of employees to make up for the loss?

Socialism / Marxism is a theory that does not pan out in reality. Maybe, just maybe hundreds-thousands of years down the line when society is far more advanced than it is, it will work. That time is obviously not now, and you are an idiot if you support any of the philosophies slung by this grade A shitbag, Bernie Sanders.

 

[realibrad]

Well, in the first place I tried to tell you that I could have simply agreed with what you said, that your effortful and thoughtful post made very good sense, but I chose, additionally, to put some effort and thought of my own into what I posted back, with the expectation you put some thought and effort into my reply. What you regularly do with my posts is to completely miss the point.

Your posts while generally quite rational and well thought out, lack something I would maybe call wisdom, an inner sense of grounded centeredness I feel your posting lacks, exactly as if you never connect to the fact that we don't really know when people will die, while everything else I suggested would otherwise make perfect sense. You see, I don't so much care about any of your individual posts so much as I care about you. I will always aim to show you something I don't think you see. Intellectual debate is of little interest to me. For you it's safe ground, where you want to stay.

But don't worry that you don't see my depth or perspicacity or devote effort to help you as best I can. I do so because I like you and expect no reward.

We dont know when people will die, but the incentive right now is to spend as much as you can of other people's money to extend your life. That is a system where costs will be ignored and resources wasted. Your point seemed to be that people are wrong for looking at money, when in reality, it would be far less moral not to.

As for all the other stuff in your post, feel free to PM me, as expounding on that in this thread would simply derail the topic. You could also start another thread and let me know where you put it.

 

[Subyman]

How are some of you guys figuring this stuff? Are you putting in $0 current annual costs due to employer benefits? If you are then I don't think this calculator is for you or you aren't taking into account your lose in wages for your medical benefits.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

About 3k to 4k SAVED!