Health Savings Account-Health Savings Account Info

Obama Hood – Spread the Wealth asked:


Fact – A plan was offered but it didn’t get any press or support by Nancy “do it my way or the highway” Pelosi. Here is a summary of what was offered:

By the way, this took me about 30 seconds to find.

http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/article/Community/Health_Care_Reform_Republican

The Republican Alternative
Republicans in the House of Representatives unveiled a 3-and-a-half page summary of their own health plan, without details or an estimate of costs, but emphasized that their plan would cost less than the Democratic plan.

Key Provisions of the House GOP Plan

States, small businesses, and others could group together to offer lower-cost, health care plans.
Medicaid users could take the value of their Medicaid benefits and transfer them to a private health care plan.
People, especially those in lower income brackets or over 55, would receive incentives to build up health care savings accounts.
Employers would automatically sign up their workers for health insurance, so that employees would have to opt out of coverage if they didn’t want it.
Tax deductions on insurance premiums for people who get their plans individually or from their companies.
Ideas in the House GOP Plan that Are Supported by Both Parties

Dependent children can stay on their parents’ policies until they are 25.
Employers would be encouraged to reward employees for improved health.
Community health centers could be expanded.
Americans can maintain their specific health insurance policies when they lose or leave jobs.
In-home care over institutional care would be encouraged with financial help.
Medical malpractice lawsuits would be limited – though there are significant disagreements between the parties by how much.
http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=140115

Cedric Rabidoux

Bryan asked:


National healths are burdensome on taxpayers, but there are alternatives.

Insurance needs to be available to all at an affordable cost. The best way to accomplish this would be for the government to create a taxpayer group plan and leverage the cost savings available to corporate group plans

Insurance companies are allowed to pay less for medical procedures than persons without insurance. This practice should be outlawed. If doctors/hospitals are willing to take a reduced rate from an insurance company there is no understandable reason why anyone without insurance should pay more. This is a double pricing strategy and unacceptable.

Flexible Spending Accounts are a great idea, but contributions are only good for one calendar year. Amend this to allow contributions to grow and rollover yearly. Thus allowing people to build a medical nest egg in preparation for catastrophic illnesses and old age medical costs.

Haven’t figured out what to about drug costs.

What say you?
paulisfree2004: I am not advocating government control or additional legislation regarding insurance companies. Merely a single payer program based on group plan philosophy. I do not owe any debt to Seniors, I owe them the same respect I extend to all. I did not create or enhance poverty. Veterans of which I am one have provided service to this country and yes we owe them a debt. As to free healthcare, another entitlement is not what we need in this country. You amuse me because you say government intervention is bad then propose a massive government program.
Answerman: While I have no love of insurance companies they are subject to constant frivolous litigation which rasies costs for all. I have made no specific diatribe against national health. I said it was burdensome on the taxpayers which it is. Additionally these systems are not as responsive or user friendly as the American health system.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15034

James Redmond

Saikka asked:


Health Care in France is Often Held Up as a Model the U.S. Might Follow Yet the French Have Their Own Problems that Show There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch — or a Free Doctor’s Visit

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Call it the grass-is-greener syndrome. Advocates of national health care, acknowledging the flaws in ObamaCare yet despising the current U.S. system that has the best medicines, the best medical equipment and the shortest waiting lists, have turned their eyes lovingly to places like France.

As City Journal contributing editor Guy Sorman notes, the French would also love to have the low-cost, high-service system some Americans gush about. Unfortunately, they don’t. France’s system isn’t that cheap and is financed by high taxes on labor that have heavy economic consequences.

Sorman notes that a Frenchman making a monthly salary of 3,000 euros has 350 of them deducted for health insurance. Then the employer throws in an additional 1,200 euros. This raises the cost of labor to prohibitive levels and puts a brake on economic growth. This helps explain why French unemployment hovers around 10%.

France imposes an additional tax levy to cover the constant deficits that national health insurance runs.

The French Parliament raises this levy, which applies to all forms of income, every year. Altogether, Sorman writes, “25% of French national income goes toward what’s called Social Security, which includes health care and basic retirement pensions for all.”

Drugs developed in America at enormous expense do cost less in France, which decides what drugs are to be used and at what prices. American patients in effect subsidize the French, who take the same pills at half the price because American pharmaceutical companies don’t want to lose the French market.

French taxpayers fund a state health insurer, Assurance Maladie. Assurance Maladie has run in the red since 1989, and this year’s shortfall is expected to be 9.4 billion euros ($13.5 billion) and 15 billion euros in 2010, about 10% of its budget.

Regardless of the cost, does the French system produce better outcomes? Not always. Infant mortality rates are often cited as a reason socialized medicine and single-payer systems are better than what we have here. But according to Dr. Linda Halderman, a policy adviser in the California State Senate, these comparisons are bogus.

Official World Health Organization statistics show the U.S. lagging behind France in infant mortality rates — 6.7 per 1,000 live births vs. 3.8 for France. Halderman notes that in the U.S., any infant born that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considered a live birth. In France — in fact, in most of the European Union — any baby born before 26 weeks’ gestation is not considered alive and therefore doesn’t “count” in reported infant mortality rates.

France reimburses its doctors at a far lower rate than U.S. physicians would accept.

As David Gratzer, a physician and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, wrote in the summer 2007 issue of City Journal: “In France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave — when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity — 15,000 elderly citizens died.”

After the tragedy, the French parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly.

It’s hard to imagine that happening here, where hospitals have enough air-conditioned beds and doctors that aren’t on vacation.

Fact is, most Americans like their health care. There are ways to provide expanded coverage at lower cost, such as pushing individually owned health savings accounts, malpractice reform and allowing insurance to be bought across state lines.

We needn’t be forced to sacrifice quality for cost. Nor do we need to look to the French for a better solution. They don’t have one.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=336178343967257

Barbara

Love truth, set your self free! asked:


Look at the bill, do you think it is right that this mad mad has access to your personal bank accounts?
Nice try Charles Veidt ! Thats not the bill!
Keep spinning!
The truth is scary for you libs

Doria Barries

Dave C asked:


I’m disabled with 4 back surgeries. I just received disability and got a back due settlement of $10K. I have NO investments. I’m 46. My Wife works and can start putting into a matched 401K in October. I want to put the money in a growth investment and not touch it. Is a Vanguard or similar mid risk fund a good option? Right now it’s just sitting in a low interest savings account for safe keeping. This is a lot of money for me, because I lost my business due to my health and will likely never work again. I need to make a smart investment. I’m open to any and all ideas. Thanks, Dave
Using the “Dave Ramsey” money book as a guide, we will have a $2000 liquid rainy day fund. We need growth because before my back surgery my Wife and I owned our own business, a Photography Studio, for 15 years. We put all of our money into that, plus my surgeries and paying for our own health insurance didn’t allow for any investment / retirement fund. So with me at 46, and my Wife at 41, we have a lot of catching up to do. Our only child is out on her own, we have no debt ( we paid it all down with payments plans over 7 years ) but we also have no equity. When we lost the business, we lost out apartment and moved in with my Wife’s Mom. We use a budget and have lived an extremely frugal life style for the past 17 years. My mother-in-law has a huge home and lost her husband 3 years ago, so living with her is working out for both of us. When we buy we want a townhouse or something else that doesn’t require me to maintain it, my back won’t allow it. Just some additional information.

Rodney Sypolt

MonkeyPig2 asked:


* Allow consumers to purchase health insurance companies across state lines.
* Widen the availability of medical savings accounts.
* Allow consumers to deduct the cost of insurance from their taxable income.
* Allow doctors, nurses and medical suppliers to take a credit against any income taxes due for the market value of services provided free to those living at or below the poverty level.

There .. that took about 30 seconds. All viable private-sector options, yet none are on the table for the Democrats in Washington.

Sergio Kuamoo

Bernese Love asked:


haha, no I’m not the kind of sacrifice my pets’ health for my own benefit – I’m the kind of person that would live off bread and water for a month if my pets got the health treatment they need.
This is obviously a strange question, so bare with me.

I know after a certain age pet insurance can become expensive or impossible to attain. With previous pets in my house we’ve stopped paying it at a certain time and just paid out of our money whenever bills have arisen, which is often pretty costly but better than dealing with awkward insurance companies from personal experience.

I have about £5,000 I plan to keep as an emergency standalone for veterinary bills, with additional money being put into it every month. That would be in an account that wouldn’t be touched for any other reason. Do you think it’s a good idea to have this as well as insurance, just as a reserve after my dog gets older, or instead of having insurance for my next dog? Also, if anyone has any positive experiences with insurance companies once your dog gets past 10 years old, please tell me.
Lou – exactly! I’m planning to buy my second Bernese Mountain Dog, and given the health issues and short life span, they’re likely to give me a high premium. I’m going to spend a lot of money buying a quality puppy from a quality breeder, but what do the insurance companies know?

Saran Caden

miams asked:


My mom has been divorced since i was born…so 21 years ago. We now live together in an apt sharing rent, food, utilities, etc. She doesnt have a savings account, doesnt have health insurance…she’s just not a very responsible adult. Living together is beneficial financially for both of us, but as soon as i have enough money in my savings account, i am getting my own apt. Whenever i tell her this, she gets upset. I have 2 older sisters. One lives in a different state and the other married. I am the last one of the bunch and she wants to cling on me. I love her, but she treats me like a husband! It’s not a mother/daughter relationship! She wants to know where i spend my money, how much is in my account, she doesnt like when i go out with friends because she feels abandoned. I dont know what to do. It makes me very upset to see her like this…and i am worried about myself also because i dont feel free! I feel like i have to give her an explanation on everything i do!! It’s been driving me crazy!
I appreciate the answers, but i have told her numerous times that i need my privacy. It doesnt work, she doesnt understand…or pretends not to. I am an open person, i say whatever i feel, so she does know how i feel about this situation, but she will not change…she wont. It’s pretty sad and very frustrating. I see her a very selfish person.

Noelia Boehning

The real matthew asked:


• “Erase the boundaries around every single state when it comes to health care,” enabling consumers to purchase insurance across state lines;

• increase the use of health savings accounts and allow everyone to “take full deductibility of all medical expenses,” including insurance premiums;

• and throw in tort reform.

“Do a few other tweaks and you’re there,” Bachmann said. “Your whole crisis is gone.”

Bachmann is a congresswoman from my state.
Yes Mr Wolf, Michelle is known for her provocative statements. She represents the district next to mine and they keep electing her. I guess it works for her.

Bud Caradine

FrederickS asked:


I wrote up this huge response to some liberal’s health reform question only to find the question was removed before I could post my answer! D’oh! I decided to post it as a question instead.

I’m so sick of ignorant liberals who don’t know what they’re talking about claiming that Republicans have no ideas for health care reform.

Here they are for like the gazzillionth time.

1) Open up competition by removing laws that restrict interstate insurance sales. There are 1300+ health insurance companies in America, but if you live in California, for instance, you can only purchase insurance from 6 of them due to state law. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and should exercise that power. If Obama wants more competition, why doesn’t he support this reform?

2) De-regulate health insurance so insurers can sell a wider variety of policies. Right now, every state has strict guidelines on what care insurance has to cover. As a result young healthy people can’t buy high deductible, catastrophic only policies. Millions of the uninsured are just those kind of people who don’t want comprehensive insurance. Having catastrophic only coverage means you simply pay out of pocket for routine stuff like doctors visits and routine prescription drugs.

3) Expansion and improvement of health savings accounts, wherein people can use the saved money to either pay for health care costs directly, or buy insurance of their choice, rather than choosing only among the insurance provided by their employer. This would also sever the tie between employers and insurance, as the employee would own the policy and keep it if they leave their job. The HSA would add a free market element to health care purchase decisions that would lower costs by making health care users into prudent buyers..

4) Medical malpractice tort reform. By some estimates, the annual cost of MM liability insurance, and defensive medicine practiced to avoid lawsuits costs as much as $200 Billion a year. One suggestion is to set up a medical malpractice arbitration fund paid for by a tax on insurers. Potential claims would be adjudicated by medical experts, and law suits against health providers would be illegal. The current system is basically a jackpot system that funnels a lot of money to trial lawyers.

5) Make all health care expenses tax deductible, not just when paid for by an employer, when they exceed 7.5% of AGI.

6) Administer govt run health plans like medicaid and medicare through tax credits that allow seniors and poor to go out and buy their own policy rather than being stuck with the one policy offered by government. For those of you in Rio Linda, a tax credit is different from a tax deduction. A tax credit is available to anyone, not just those who owe taxes.

My suggestions, don’t cost anything, in fact they save money and get more people covered. One problem with health insurance, be it government or private is that a third party is paying for your care, so you have no incentive to shop around for a good deal, and providers have no incentive to become efficient. Just look at the cost of treatments like laser eye surgery that isn’t covered by insurance. That surgery has improved, and come down in cost 80-90%. Had it been covered by insurance it probably would still cost $5000 per eye.

Obama and Democrats don’t support any of these reforms. Not one of them. How dare liberals say that it is Republicans who don’t want real reform. It is Democrats and Obama who simply want to expand the status quo.

Cecil Popadiuk