This message was self-deleted by its author

[stopbush]

This message was self-deleted by its author (stopbush) on Sun Jul 16, 2017, 12:09 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[flamingdem]

1. I noticed that reared its head again

What a lot of bullshit along with income tax credits

[stopbush]

3. Yep. HSAs are back in today's POS from the Senate.

[TheBlackAdder]

70. Aren't most/all HSAs linked to a Private or Employer-based Health Plan, so there's the double dip?

[Solly Mack]

2. That is what they want people to buy into.

Lies on top of lies about how Americans really live.

[Alice11111]

38. Like they are going to allow the poor to save money for

Cancer, maybe 500k, so they can get a tax exemption, when they can't afford shoes for the kids.

Will their BS ever end?

[Solly Mack]

39. I don't think it does ever end.

Those accounts work for some. That's great. But wouldn't it wonderful to have a system of actual health care that worked for all?

Like you said, when you can't afford shoes (or even food or clothing or rent), it makes it hard to save money for anything else.

But the GOP want to frame it as those who can't afford it are actually choosing not to have it.

It's another way for conservatives to condemn the poor for being poor, all the while making sure they stay poor.

With their entire I must be living right if I have money, and that's the way my god wants it - it's a way to claim the poor must be sinners, therefore beneath us. It's them saying the poor obviously deserve to be poor, or they would be rich like them. If the poor were good people they wouldn't be poor.

That's just some of the message conservatives are sending.

So, no. I don't think their BS ever ends.

[Alice11111]

80. Several good.points, including Repubs are doing it right,

as evidenced by how they are living v the poor, who obviously must be doinv it wrong.

Discretionary Income, left over when necessary items are taken care of...
Poor...none, and often can't afford necessary items

Rich...not just necessary items taken care of, but with overkill, waste, and things like ostentatios kid's presents and live miniature ponies at bday parties. Yaughts. Lavish trips,.Houshold help. Nannies. Health care. Best educations from best schools...and more left over than they know what to do with...

So,.let's take away the poor kids health care,.destroy their education, and give each .05 percenter a $7 million dollar tax.break
...and, the inhumaness aside, how will this make our country compete better and remian a world leader.

[Skittles]

4. there is a place for HSA

problem is, it's like the 401K, which was never meant to take the place of pensions......HSA accounts were not designed to replace decent health insurance

[stopbush]

5. They have a place the way brain surgery has a place.

Most people don't need it and can't use it.

[Skittles]

8. well I know I use one

so do many of my coworkers

[DrDan]

16. you have no medical expenses where you lay out actual cash?

[haele]

30. HSAs are good when you have someone with a chronic condition with occasional big expenses

Disclosure: Because I've dependents that have chronic conditions, I've had an HSA through my employer since 2007. Of course, I make just over the median income, so it's something I can budget for on top of the premiums for health, dental, and vision I pay through my employer.
Prior to getting the HSA, we were facing medical bankruptcy because of medical bills the insurance left for us to pay as our "20% co-pay responsibility" or because they didn't cover a certain procedure the doctor ordered for a particular diagnosis and we had to decide between covering any expensive medication or co-pay "pay up front" out of pocket, and having the clinic or hospital bill us for everything else - and hope we had the money before the bill in the mail went to collections (most times we didn't - and we eventually couldn't afford to keep setting up $25 a month payments after net on bills over $700 that we were accruing twice, sometimes three times a year)

An HSA is a way of putting aside money you *know* you'll have to spend for those 90-day mail order pharmacy or expensive lab procedures up front along with other bills such as rent/mortgage or auto insurance - and you'll get the tax documentation to help you figure out how much you can deduct on your taxes.
If you have access to an HSA through an employer, the money can be taken out before taxes, so it will already be considered "deducted" from your estimated annual income for tax purposes. And I've never found that you have to pay a fee to withdraw your HSA money for a medical expense, unlike retirement funds. There might be an annual fee, but it's never been something I've noticed over the year.

The only problem with this is that like most retirement "investment", the amount of money you can set aside is barely enough to meet most of the annual cap for just one person's medical deductible (max - $6250 for family, $7250 if one person is over 55), and if there's competing high medical and dental expenses, you'll still be on the hook for potentially up to $12K out of pocket over the year to cover the deductible.

But, HSAs get a better return than a typical bank or credit union savings account and not only are they portable, they roll over - so it is possible to consider starting one with a minimum $25 a month or so set aside through an employer to "invest" for future expenses such as potential emergencies, orthodontia, optical - or just for geriatric expenses later on, if you and your dependents throughout the years are lucky and don't have to use the HSA for anything other than check-ups and immunizations.

Here's the thing people keep forgetting. Like a 401K, a HSA is an investment *tool*, useful if you can afford it after all the required monthly bills are paid. A HSA is a SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
While desirable for as many people who can afford to have, a HSA is still *not* a replacement for Health insurance, or a health care tax for Medicare/Medicaid, or for a single payer health care like the VA or Tricare, where the full costs that pay for actual health care are spread across a wider population so that higher cost burdens don't crush individuals who could otherwise participate in society.

If you don't have enough monthly income to save - heck, if your monthly income is such that your household will be still be better off taking the standard Deduction than itemizing, it's not economically beneficial to you to have a HSA - unless you know you will probably have to have out of pocket expenses of at least $4K for medical or dental purposes a year within the next 5 years or so. So if you're pretty sure your kids will need braces or if bad teeth run in your family, start putting aside a bit.

But if you're an average worker with no real health issues, it really might be better to use the money that goes into a HSA to reduce your current expenses enough so you can get in a position to start saving money for medical expenses that might not be realized until after you hit 40/50 years of age.

Haele

[DrDan]

41. I have had an HSA equally as long, if not longer. My money can be used for any medical expense,

to include insurance premiums.

I simply make an HSA contribution into my account - which is totally tax exempt - and use that contribution for any medical expense I have to pay for - dentist, premiums, prescription drugs, glasses, etc.

The contribution comes off the top when I do taxes.

Certainly not an alternative to insurance, but better to pay expenses with pre-tax dollars.

[haele]

45. We never could put enough in to pay the premiums as well as normal monthly medical expenses.

Since the premiums are tax-exempt also, it's been just as easy for me to add an extra $500 a month pre-tax for the HSA when I was able to. Mind you, I can afford an HSA now.

But 10 years ago, before I got my degree and new position with better pay, we couldn't afford both the premiums and the minimum to put into both the FSA (Flex Spending Account) and HSA (Health Savings Account) my then-employer's plan required. Prior to that, they didn't offer an HSA - just an FSA that even if maxed out, ended up around $1K short of the family deductible.

FSAs are a crap shoot; if you selected too high an amount anticipating additional expenses but only ended up with co-pays, you'd lose serious income - possibly hundreds of dollars - by not being able to spend it all by the end of the year. If you hadn't selected a high enough amount and there was an emergency or a medical complication requiring lots of doctor's visits, therapy, and lab work that year, you'd run through it before the year was half over, and would have to come up with a significant amount of money to cover the rest of your deductible after that.
So when they offered the HSA, we just had to hope no one had to go to the ER or had any new complications until bonus time came around and we could pay down the $15K+ loan (thank you, Credit Union!) for unexpected medical bills we were already paying on as well as the average (then) $820 a month premiums and the average $250 a month out of pocket we normally paid.
Once we managed to get the unexpected under control, I was able to sign us up for the HSA, and not have to worry too much about future unexpected costs. However, even with the HSA, there is just never going to be enough pre-tax money in the account to cover up to what has ended up being $13K a year in family coverage premiums, because employer-provided HSAs have a maximum limit you can contribute based on age and family status.
Pretty obvious why employer provided HSAs are only linked to high deductible insurance policies; an HSA is to help save to pay potentially years of deductibles - not to pay both the deductibles and premiums for one year.

And yes, since I've changed employers, I've kept my HSA for myself and my dependents. Now I can't afford put in the max $540 a month with post-tax money (until the new employer finalizes their HSA plan because their new coverage has a very high deductible - then I can roll it in and pay pre-tax again), but even with having to put in less, thanks to the ACA's medical cost controls I had accumulated enough over the past 8 years that it will still cover most co-pays and expenses this year.

Haele

[trixie2]

14. I agree and when you wrap your head around the benefits..............

In post WWII, most full time jobs had benefits and those benefits (medical) would continue from retirement until you reached Medicare age. That is now going away. Even if a company/municipality had the best intentions it is getting harder and harder to predict the cost of future benefits for their workforce.

The new way to insure some stability at retirement, or even at leaving a job, is to from the first paycheck pay into an HSA. Government workers, including your local library, and other city services are probably already doing this. When I was a union stew, and we were in contract talks, "management" came to us with the problem of not being able to predict medical costs 20 years down the road. They disclosed that each month of service each union worker had money set aside for future medical costs. We came to an agreement that the pot of money for all workers would be split by all workers by years of service which was put into an HSA at the choosing of the union and then each month a certain amount would be sent to the HSA for each worker. The nice thing about this is that it kicks in when worker and workplace are severed. The benefits can be used by anyone on the worker's taxes and it is in a form of a debit card if so wished. This means going to another state you can easily get medical care.

I want to stress that I would not want this as a primary benefit but it does work for what it's intent is.

[Skittles]

15. I disagree with your assessment

to me an HSA should be to cover such things as deductibles and copays, not a way to save for big medical bills

what you are describing sounds like something right out of a repuke playbook

do you really think the people who can barely afford to save for retirement are going to be able to save for future medical expenses?

[trixie2]

46. Your not understanding me

A small community, dependent on tax dollars, is no longer able to project 20 years in the future. Even if they could, the medical insurance is not portable to another state. Citizens of the communities are unwilling to raise taxes for our future medical expenses.

After 17 years of service my "bucket", as we call it, now has almost $100,000 in it. After looking at the average pensions for our workers and seeing that the average worker retires at 60 years of age, we are grateful for our own ability to manage the 5 years of buying our insurance and having leftover money for anything medical like dentist, glasses etc. It would also cover our spouses and our heir can inherit what is left. One could move to another state and still have medical expenses covered.

This is a way for management to set aside money for retirement or even between jobs if you sever.

[Skittles]

59. if you were diagnosed with cancer that money would be wiped out in weeks

[trixie2]

63. Well let's hope the Republicans don't screw up what we have gained - no lifetime caps etc

It was either take the HSA or lose all medical once you sever or retire. I am grateful for the money I have for medical reasons post employment.

I don't think you understand that many blue collar workers are being faced with nothing at retirement. If the employer is willing to pay into an HSA for us why would we turn it down?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

42. Post WWII, the retirement benefits could last until death.

Medicare didn't show up until the '60's.

Post WWII, Truman tried to push a single-payer system, but it failed to make it through congress, alas.

I'm not sure that "most" jobs had retirement health care, or even health benefits while employed. Unions went a long way toward winning these benefits, in some industries.

[trixie2]

47. Everyone in our family is or was in a union

No one has had benefits till death. Even my parents, coming from the golden age of benefits, only had medical insurance until Medicare age. We are a blue collar family.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

48. Did the benefits end before Medicare was enacted (1965)?

My aunt (uncle was UAW) was getting benefits until she recently died. They helped with the Medicare supplemental insurance.

[trixie2]

49. I am not that old!

They both UAW. I did my moms bills and I never saw a supplemental come in. Could they have handled it on the side themselves? Both were switched from their work insurance to Medicare with the paperwork being done by the union. When my mom was in hospice is when we found out that Medicare was right-to-life and would not pay for her bed, only her medicine and food. She died 5 years ago and only hospiced for 1 month.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

50. Not many of us are that old!

To be 65 years old in 1965 would make someone 117 years old today.

Maybe some long-gone ancestors were union, and retired, older than 65 before 1965. Their stories would be interesting.

I know that some right-wing repubs would love to eliminate Medicare, Social Security, and, in their rotten hearts, the Veterans Administration, and put us back into the dark ages.

Post-retirement company-paid insurance is quickly vanishing.

[trixie2]

64. I completely agree

Come to think of it my mother did have dental and vision throughout her lifetime. That is not included in Medicare, right? Maybe they did pay for dental and vision post Medicare.

[unblock]

6. I have a health "savings" account but it's always empty

Money just passes right through it because I have way more medical expenses than the contribution limit thanks to our lovely high-deductible plan.

So no "savings" in the usual sense, but i get a tax deduction out of it.

I'd personally benefit from higher contribution limits, but it's bad public policy and I'd rather the money go to get health care for someone who wouldn't otherwise get it rather than to give me a tax break for something I can afford to do anyway....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. HSAs are useless if you can't afford to make deposits into them.

And even if you can, the "savings" isn't real because it's still your money. The only advantage to them is that money you add to them isn't taxed. BFD. Tax savings don't matter much to people who don't have any money in the first place. And HSA policies usually have high deductibles (the savings account is supposed to be used to cover that. So let's say you pay $500 a month for the policy but it has a $2,000 deductible (pretty typical). You'd have to incur $8,000 in medical expenses before the insurance coverage would kick in. So maybe you can afford to add $100 a month to the HSA, which you can use to help out with the deductible, but you're still out $8K because the HSA savings was always your money - so that $1,200 "savings" from the HSA is illusory, even assuming you can afford to contribute.

[FBaggins]

9. You forget the premium is often much lower

For a younger/healthier family they can make lots of sense.

Our premiums are almost $500/month lower than our alternative coverage. Obviously we can "afford" to put that in the HSA.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. That's true. But you have to be able to afford to make deposits

into the account, because you are still self-insuring for the entire deductible as well as making the premium payments. The "savings" is something of an illusion because you are using your money for the HSA deposits instead of paying for premiums. You do get a tax deduction (not enough to make up for what you're spending), and the money is yours. You even can use it for non-medical expenses but then you have to pay the tax on it.

I had an HSA policy when I was working, and I deposited as much into it as I could - fortunately I had a good job and I could afford it. Now that I'm retired I'm still using the money for medical expenses not covered by Medicare. But it's no substitute for good insurance that covers everything, which is what most people really need. An HSA policy isn't much use if you can't afford to make deposits into the account.

[FBaggins]

17. That still doesn't make sense

If I have two options (as I do in this case) and one of them costs $900/month and the other one costs $400/month but allows me to place $500/month into an HSA... I can "afford" both equally. If I can't afford to make the deposits, then I can't afford the other insurance option either.

The benefit missing from most of the posts on the thread is that lots of families don't have much in the way of healthcare expenses during the year. The insurance is just there for major unexpected expenses. A family in that position with car insurance would eventually benefit from lower premiums, but that doesn't happen with health insurance from an employer. If that family goes two or three years with limited medical expenses, they can accumulate thousands of dollars into the HSA and get to the point where they can benefit from the lower premiums without having to pay into the HSA.

That's exactly what happened in our case. I was able to use those savings to pay for four sets of braces that wouldn't have been covered by health insurance and no longer have to make deposits if I can't afford them in a given year because I know that our worst-case deductible is covered.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. The point is that it's your money either way. If you can't afford to deposit anything

into the HSA you are still stuck with the whole amount of the deductible. Your example is a family that "goes two or three years with limited medical expenses (and) can accumulate thousands of dollars into the HSA and get to the point where they can benefit from the lower premiums without having to pay into the HSA." This is true, but it presumes that this family can afford to make contributions to the HSA every year. This is most likely when the policy is supplied by an employer, as mine was - the premium for my group policy was quite low, so I could afford to contribute the maximum amount; when I retired I had a pretty good amount saved up. What I'm trying to explain is that HSA policies are fine for situations you describe, but not for lower-income people. Even if they have an employer-provided HSA policy (I think they all are now) with low premiums, they can't add to the HSA and so will be stuck with the huge deductibles and co-pays and un-covered expenses.

What the GOP is proposing now is using these HSAs along with private, individual policies. Those policies are not likely to have the low premiums of an employer-provided policy, and the savings accounts will be of no value to low-income people who can barely afford the premiums.

[Wellstone ruled]

11. Oh the bad memories of a HSA

back in the early nineties. Our deductible was 5k per spouse and I. One year was enough,we ended up with a 11k Medical bill which we had to eat. So fortune to be able to join my spouses new Employer Insurance.

[dalton99a]

10. It is a cruel hoax.

[Hieronymus]

13. Repubic way of soothing

voters by lying, bigly.

[Demsrule86]

18. Most people can't afford to put money in and...it is your money...you get a tax break up to a

certain...point...this is for rich people ...to help lower their taxes.

[MichMary]

20. Disagree

This helps out middle class families, as well. My dh is planning to retire in December. The Obamacare policy we looked at will cover one of the out-of-state specialists I see, but not the other. (The only other option didn't cover either of them.) Any visits, test ordered, etc. by the out-of-network doc will be paid through the HSA.

With a monthly premium of $1700.00/month, we will take all the help we can get.

[Demsrule86]

21. I am not saying that it can't help those who have a decent income...but it won't help

Medicaid people. I have won...and if Trumpcare passes your premiums will rise if you can even get it...so it won't help you either...also, it is still your money unless your employer contributes something.

[MichMary]

24. Medicaid recipients don't need it

It doesn't do anything for lower income non-Medicaid people, but we don't need a one-size-fits-all program.

Obamacare was not good for my family. My son's premium TRIPLED, for coverage he never used.

We need much more flexibility in healthcare. Both the House and Senate versions of this thing look like crap, I am at least willing to look at them before judging. BTW, I think O-care was crap, too. Screwed the young people "bigly," and drove premiums and deductibles waaaaaay up.

[Hoyt]

58. What "drove premiums up" was covering 20 million uninsured without adequate government funding.

Everyone of the uninsured and those entering the insurance pool with serious pre-existing conditions should have had adequate government funding so that others didn't have to pay higher premiums.

I think you are right that younger people got hit with covering a portion of the cost actuarially attributable to older people under Obamacare. Instead the government should have provided the difference in funding through taxes.

In Obama's defense, that's the only way it was passed. If Obama had tried to make everything perfect, we wouldn't be debating a health insurance program because nothing would have been enacted in 2010 and we would still be sitting here waiting for something to happen.

[onethatcares]

25. with a premium like that

i would be dead,homeless, and starving.

[MichMary]

28. It's a silver plan

with a $4500/person deductible. This could have been a retirement deal-breaker, but my dh will be eligible for Medicare a year and a half after retirement, so whatever supplement he needs will be less expensive, and I will get Medicare a year and a half after that, so this is do-able.

I know this isn't a popular opinion here, but Obamacare didn't do much for my family. Where we live, we have very, very few choices of plans. As I said above, of the two plans available to us, one didn't cover either of my docs, and the other covered only one of them.

When my son came off our coverage we got a very basic BC/BS policy designed for young, healthy adults. Low premium, high deductible, and didn't cover a lot. But if his appendix burst, or he had an accident, or some other large medical expense, it would have kept him from bankruptcy. He never used it, but he had it, just in case. It wasn't ACA-compliant, and so it was cancelled, and replaced with full coverage. The premium tripled. And he still didn't use it. I can understand why young people didn't go for the ACA in a big way.

[Egnever]

76. Just curious where do you live?

[MichMary]

78. Rural Michigan n/t

[Egnever]

32. I am far from rich

We aren't underwater but paycheck to paycheck is a reality for us.

What I do have is a child with diabetes. We have an HSA and it is honestly a life saver for us. A few times a year we have large copays behind diabetic supplies and the HSA helps us meet those co-pays without worrying about coming up with the cash at the time we need the supplies.

I am not going to pretend it would work for everyone but for us it has given us peace of mind that if a large expense comes up we are not going to be buried by it and if at the end of the year we have a balance left over I get to have new glasses 😀

[Demsrule86]

71. It is still you money and can not be used to replace health care as the GOP

pretends. I have one too...but many can't afford them.

[Egnever]

75. Of course not

And I was not suggesting it is a replacement. For us it is a way to save money. We get that cash tax free which saves us money in the long run and it makes the expenses we know are going to come much easier to deal with.

For us it is helpful. I do not by any means think it would work for everyone or even anyone that did not have recurring medical costs.

That said HSA while not a replacement for actual health care in today's health care market are a money saving program.

I can certainly see a scenario where we went to a universal system that had copays still where they would still be very helpful for many.

[Jimbo101]

22. Vouchers, HSAs & Allow Insurance Companies To Sell Across State Lines,...

The GOP "Mantra" repeated ad nauseam

Vouchers - when your state runs out of voucher money - you run out of healthcare - "come back after New Years' (if you're still alive)

HSAs are a joke - been there done that.

Allowing Insurance Companies to sell across state lines - would allow insurance companies to headquarter in a state with weak consumer protections (and requirements) - and basically sell junk insurance policies across state lines.

[karynnj]

34. Junk insurance policies that might not have ANY doctors accepting it in your state. nt

[fescuerescue]

60. I don't think I would buy one like that

No doctors and no coverage.

That's one of the first things I look at, is to see if it has doctors in my area.

[a kennedy]

23. Ha ha ha......like the retirement accounts everyone has. NOT.

how the hell can we have health savings accounts and retirement accounts WHEN WE DON't make enough money to just pay our daily bills!!!!!! AND the repubs are dropping the minimum wage!!!! http://myinforms.com/en-us/a/551204573-st-louis-minimum-wage-will-drop-from-10-to-770/

[leftyladyfrommo]

26. ER costs about $1,000 an hour.

Who can afford that ?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

40. Is that "retail"?

Last time I went to an ER, and got admitted, they screwed up the insurance application, so it was denied, and I was billed $25,000.

After a few phone calls, they got the insurance application right, and between medicare and supplemental insurance, the bill was covered 100%, I owed nothing, and the hospital happily received $3,700.

That's the kind of markup for "retail". I assume the hospital still made a modest profit from the $3,700.

The markup for uninsured people is outrageous.

[leftyladyfrommo]

51. I think my bill for 24 hours was $13,000

After Medicare I paid $119.

ER as a form of health care if you don't have insurance is ridiculous.

Before I had Medicare I paid $600 a month for $5,000 deductible with no pre existing conditions.

It cost me $150 just for an appointment to get my BP checked. With Medicare it costs $15.

[6000eliot]

27. An old scam from the '80s if I remember correctly.

[workinclasszero]

29. They are trying to dress up Trump/republican Deathcare a bit for the rubes

It ain't gonna work.

[GulfCoast66]

31. They work for me as I have a decent income

I have a high deductible plan and the saving help cover that cost. I really means my routine medical bills are paid out of pocket.

But the folks who work for me cannot afford the plan by and large so pay way more than I do weekly for a low deductible plan.

But I only works for me because we have a fucked up crazy health system. I would trade it all for an non profit insurance system like France or Germany have with your premiums being taxed by the state and the amounts based on income. I would probably pay more but would gladly do so to insure universal coverage.

[karynnj]

33. Not to mention, their value is that you can put income tax free into them

This is of value only if you have income high enough that after all your deductions etc, you pay federal income tax. Although almost everyone pays the payroll taxes starting with the first dollar they earn, about 45% of people do not earn enough to owe federal INCOME taxes.

For that 45%, not only is likely as you say that they do not have the money to set aside specifically for health expenditures - with penalties if they use it for something else, THERE IS NO BENEFIT AT ALL TO DOING THAT. For wealthier people, the benefit is that you can lower your taxable income by the amount contributed.

[MichMary]

35. . . . and 55% do pay it.

Why can't there be a wide variety of options, so that people can choose what is best for them, as individuals/families?

My dh and I are solidly middle class, very close to retirement age, and willing to look into options for health coverage. The trouble is, right now options are few.

In our county we had the choice of two plans. Neither one offered the coverage we need/want, but that's what there is. We will be paying $1700/month for something that doesn't meet our needs. We will also have an HSA (self-funded) that will help out with things that aren't covered. And will welcome the tax savings, since we would be paying-of-pocket for some things anyway.

[karynnj]

36. If you buy a high deductible plan, which you still can under ACA -- you can fund and use an HSA

Nothing will take your HSA away. My husband and I had one that we funded when we had a high deductible plan. We are now both on Medicare (my husband just this month) and can still use that money for healthcare. We can not add money to it.

The problem with the Republican plan is that they speak of the HSA as if it were a solution to insurance itself. I have no problem with giving more options -- and I think we missed the best option for people in your situation -- allowing people, ages 55 to 65, to buy into Medicare.

[kennetha]

55. you can also earn income on your HSA tax free

but as soon as you spend the money on your healthcare costs, you have to pay the taxes.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

77. If you use the HSA money for medical expenses it isn't taxed.

There's an IRS form you have to file if you use HSA money during a tax year where you tell them you used the money for medical expenses. It's only taxed if you use it for something else.

[Vinca]

37. I've never understood the idea of HSAs at all. If you can't afford a health insurance premium in

the first place, where does all the extra money come from you stash away in your HSA? Their other fascination is "selling across state lines." That's also supposed to be a magical cure. I say we give them that one because insurance companies aren't at all interested in doing it anyway.

[stopbush]

43. The problem with allowing selling over state lines is that insurance companies

will incorporate in states that have low standards. This allows rhe company to offer junk policies that other states will not allow. The consumer - not generally being too smart - gets sucked in to paying for a worthless policy.

And don't say it's the fault of the consumer for not doing their research. Insurance companies spend billions figuring out economic markets in order to craft these junk policies. Those demographics are not going to miraculously change overnight, especially when Rs in government are doing their damnest to cripple the education system and to do away with government programs designed to educate people about just these types of things.

[Vinca]

44. I was assuming the ACA stays in place and is tweeked.

Let the GOP have the state line thing in exchange for a public option or increased subsidies. Every state would still have to comply with basic standards.

[bronxiteforever]

52. Same old GOP BS, along with trickle down.

[JDC]

53. I'm sure the accounts will be managed by public health sector ripoff kings & have hefty "mngmt" fees

[kennetha]

54. Health Savings Accounts are a form of self-insurance.

Don't know why the press never points that out.

[juxtaposed]

56. If you make less than 26k a year this is total B/S

[Doreen]

57. That is going to be absolutely wonderful for a person

who tries to have at least $10.00 in their savings in case they overdraft getting the minimums.

[taught_me_patience]

61. I love my HSA plan. It's perfect for many healthy middle class families

If they have the discipline to add to it. They key is to fund the price difference between the HSA and the traditional PPO/HMO into the savings account. Over time, the HSA grows beyond anything you'll need, even in catastrophic years. HSAs are a poor choice for those with expensive chronic conditions.

[Demsrule86]

72. Indeed....and to hell with the poor?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

62. This chart shows how HSAs mostly benefit the wealthy.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-59690593/turbine/la-1500054928-pd0wx32768-snap-image/650/650x366

[Igel]

65. I'm not wealthy.

But I have a donut hole in my insurance. It's a way of keeping the premiums way down.

First $1k is covered by insurance. The second 1-thousand-$ interval isn't. Then insurance kicks in again.

My employer throws $300 into a health account for every employee.

I have $25 each paycheck put towards it. After 1 year, that's $600, plus my employer's $300. They've let $600 roll over each year, and I make sure that some of the money goes for copays and regular meds to get down to the roll-over amount (it's time to check up on that, to be honest). So far, so good: Start of every year after the first paychck I'm at $900, and I use maybe $600/year for various tests, etc. It works, it's stable, and I think they changed the rollover amount for this year.

Don't have to be wealthy.

[stopbush]

66. As the reponses to this OP prove

HSA's are a partial solution for a very small niche market of consumers.

But that's not what the Rs are pushing. They're pushing the idea that HSAs are a widespread replacement for the insurance people now get through their employer or that they buy on the open market. And the message - which we sadly see expressed by some in this thread - is that if the individual is disciplined (etc) and sticks to it, they can build up a tidy reserve...which implies that there's something wrong/lazy/freeloading about those who don't possess such "discipline."

[grantcart]

67. That is simply not true. For people with known chronic illnesses they can reduce their taxes

by a lot.

A lot of two income families with 2-4 children can save up to a $ 1000 a year with just normal medical expenses.

Its not useful in a single parent household with little medical expense.

There is a range but it is not a scam and not just for a "small" niche, your banner headline is a disservice.

Of course it is not an alternative for health plans and such a plan would never pass the Senate.

[stopbush]

68. A grand total of 6% of the American population has an HSA.

6%.

How is that not a niche market?

Of that 6%, the vast majority are people with HSAs are earning over $200,000 a year.

Tell me how these aren't products that favor and are purchased in the main by the wealthy elite.

[grantcart]

69. Words mean nothing to you. You are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have met here.

For that reason I will, for only the third time in 8 years use the ignore feature.

I give Seminars to federal employees to inform them of their benefits. We are the benefit consultants to the largest federal employee unions and we train their leadership on their benefits.

It would take too long to detail all of the points that are relevant but here are the main ones:

1) The reason that only 6% (and I am surprised it is that high) of the market use HSA's is because

a) People don't know about them. I have given seminars with 200 people and I would be surprised if 10 people even knew what they were or how they work.

b) Sign up can only occur during open seasons and most employees wait until the last few days of open season and only have time to research and act on the benefit plans that effect them the most, medical, dental, etc. Plans that have a more indirect benefit get very little attention. Plans like HSA and 529s are complicated and non urgent so they go to the bottom of the list while researching what plan your kids orthodontist usually becomes the kind of question that people look at the night before the open season is over.

c) While it is true that the benefit would have a large impact on families that make more than $ 120,000 (which would include a lot of middle class two income families) that have chronic medical conditions, most families would get a benefit closer to the minimum level of $ 2,600. If they have a 20% federal tax rate that would only mean a tax benefit of $ 520, and most federal employees simply don't know and don't spend much time on any of their benefits let alone ones that would only generate a $ 20 per pay period benefit.

d) To make it work you have to spend time to know the rules and follow the rules and the general level of ignorance on benefits is extremely high. Vision plans, for example, bring very little benefit because most people don't need new glasses every year so the average family that signs up for a vision plan spends about $ 400 a year and the cost of the premiums would only be less than the benefit if a family had 3 members getting new glasses that year. If however they get them every 3 years then they would be paying $ 1200 for about $ 420 worth of benefit.

e) The are dozens and dozens of employee benefits that provide greater benefit harm or greater benefit so HSAs are almost never covered in seminars or read up by employees when they bother to look at the boring topic of employee benefits.

To put your 6% into perspective though, we know that 30% of the people that have absolutely no need for vision plans and will not benefit from them still sign up for them. Over 50% of the people who have Lasik surgery and have vision plans remember to go back and cancel their vision plans (which they no longer benefit from) after they no longer get a benefit. The fact is when it comes to employee benefit information people spend a couple of hours learning about them when they are first hired and never look at them again.

f) Your latest comment on whether it is a niche market, and all of my comments above are irrelevant to your OP.

Your OP is titled Health Savings Accounts: Another RW SCAM That Will Do Nothing For The Non-Wealthy



The facts that have been well articulated by many interlocutors through out the thread are

1) It is not a scam
2) It benefits lots of people and because it has a $ 6,500 limit would bring very little benefit to the wealthy.
3) Anybody who pays federal income taxes and spend more than $ 2600 on medical expenses would get a benefit
4) The real benefit is to families who have chronic medical conditions.


When I saw your thread I knew that you probably were aiming at the very small number of Republican and Libertarians who are promoting HSA's as viable alternative to health plans and expected that after posters went to the trouble of explaining how many people do benefit from you would edit your title and make the point I thought you were trying to.

You didn't do that however. Instead you went on full attack and used arguments and figures to vigorously defend and attack people who obviously know a lot more about this than you do.

The simply response to your latest attack line is: It is not a benefit that is limited to a "niche" market but even if it was that does not support the OP which claims that it is a scam. (I do not believe that your assertion that the vast majority of HSA accounts are held by households with more than $ 200,000, but again that is not relevant to the question if it is a benefit to people that make less and just don't bother with it).

What makes your OP so completely dishonest however is reply 66 where you assert that the thoughtful replies that shredded your OP do not "prove" your OP correct.

In fact the following sentence

quote
They're pushing the idea that HSAs are a widespread replacement for the insurance people now get through their employer or that they buy on the open market.
unquote

completely changes the meaning of your OP completely and basically concedes agreement to the many people who responded on your unqualified attack on all HSA.

You could not resist coming back to the thread and patting yourself on the back even though doing so meant that you would have to change the basic premise of the OP. If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty you would have gone back and changed the farcical title of the OP and make clear that you were against HSAs as replacement for health plans rather than attacking them as simply one part of a benefit scheme.

So even though I found the OP extremely poorly written OP, which is confirmed by your changing the premise in your reply in 66 that is not why I am putting you on ignore.

You are going on ignore because even though it is clear that the OP was poorly written your hubris couldn't help you from posting a completely misleading self congratulatory pat on your back.

[Demsrule86]

73. All that you have posted, and I read it. do not change the fact that few

can take advantage of such plans as they can't afford to put money in the plan...I have one..but I have a fairly high income. And the GOP wants to pretend this will solve their shitty plans problems which has little to do with what you posted.

[MichMary]

79. No

No one is pushing the idea of HSAs as an alternative to health insurance. It would be only ONE facet of any plan. And one, that if used properly, would benefit many, many people.

Please stop spreading disinformation. This is a serious problem, and people do need to keep their minds open to solutions from both sides of the aisle.

[HughBeaumont]

74. HSA: "GOP" for "Your Insurance Sucks, But Better You Than Me, SUCKER!"

[WillowTree]

81. Who's forcing you or anyone else to buy one?

Just because an HSA wouldn't be good for you in your circumstance doesn't mean that one might not be a solution for someone else, as has been explained by others on this thread for whom an HSA has worked out well.