Health Savings Accounts: Affordable, Great Coverage, Future Savings
This Sham Health Care Bill Accomplishes Nothing Most Americans Want The Voters' Option By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Health Care: With opposition growing to their planned takeover of U.S. health care, Democrats have an idea: They'll go it alone without GOP votes. Looks like they'll have to go it alone without the American people, too. Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:20 PM PT Excerpts: Sure, the Democrats could pass a health care bill. They have the votes to do whatever they want. Well, good luck with that. As we all have seen from constituents shouting down their quaking representatives, the public is up in arms about the "reforms" proposed. Democrats would be wise to think twice about trying to ram them down the public's throat. One new poll shows that Americans, by an overwhelming 59% to 36%, agree Congress shouldn't pass a health care bill with just Democratic support. And a Pew Poll shows that, for the first time in the Obama era, fewer than half of all Americans have a favorable view of the Democrats. If Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman and the wonks in the White House think they'll get a free political pass on this, they're in for a big surprise. REAL CLEAR POLITICS August 19, 2009 How Free Health Care Got So Expensive By Steven Malanga Excerpts: Recently I was listening to a radio program in which the host explained that in a few states health insurance policies issued by Blue Cross/Blue Shield were available at extremely reasonable prices, about $100 a month. The very first caller into the program demanded to know exactly what the annual deductible was in plans like this. When the host said $3,000 to $5,000 the caller responded, that isn't health insurance but catastrophic insurance. It's too expensive and that's why we need health care reform from Washington, he continued. And there lies one of the problems with the health insurance reform debate. State government mandates and favorable tax treatment in Washington have so distorted the market for health insurance that a generation of Americans now look on medical coverage as something very different from other kinds of insurance that we buy. While we will pay several hundred bucks out of our own pockets to have a plumber come repair a leaky pipe, we'll balk at deductibles and a $50 co-pay for a doctor's visit. We've been schooled in this attitude by politicians who have mandated that health insurance do things that we'd never expect from other kinds of insurance, and by consumer advocates who will demand our legislators do something about a health insurance company that doesn't cover some optional procedure that has nothing to do with life and death. It's worth keeping these differences between types of insurance in mind now that it's becoming clear that a solid majority of Americans do not want health reform that involves an even more expansive role for government. That's why the so-called ‘public option' of a government health insurance entity competing with private insurance is rapidly losing favor in Washington. That's good because a public option won't restore sanity to the health insurance market. What will, is getting get rid of the rules, mandates and tax exemptions that treat health insurance different from other coverages. Steve Malanga Real Clear Markets LIES BARACK STRIKES AGAIN Health Insurance Companies So-Called Record Profits Bring Them In At A Ranking of 86th in the Nation Full article Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog For Economics and Finance Washington Examiner Glenn Reynolds on the hidden cost of national health care
By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds 7/12/09 12:39 PM Excerpts: Lots of people are beginning to question the cost of President Barack Obama's healthcare "reform" plans, and with good reason. (Just compare the original projections for Medicare with what it wound up costing in reality). But there's another cost that isn't getting enough attention. That's the degree to which a bureaucratized healthcare system will squash medical innovation just as we reach a point where dramatic progress is possible. To see how important that is, I don't have to look any farther than my own family. Perhaps our medical history is more involved than most, but probably not by a lot. And yet many members of my family are living better, happier lives -- or, heck, just living -- because of medical innovations made in recent decades, innovations that probably wouldn't have been made under a government-run health system. And as medical technology progresses by leaps and bounds, the next few decades are likely to see much greater progress, unless it's throttled by bureaucrats. Full article Glenn Reynolds Washington Examiner INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY In ObamaCare, Middle Class Gets The Shaft By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:20 PM PT Excerpts: The Obama administration might like to "spread the wealth around," but its proposed "health care reform" wouldn't spread consumer choice around. Rather, it would constrict consumer choice substantially — except for the very rich. That's the great irony of President Obama's ambitious health care agenda: His administration, which seems to feel little empathy for the rich, is paving the way to a two-tiered system in which only the very rich would have a choice. Under ObamaCare, the rich would continue to get the care they want — whether here or abroad — by paying for it out of their own pockets. The rest of us would stand in line and wait for rationed care. Most Americans want consumer freedom. They want to be able to shop for health care value — for the best care, at the best prices. They'd like to have a lot more freedom to shop for such value than they currently have. That's why Democrats are couching their proposed expansion of government-run health care in the language of competition and choice. Full article Investor's Business Daily Better get sick now, not later Line up for that surgery before Obamacare becomes law By R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. | Friday, June 19, 2009 Excerpts: If you have any sense that you may be getting sick in the years ahead, I suggest you get sick immediately. If you will need of surgery or any medical procedure, do it now! If not immediately, be certain that you hand yourself over to the health care professionals before Oct. 15. That is the date on which President Obama hopes to sign his health care bill once it has gone through the congressional baloney grinder. At the heart of Mr. Obama's plan is his stated goal to cut medical costs. That might sound good to you, but it means cutting services, nurses, technicians, medical tests and, most prominently, the use of expensive technology. The president's top medical advisers are quite frank about this. Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and a health-policy adviser in the Office of Management and Budget, has chided Americans for the expense of their "being enamored with technology." Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, charges medical innovations as being responsible for fully two-thirds of the annual increase in health care spending. Their solution is to limit expensive innovations. A 2008 Congressional Budget Office report agrees with their cost analysis but concludes happily that such innovations "permit the treatment of previously untreatable conditions." As I shall show, there are more humane ways to cut health care costs. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/19/better-get-sick-now-not-later/">Emmett Tyrrell Jr. The Washington Times FREEP.COM McCain health care plan offers needed choice BY AMY MENEFEE October 22, 2008 Full article Amy Menefee FREEP.COM Excerpts: ...McCain wants to expand the number of insurance options available for Americans, giving the uninsured new opportunities and financial help. Obama wants to create a new government-run health insurance program and force private insurers to mirror what the government offers. McCain would allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, which would open that market to competition. As it is now, we're stuck buying policies within our own states, complete with the rules and restrictions they have. It's well known that New Yorkers pay more for health insurance than Iowans do, simply because they live in New York. That's not fair; they should have the same array of plans available to them. In an open marketplace, insurers would have to compete on many points, including price, benefits and, importantly, customer service... THE AMERICAN The Singapore Model By Rowan Callick Tuesday, May 27, 2008 The city-state of Singapore may have a fix for America’s healthcare woes.  Custom Search Americans have grown used to buying every kind of product from overseas. So why not “buy” foreign ideas or social institutions? Why, for instance, hasn’t the United States adopted the same healthcare system as Europe, Canada, and nearly all the rest of the developed world? While the United States is portrayed as the outlier, the truth is that another developed nation has eschewed the European government-payer model—with a great deal of success. That nation is Singapore, a city-state with a population of just 4.6 million but a lot to teach America. Singaporeans are considerably healthier than Americans, yet pay, per person, about one-fifth of what Americans pay for their healthcare. A major reason is that Singapore’s system does not focus on the question that seems to preoccupy both Europe and America: who pays? Ultimately, whoever signs the checks, the money comes out of the pockets of individuals. Singapore takes a different tack. CATO INSTITUTE Congress Messing with Your HSA by Michael F. Cannon Full article Cato Institute Excerpts:
Never mind the presidential race. The battle over who will control your health care is already taking place, under the radar, in Congress. In April, House Democrats passed legislation that would impose onerous and unnecessary reporting requirements on people with tax-free health savings accounts. As of January, more than 6 million Americans have HSA coverage. That includes nearly 640,000 Californians, or about 3 percent of all Californians under age 65. In some states, HSA plans cover nearly one in 10 people under 65. Current law requires HSA holders to document their withdrawals in the event of an IRS audit. The new legislation would require every HSA holder to document every HSA withdrawal, every time they file their taxes. That's right: Congressional Democrats have found a way to make Americans' medical bills and tax returns even more complicated. ### See Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina on the floor of the Senate. Health Savings Accounts, were passed under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. HSAs have two major features 1. A high deductible-usually $1000 to $2500 for a single person; $2000 to $5000 for a family plan 2. A savings account to pay for smaller expenses. So, let's examine the single plan Because the higher deductible-$1000, does not kick in until reaching that amount, premiums are considerably lower, and the money put into the savings account is tax free.
The savings account takes care of small expenses, and any unused portion, can be rolled over toward the following year's expenses. So Let's say you paid $100 a month, in premiums, for 12 months. During the year you had several qualifying medical small expenses totalling $300. That $300 would be taken from your savings account, leaving you $900 at the end of the year. Since you had not reached the amount where your deductible kicked in, $1000, all the expenses were paid by your savings account. Had your expenses been $1100, the savings account would have paid the first $1000. The amount over $1000 would be paid by the policy holder minus a small copay if your policy calls for a copay. So, going back to the example in which you had just $300 in expenses, your Savings Account would start the following year with that $900.00 in it. Each premium payment in the new year would add to your total, giving you a higher amount to use, if needed for small expenses. If at any time you had huge expenses, your $1000 deductible would kick in, so that you would be responsible only for the small portion which is your copay. The Savings Account can be paid by the individual or his employer (or both), up to a limit that does not exceed the amount of the deductible for the high-deductible policy. These contributions are tax-deductible even if you do not itemize your deductions on your tax return. Many companies are switching over to HSA's. The savings are substantial, while the employees for the most part, are happy with the coverage and the features. One of those features could almost be called spectacular. The money in the Savings Account can grow, tax free, toward retirement, similar to an IRA. If you withdraw from an HSA for non-medical uses upon retirement, you then pay taxes. Even there however, every taxpayer can earn $9000 a year, based on 2005 figures, before owing any federal income taxes. In the case of those 65 and older, in 2006, if your total income will be $10,000 or less, including withdrawals from your HSA, you would still owe no tax on the HSA withdrawal even if it is not for medical expenses. You simply do not have enough income to owe any tax. The account is also portable, it can be moved if the individual changes employers. Obviously Health Savings Accounts are not for those who have full coverage paid for by an employer, but for many who must pay their own way, Health Savings Accounts are a life saver.
Health Savings Accounts To OPM.GOV
|
