Health Savings Account-Health Savings Account Info

new resident asked:


Yahoo Finance reported this and I’m not sure I understand the wording.

“Doubling the penalty for nonqualified distributions from health savings accounts, to 20%, beginning in 2011.” -http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/109234/health-care-reform-tax-hikes-on-the-way?mod=insurance-health

Brooks Bonillas

thegubmint asked:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_re_us/us_college_costs

College tuition is every bit as out of control, maybe more so, than health care costs. And for what reason? The CPI is going down, yet tuition continues to rise. Is it time to create some huge federal entity to take over all the colleges to ensure that everyone has fair and affordable access to a college education? Perhaps we should mandate that everyone have a government administered college fund savings account that they mandatorily have to contribute a portion of their earning to, or face some draconian fine if they don’t. And lets rake college eduation providers over the coals to make sure they aren’t doing anything out of line. What about those university Presidents’ salaries and bonus structures? Those guys make millions. Shouldn’t someone do something about that?

Cora Bulacan

Warren T asked:


I know that by requiring insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions will push up their costs which they will pass on in higher premiums. Most states of insurance programs for people like this but the premiums are very high and a lot of people cannot afford them but they still make too much for Medicaid. I believe they should be held accountable if they are responsible for their conditions but a lot of people with preexisting conditions have no control over them. I know liberals will say we need the Public Option but that will only lead to a One Pay System ran by the government and even though everyone will have health care the quality will be a lot less and a lot more expensive with it being paid with taxes instead of insurance premiums. Here again you punish the majority for the minority. Maybe adjusting the rates for the state programs to that which the people with preexisting conditions can afford based on their income.

I would like to see everyone get health insurance or establish health savings accounts but forcing them I don’t believe is right or constitutional

Ettie Nosworthy

Warren T asked:


I went to einsurance dot com and did a search of health insurance policies in Nevada for a 62 year old man. I found about seven companies offering about 103 policies. Since I do not have the facts I am not going to do like liberals do and claim the insurance companies are charging way too much for health insurance. But I do know that in order to do what the liberals claim they are doing, there has to be some sort of monoply. I came up with seven insurance companies in my search and I don’t know how many companies total accross this nation offer health insurance. But in order to do what liberals claim they do, there has to be at the least some kind of unwritten understanding among the insurance companies.

I fully support the idea of requiring insurance companies to insurance everyone. But I know that if the insurance companies cannot bring the young people into their insurance pools along with the high risk people there will be a major increase in what they pay out. Now if the liberals are right and the profit margins of insurance companies are high enough, the insurance companies can handle those increase in costs but if their profit margins are low than the insurance companies will have no choice but to pass on the increase in costs in increases in rates. Personally I would like everyone to carry health insurance of some sort and I like the idea of health savings accounts that can be passed on the heirs if not used. But the money in them should be limited to medical and dental expenses only.

I WONDER IF I WILL GET ANY COMMON SENSE REPLIES FROM ANY LIBERALS?

Josh Parker

Beverly S asked:


reform? This is not my idea but one I heard this morning on a radio show. There are 40 million people on Medicare in this country. Last year we spent 480 billion dollars on medicare claims. Average cost per person being around $12,000.00 per year. The idea was for the government to put $4000.00 at the beginning of each year into an individual health savings account. The government would pay the first $4000.00 in healthcare costs like they do now. The next $4000.00 would be paid from the indiv. health savings acct. After the first $8000.00 the government would start paying again as usual. The kicker would be if you didn’t use up the part in your health savings by end of year you could keep it- transfer to your reg. bank acct. The idea behind this is basically making people think about the costs involved, sort of rationing their own health costs- not having un-necessary tests etc. It would be like an incentive for us to actually look for savings. This would actually cost the government more for folks who very rarely use it since they would get the extra $4000.00 per year, but I think this would cut costs by billions & think it’s a brilliant idea.
Phillip- re-read the question- it’s just for Medicare Receivers- 40 million….
Shelly- Re-read the question dear.
Sarah- I don’t think you read this either-

Jewel Kingery

gmeyers1944 asked:


He said that Republicans have no plan, but they have proposed that people be allowed to establish Health Savings Accounts, buy insurance from other states like with car insurance, and get tort reform to limit excessive judgments.
Grumpy: Yes, I listen to Rush. I also watch Keith Olbermann.

Kraig Darring

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

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

Bobbi asked:


I can only put money into an account if I buy the company policy (under federal law). Yet, my company policy is $700 a month! and it is crap! I have my own plan for under $200 a month. Yet, I would like to use a HSA, yet why is it against the law if you don’t buy the company plan? Is there another health savings plan I could use to save money so i can pay my health care costs, and write off on my taxes?

Solomon Sager

delectable asked:


What if America had universal health care available, but something like vouchers for people who have a problem with universal health care? For example, if someone didn’t want to pay for an insurance system that covered specific procedures, they could apply for a voucher. Or if they thought they could get a better deal from a private company/HSA. That way, everyone would be paying an equal amount, whether it’s in taxes or to a private company/health savings account/etc. It seems to make so much sense because the government could afford to cover a lot more so private companies would have to cover a lot more to compete, and private companies would have to sink or swim, so they already have the incentive to compete when the gov doesn’t. So each makes the other compete more, and we would get rid of a lot of the problems that we have with insurance companies that are provided by employers. It just sounds so simple, what are the arguments against it?
I ask because I’m generally against health care, but being in nursing school has made me realize that it’s the hospitals (and ultimately the sick people who have health insurance) who pick up the tab when someone requires treatment but cannot pay. I don’t like full universal health care, and I don’t like using government services in general because they tend to take their jolly time and leave people waiting. For example, I remember waiting ages when I went to get my driver’s permit/scheduling a license test, what if time was important?! But there has to be a better system than we have now?
I meant “generally against universal health care” lol.

Darrell Thornbury