Health Savings Account-Health Savings Account Info

c(^-v-*)o asked:


A new study of the Senate healthcare bill concludes that costs will still be going up, but **not as fast as they would have**………where have we heard that before?? Oh yeah, unemployment continues to rise despite the stimulus and the Obama WH excuse is **it’s not rising as fast as it would have**. And the economy is not really recovering….the Obama excuse: **well it’s better than it would have been** if we hadn’t bailed out the banks.

What do you think?? Is this getting VERY old or what?? I mean none of his programs so far can be considered “successes” unless you pretend not doing anything would have resulted in apocalypse.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_health_care

WASHINGTON – The Senate’s plan to expand health coverage to 34 million more Americans would raise costs slightly, government economic experts said in a report Saturday.

Over time, cost-cutting measures could start to reduce the annual increases in health care spending, offering the possibility of substantial savings in the long run. At the same time, however, some of the Senate’s Medicare savings could be unrealistic and cause lawmakers to roll them back, according to Medicare’s top number crunchers.

The study found that health spending, which accounts for about one-sixth of the economy, would increase by less than 1 percent than it otherwise would over the coming decade even with so many more people receiving coverage.
reality…….”it happens to be true”

You can’t prove that. You can’t claim your programs are a success when contrasted with a hypothetical alternative YOU MADE UP.

Freddy Pennigton

Kind Bud asked:


Its basically an individualized free market health care system subsidized by the government. People pay for their own health care through savings accounts for basic care that is taken out of paychecks automatically which makes it just between the patient and doctor so competition is vast and prices low instead of an insurance company or govt making those decisions. As well no one is denied being insured since it is savings accounts, all medical prices must be listed so patients can look for the best price, and people that cant afford it our subsidized so everyone is covered.
Then there is catastrophic health insurance for the serious and expensive care with copay, offered privately or publicly which keeps everyone covered, competitive, low cost and self-responsibility intact.

Singapore is top or near the top in health care in the world and only spends 3% of gdp. (US spends 15%)

Murray Buttari

Eric S asked:


I have a GOOD idea for where the US Government SHOULD get involved in healthcare.

The US Government should provide universal health coverage for medical claims in a year per patient that exceed $25,000 dollars.

If you have an organ transplant lets say, you would have to rely on your own private insurance to cover up to the first $25,000 of medical liability you owe.

So if you have a $200,000 medical expenditure, you would pay $25,000, Govt would pay $175,000.

If you have less than $25,000 medical bill, Government will not owe anything.

But would you have to pay $25,000 out of pocket? NO. You would be free to shop for your own insurance just like now, to supplement the costs you would owe up to $25,000.

Also in this bill, we would raise FICA to cover the Govt costs over $25,000 which wouldn’t be too often, but would be a big help to the highest risk patients and LOWER the other premiums.

Also in this same bill, tort reform….and we would remove the fine for people who don’t have health coverage, and we would have flexible savings accounts to help you finance the $25,000 portion.

Why couldn’t this be a good health plan for America?
It is consistent with what America did in establishing the FDIC where instead of holding it against Americans who put their trust in failed banks, the Govt secures your deposit.

Same concept, not any less American. Couldn’t this proposal get bipartisan support?
Also this system would not be abused by patients against others because in order to reep the Govt benefits, you would have to subject yourself to $25,000 deductible
This would also keep Americans from the risk of a medical bill that nobody can afford no matter what their savings habit or income.
Conservatives, this is the same logic as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which you support already
Edit: It would HELP the insurance companies because it would keep their maximum possible claims limited to $25,000
No you wouldn’t put it off till it’s serious and avoid treatment, then you are subjecting yourself to pay more money.

There is no gain in hoping to have to pay $25,000 dollars just to get Govt in there. You are still paying $25,000

Earl Ludovico

Steve asked:


The more the American people have learned about Obamacare since it was passed the more they dislike it. And with good reason. Here is a list of some recent surprises buried in the 2,300 pages of legislation.
Beginning in January 2012, businesses are required to file with the IRS for every business to business transaction over $600. This includes all transactions, not just health based ones. (Section 9006).
A new program (the Community Living Assistance Program) was established that is woefully underfunded by the bill and will eventually require much more money than allocated. (Section 8002).
As of January 2014, states must expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals under the age of 64 with family incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level. States already do not have the resources to provide adequate Medicaid coverage and this law will add millions more to Medicaid rolls. (Section 2001, as modified by 10201 and H.R. 4872; Sec. 1004 and 1201).
Beginning January 2011, individuals are not allowed to use Flexible Savings Accounts, Health Reimbursement Accounts, and Health Savings Accounts to purchase over-the-counter medicines. The law also caps annual contributions at $2,500, down from $5,000. Many Americans (especially younger ones in relatively good health) rely on FSAs, HRAs, and HSAs to help pay for healthcare. This law makes these consumer-oriented tools that encourage smart shopping less convenient and provides a perverse incentive for individuals to buy expensive prescription medicine instead of over-the-counter alternatives. (Section 9003).
Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and other companies publicly acknowledged that the tax structure of the new law actually encourages companies to stop providing coverage for their employees beginning in 2014. (Section 1003).

Furthermore, despite promises from President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats that the bill would not add a dime to the deficit, the most recent CBO study confirms that the projected deficit has increased by $71 billion due to newly enacted legislation (namely healthcare reform)

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/115069-republicans-point-to-new-reports-to-argue-that-health-reform-law-is-bad-for-jobs

So liberals do you have any excuses for this and what do the rest of you think?
@ Tenth Amend I know I won’t that isn’t the point I know before posting this that liberals won’t answer my questions because I provide facts so they avoid my questions
Not a single liberal answered this I found the cure of liberal trolls just provide facts and they wont troll your questions
@Jasmine awwww the lies the horrible liberal lies

Cassandra

RLP asked:


Under the new health care law, consumers using workplace pre-tax health savings accounts will soon need a doctor’s note to pay for Tylenol and an estimated 15,000 other over-the-counter drugs.

http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/under-obama-welfare-rolls-up-in-09-more-enroll-in-assistance-programs/

Under Obama, and Obamanomics, welfare rolls are up and more people are dependant upon the government for assistance (food stamps). This is the Cloward-Piven strategy wants. Force more people on the welfare rolls until the system collapses.

Michelle

asked:


How exactly is this a good thing?

In a shock development which will further depress the housing market, it has been revealed that health care reform will add a 3.8% tax on income from home sales and home rentals as part of the extra tax on “unearned income” specified in the health care bill.

The extra tax will come into effect in 2013 and is calculated by imposing the tax on “unearned income” above a certain threshold which will include income from any source for which the recipient is not directly working.

This includes interest received on a savings account, dividends from stocks, rental income, social security income, unemployment checks, child support, and income from home sales.

Virginia Kokoska

Cantankerous asked:


For the Armed forces? If socialized medicine is bad why not give every soldier a health savings account and let them go find doctors on their own like everyone else! Isn’t socialized medicine horrible? Why would we inflict it on our men and women in uniform?
Employer Provided? Really, in what other employer provided plan are all of the doctors, nurses, and workers employed by the government and every hospital is owned by the govenrment? Please tell me?

Emanuel Ahlbrecht

GPRS asked:


Under Ryan-Rivlin, once people currently under the age of 55 enroll in Medicare, they would receive a voucher (based on current average per-person Medicare expenses and adjusted based on income, geography, and health risks) for use in purchasing private health insurance of their choosing. The amount of the voucher would increase each year, by more than inflation. The plan would protect Medicare beneficiaries (including those enrolled in the current program or slated to enroll within the next decade) by capping their annual out-of-pocket expenses at $6,000, starting in 2013. The poor would receive $6,000 in taxpayer subsidies to put into a Health Savings Account (plus an extra $600 ETC> ETC<.

In plain English, instead of medicare paying for medical expenses directily to doctors, etc. the medicare is going to give us a voucher wich we use to buy insurance of our choosing. So o.k. how much is going to be the voucher? The voucher is going to be given at 55 years old? Did you understand where it says " the poor is going to receive 6,000.00 in subsidy etc.etc. What does that mean?

Derek

I **** my name asked:


Due to an Obamacare provision taking effect on Jan. 1, Americans will no longer be able to use their flexible spending account (FSA) and health savings account (HSA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (with the exception of insulin).

Under current rules, health consumers may use these pre-tax accounts to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines. But on New Years Day 2011, the 40 million Americans who use FSAs and HSAs will no longer be able to use their accounts to buy simple, everyday medicines like the following:

* Aspirin
* Antacids
* Laxatives
* Menstrual pain relievers
* Antihistamines
* Stimulants
* Anti-ulcer medicines
* Athlete’s foot cream
* Cough medicine
* Motion sickness medicine
* Anti-diarrheal medicine
* Decongestants
* Hemorrhoid cream
* Anti-flatulence medicine

The provision is just one of Obamacare’s two dozen new or higher taxes totaling nearly $600 billion over this decade.

The tax increase will affect any family that has an HSA or FSA.

Therefore, it is clear violation of President Obama’s oft-repeated promise not to raise “any form of taxes” on any family making less than $250,000 per year.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Janeth Looker

PaRtY 2012 -One Down Two to Go asked:


Effective January 1, 2011 only doctor prescribed medicines and insulin will be eligible for tax free reimbursement from one of the following plans.

Under current law insulin, prescribed and over the counter medicinal expenses qualify for tax free reimbursement from Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA), Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRA), Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and Archer Medical Savings Accounts (MSA)

Which Democrat out there gets the bill for my increasd medical cost?
Serioulsy, I would like to know which Democrat is going to pay the difference in my medical costs. I and others like me were PROMISED that our medical costs would not increae as a result of Obamacare. Well they are so now I, and these others would like to know which of you Democrats are going to pay the difference

Israel Mckinnies