Businesses wouldn't be providing healthcare costs for employees anymore. My wifes employer paid like 8k last year for her insurance and we paid another 300 ish a month.

So they can eat a tax increase too and still break even depending on the number

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 21 2020 12:50pm

dealing with 10 or so factors simultaneously is never simple. but the meme in question here is just about money in money out. and we have pundits all over the place saying things like "Under bernie your taxes will go up ____". and rarely do they talk about household healthcare costs on average.

in any case 10x more time is spent talking about "what your taxes will look like under medicare for all" than "how do u get medicare for all into law". and that's the real issue here.

I make a little over 60k per year. Based on what I currently spend on health care (medical, dental, vision insurance premiums and HSA contributions), according to the Sanders tax plan site, my taxes would go up a little (specifically due to the 4.0% tax for M4A), but my overall out of pocket spending for medical-related expenses would drop by over $8000 (I spend about $9500 a year right now for insurance for myself and my wife).

Plus, overhead costs for businesses are going to go down, because they won't have to spend money offering health insurance for their employees.

Maybe, maybe not. If this was the case you would have at least a portion of businesses being 'for' it but you really don't. Most businesses hate taxes, regardless of what potential benefits there are.

I can just imagine this scenario.

You're 55. You have a 1 million dollar nest egg in your 401k between you and your wife. You expect a 7-10% return. You pay 5000/year for healthcare.

Now Barnie is elected. Right off the bat stock market drops 20% because we all know what Bernie plans to do. Your portfolio just got wiped for 200,000 grand. Not only that but now you only expect 5-7% yearly returns because there's higher taxes and regulations on businesses, probably even lower because now barnie wants to mandate higher minimum wage laws, carbon tax, etc.

...but you're saving 5,000 grand in healthcare only to give it back in the tax increases...

like who wants this? And this is a pretty typical middle class scenario.



You guys probably have a 401k as well. Does that 8000/year out weigh the hit you'll take on your portfolio and 4-8 years of lower expected average returns?

and that 8000 wouldn't actually be a saving because a portion, lets say 6000 k would be a tax increase

so does a 3500/year savings in healthcase costs out weigh your portfolio hit and expected return? I'd put money on that it doesn't.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Feb 21 2020 01:37pm

Not sure why you argue basic shit like with grown adults.

Let them feel the burnnn

yeah it’s blatantly misleading math (which infuriates me when dumbass memes like this get traction) but rest assured if Barnie could make it that the state gets 52% of every dollar earned by workers he would



while this is true, i thought the “Affordable Healthcare Act” fixed all the issues with healthcare! the people who passed it and the media said so *LAUGH OUT LOUD*

This post was edited by excellence on Feb 21 2020 01:35pm

You hold and wait, after ten years your portfolio is the same as it would have been if nothing was done because that's how the stock market historically has worked even during times of high uncertainty. You laugh at your co-workers who pulled their investments out of fear at the height of panic. Sound historically proven investment strategy wins again.

You hold and wait regardless but that doesn't change the fact that because of this instead of having like 2-3 million you'd be retiring with half of that.

A 20% hit in your 50s would be disastrous. Play with a 401k calculator and see how massive of a difference is even a 2% lower compounding rate.

Nah, just look at the historical data. It will recover and follow virtually the same line as if it was never touched.

Even in 2008 the Dow dips and then hops back up and goes right along chugging.

Still, youre just wildly speculating. Having guaranteed access to healthcare would have a lot of benefits for the economy. Guaranteed access to healthcare makes it easier for individuals to take business risks for example. We really just won't know the wider effects.

It's like you don't understand what i'm saying.

It will recover for people who will be contributing for another 25 years and start to draw down 4 presidents later. But if you're in your mid 50's and stock market tanks and you lose 20% that's massive for you because in 5-10 years you will start to draw down and you will never be able to recover to the point of wealth you could of had if that -20% didn't happen.

Stock market crashes are no big deal if you're young it's devastating to old people who can no longer buy the crash and instead are depending on their nest egg for income.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Feb 21 2020 01:56pm