Biden's Obamacare 2.0 plan would cost $750 billion over 10 years, to be paid for by raising taxes on the investment income of wealthy Americans, his campaign said.

Meanwhile, Congressional Budget Office estimates for Medicare for all, which is one step away from a government-controlled single-payer plan, have been pegged such plans as high as $22 trillion annually, depending on how benefits-rich they are. North Carolina politicians recently killed their own plans for a state single-payer plan when cost estimates rolled in with a $20 billion annual price tag.

Sanders has not announced how he intends to pay for his plan yet, but Wall Street and a tax on securities transactions seems to be the head-on favorite amongst liberals and Social Democrats this year.

While you may think such a transaction tax would scare the markets and the investment advisor industry, you’d only be partially right.

Even the Wall Street Journal called Biden’s plan “a nod to the past.”

In fact, a recent poll shows that Medicare-for-all has captured the interest of even savvy capitalists. In a new Financial Advisor Magazine survey, only 54% of financial professionals and executives oppose the creation of a Medicare-for-all plan. Some 20.7 of our readers would favor the creation of such a plan for folks over 50, while 25.3% of financial services professionals and executives would favor the creation of a Medicare-for-all plan for everyone.

Polling also shows that 77 percent of Democratic-leaning adults want a universal, single-payer system envisioned by a Medicare-for-all program; while only 52 percent of all adults support such a system.

The Democratic field sans Biden, however, has moved toward Sanders on the issue, with most candidates backing some form of Medicare-for-all, with or without allowing private health insurance to coexist with it.

Ben Simiskey, director of wealth management at Stegent Equity Advisors in Houston, said he tries to think about whether some of the Democrat proposals for taxpayer-financed benefits will benefit or harm clients in both a financial and emotional way, since not all of his clients lean to the right.

“Governmental policies can sometimes benefit in one way, but harm in another. I think the proposed socialist policies would be a negative to my clients financially. But for my clients who lean left, the policies could benefit them emotionally,” Simiskey said.