Health Savings Account-Health Savings Account Info

Obnoxious American asked:


Since unlimited “perfect” healthcare is prohibitively expensive, even for the world’s richest people, any healthcare, public, private, or self financed will inherently have to be rationed in some way.

The question is; who do you want making those rationing decisions for you?

This question becomes even more important when you realize that these rationing decisions apply not just to the standard of care but also to behavior.

Regardless of which system you use, risky behavior (and all behavior involves risk) will have to be weighed, by the entity controlling the healthcare funds, against the ability to pay for the potential injuries that might result.

It is important to keep in mind that the entity controlling the funds (the money is the one that gets to make these decisions.

When healthcare is self financed, the individual pays for their own healthcare “out-of-pocket,” likely from a savings account set aside for this purpose. This system grants the individual the most freedom, but also the most responsibility as it will be entirely up to them to decide how much money to appropriate for healthcare, which conditions to see a doctor about (as opposed to treat at home), and what behaviors to engage in.

On the other hand, private health care removes some of the responsibility and much of the decision making from the individual. While participation in these programs is usually voluntary, once someone has joined such a plan they will be required to abide by the requirements of the plan which include how much money will minimally be set aside for healthcare through the plan, what standard of care is available through the plan, and what forms of risky behavior are permissible (for example, some plans will not admit smokers and will penalize/cancel people for smoking). While these plans do restrict an individual’s behavior, enforce certain payment schedules, and pre-determine the standard of care an individual receives, all of this is known to the individual before they join, the individual joins out of free will, there are contractual requirements placed upon the insurer as well, and there are many plans to choose from, granting individuals to ability to find one that best fits their individual needs.

Finally, public, State controlled healthcare places total control in the hands of the State. Since the money will be taken from you through taxes, you have no control over the amount of money allocated for healthcare or even if you wish to join the State controlled plan. Unlike private plans which will merely cancel your coverage if you choose not to pay, the state can arrest and imprison you for refusal to pay your healthcare taxes. Also, under a state plan, the payer looses the ability to choose a plan that best fits their needs, as only one plan will be available. Also, whereas a private plan can only cancel your coverage if you engage in behavior forbidden under the plan, the State can use the cost of healthcare to criminalize these behaviors and arrest you for them. Under such a system, the State will determine the standard of care provided for each ailment, forcing subjects to hope that the lobby for their ailment is stronger then the lobbies of other ailments competing for the same funding. Finally, unlike private healthcare which is bound by contract, the state is under no such obligation and can “alter the deal” whenever they so choose.

This brings us back to our question, who do you want making your health care decisions, you or the State. Or to simplify the question, would you rather be a free person, making your own decisions, or a subject of the State, subject to its whims…

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/320/7226/10/a

To those who say:

“You still have the right to take out private health care” under a State run system…

How are you going to afford private healthcare after the State has already forcibly taken all the money you would otherwise have spent on YOUR healthcare to pay for ITS “System”???

Katia Hedgepeth

under_fire53 asked:


Finance guru Earl Matthews (founder of aid4families.com) has set his sights on revolutionizing the pension plans of several countries. Like many of his brethren, David Filo and Jerry Yang (founders of Yahoo), Larry Page and Sergey Brin ( founders of google), and Chris Dewolf & Tom Anderson ( founders of Myspace), a generation that grew up under the likes of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, seem determined to change every aspect of society. It seems odd that while we are talking about the government being involved in universal health care and at the same time private savings accounts and privatizing pensions. The government may get your teeth fixed until you are 90 but the money for food to use those teeth on will be up to you to find. Do you support universal health care and do you support public pension schemes relying on “for profit” fund managers?
http://www.aid4families.com/Press%20Release.html

Moshe Able

Mr. LOL asked:


I have a pretty good insurance through my company that I partly own.

It’s a health savings account type insurance with $2,500 deductible.

I have about $17,000 in the HSA

I think this kind of insurance would be ideal as it forces me to lead a healthier life style, and not to frivolously go to a doctor.

People should not think that health care should be “free”. Nothing is “free”!!

They should have a graduated deductible scales for people with lower income.

Doesn’t this make more sense than offering everyone an inferior, low or no deductible insurance for “free”?
$2500 is just a yearly deductible. After that the insurance pays 100% up to a limit of course.

Shana Doop

Lance asked:


The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.
8/11/09
By JOHN MACKEY
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
—Margaret Thatcher

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

Highlights:
•Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
•Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
•Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
•Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
•Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
•Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
•Enact Medicare reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
•Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance.

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”?
Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices.

Jaclyn Defina

Tommy asked:


One of the side effects of bringing in millions of people with no education that can’t speak english is that a lot have diseases or are at high risk for injury. Also, a lot of them go to the emergency room all the time because it’s “free”. In addition to costing a fortune and hurting the health care for Americans including drastically increasing insurance premiums, we have problems like this.

Yes, some of these people illegally work for wages below what Americans will take, but when people say illegal aliens are good for the economy, do they take things like this into account, or do they just look at the cost savings for businesses?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060720/hl_hsn/languageawideningbarriertohealthcare

Alexander Vathroder

rattwagon asked:


My 8 year old daughter suffers from a genetic condition that has resulted in abnormally bowed legs. However, our family has a limited medical budget and we won’t consider ‘elective’ or ‘experimental’ surgeries to correct such a condition, especially when the surgery to correct her leg issue is clearly defined as cosmetic by those in the health insurance industries. Our family does not have health insurance because the rest of us – besides our daughter – are healthy, but we like to abide by HMO guidelines when it comes to our health care and treatment so we can be on par with everyone else. Her condition does not hinder her daily functioning. One less surgery is more money in our savings account – and one step closer until I can buy my Corvette. I’m sure this condition will help her develop a more rosy personality and her future husband will value her more for her mind than her looks. Are we being socially responsible parents?

Sammie Greuel

DAR asked:


Here are some of the groups on the menu if anything like the existing Senate or House health plans become law:

•?Young people. If the government mandates that everyone must have health insurance, healthy young people will have to buy policies that don’t reflect the low risk they have of getting sick. The House and Senate bills do let insurers set premiums based on age, but only up to a 2-to-1 ratio, versus a real-world ratio of 5 to 1. This means lower prices for older (and wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young. “They’ll have sticker shock,” says Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee.

•?Small Businesses. Employers who don’t provide coverage will have to pay a tax up to 8% of their payroll. Yet those who do provide coverage also have to pay the tax—if the law says their coverage is not “adequate.” Amazingly, even if a small business provides adequate insurance but its employees choose coverage in another plan offered through the government, the employer still must pay.

•?Health Savings Account (HSA) holders. Eight million Americans, according to the Treasury Department, are covered by plans with low-cost premiums and high deductibles that are designed for large, unexpected medical costs. Money is also set aside in a savings account to cover the deductibles, and whatever isn’t spent in one year can build up tax-free. Nearly a third of new HSA users, according to Treasury figures, previously had no insurance or bought coverage on their own.

These policies will be severely limited. The Senate plan says a policy deemed “acceptable” must have insurance (rather than the individual) pay out at least 76% of the benefits. The House plan is pegged at 70%. That’s not the way these plans are set up to work. Ray Ramthun, who implemented the HSA regulations at the Treasury Department in 2003, says the regulations are crippling. “Companies tell me they could be forced to take products off the market,” he said in an interview.

•?Medicare Advantage users. Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats want to cut back this program—care provided by private companies and subsidized by the government. Medicare Advantage grew by 15% last year; 10.5 million seniors, or 22% of all Medicare patients, are now enrolled.

The program is especially popular with those in badly served urban areas and with those who can’t afford the premiums for Medicare supplemental (MediGap) policies. A total of 54% of Hispanics on Medicare have chosen Medicare Advantage, as have 40% of African-Americans, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services.

These plans tend to provide better coordinated and preventive care, and richer prescription drug coverage. But Democrats dislike Medicare Advantage’s private-sector nature, and they have some legitimate beefs with its unevenly generous reimbursement rates. This week Mr. Obama told the Washington Post that the program was “a prime example” of his efforts to cut Medicare spending, because he claims people “aren’t getting good value” from it.

That’s not what others say. In January, Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski wrote the Obama administration expressing his concern about its efforts “to scale back Medicare Advantage” because the plans “play an important role in providing affordable health coverage.” He noted that 39% of Oregon’s Medicare patients had chosen Medicare Advantage, and that in “some of our Medicare Advantage plans . . . with proper chronic disease management for such conditions as heart disease, asthma and diabetes, hospitalization admission rates have declined.”

The $156 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts over the next decade proposed by Mr. Obama will force many seniors to go back to traditional Medicare at greater expense. A new study for the Florida Association of Health Plans found that because Medicare Advantage plans have richer benefits and lower deductibles and copayments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami.

There are reasons that Blue Dog Democrats in Congress are leery of their party’s health-care reform plans. Many are in districts or states carried by John McCain, and they worry about the political fallout when these groups realize they will be paying for health-care reform.

They also know that every government entitlement winds up becoming a money pit. In 1965, Sen. Allen Ellender (D., La.) dismissed promises that Medicare would be a modest program to save seniors from bankruptcy. “Let us not be so naïve as to believe that the Medicare program will not be increased from year to year to the point that the government will have to impose more taxes on the little man or else take the necessary money out of the Treasury,” he told colleagues.

Ellender was right, and
Ellender was right, and his warning is even more relevant in our era of skyrocketing deficits and Medicare costs. The only way the House and Senate health plans can pass is if the costs they impose on vulnerable parts of the population continue to be hidden.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970203517304574306303720472842.html

What do you think?

Esther Vari

kamran k asked:


I just graduated from college and I have a debt of close to 50,000 dollars that I owe to the US DEPT of Education. I have 3000 dollars take home pay. I also have 50,000 dollars in my savings account. Zero credit card debt. I am looking to buy a townhome in northwest suburbs of chicago. I’ve already been preaproved for the loan. The house I am looking to buy is around 170,000. The assmt fees is 160/monthly and 3000/annual taxes. I don’t have any other bills besides a cell phone , car insurance and my health insurance which is 300 combined. Would you consider buying a house in my situation?? Do you think it would be risky. I only plan to do a 5% downpayment. My loan also has 0 closing costs..and 6.625 interest rate thru Bank of America.
I am not paying PMI by doing 5% down.. Bank of america just started a new mortgage with NO PMI for less than 20% down.. and no closing costs.. the interest rate is fixed 30 yrs at 6.625. I do not like to spend all my savings on my downpayment. I rather get another weekend or seasonal job and make extra payments on my morgage. I know how hard it is to save cash.

Winston Demauri

under_fire53 asked:


Finance guru Earl Matthews (founder of aid4families.com) has set his sights on revolutionizing the pension plans of several countries. Like many of his brethren, David Filo and Jerry Yang (founders of Yahoo), Larry Page and Sergey Brin ( founders of google), and Chris Dewolf & Tom Anderson ( founders of Myspace), a generation that grew up under the likes of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, seem determined to change every aspect of society. It seems odd that while we are talking about the government being involved in universal health care and at the same time private savings accounts and privatizing pensions. The government may get your teeth fixed until you are 90 but the money for food to use those teeth on will be up to you to find. Do you support universal health care and do you support public pension schemes relying on “for profit” fund managers?
http://www.aid4families.com/Press%20Release.html

Heriberto Bambino

prancinglion asked:


Why is it that I can have pretax dollars set aside in a savings account from my pay, but if I don’t use it by the end of the year, my money is confiscated by the government…?

Who’s idea is this and why can’t I roll it over each year to a total of… oh lets say $5000.00 and keep it till needed?

Scott Taps