Bush Health Savings Accounts NO ANSWER

from JoeUser Forums



The State of the Union Speech did demonstrate that George W. Bush has a basic understanding of some of the major issues facing America. The biggest domestic issue however, the growing Federal Deficit was not addressed.

One major issue Bush offered a solution for was healthcare. He acknowledged the problem of escalating costs and the fact that 46 million people HAVE NO COVERAGE. His solution is to shift health coverage to be paid for by the individual with before- tax earnings. This plan will encourage even more employers to drop company paid health coverage and shift the cost to the working family. This is where President Bush is simply out of touch with the reality. The Median family income in 2005 was $44,000 per year, which means many families live on far less to arrive at that Median amount. The average working family lives from pay check to pay check and is NOT saving anything. The savings rate in America is the lowest since 1933 and in December 2005 was negative which means people went into their past savings to pay for their current expenditures. The bottom line is that tens of millions of families DO NOT HAVE the money to place into the proposed medical savings accounts. The Bush suggestions is NOT AN ANSWER for the middle or low income families.

We need to make Bush look at workable solutions to the problems he seems to recognize and to recognize issues like the deficit that he has yet to acknowledge.
politics
6,919 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just because people aren't saving doesn't mean it's because they have no choice. I know MANY people who are miles in debt because they just had to have the latest gadget, a bigger TV etc. What's happening now is you're seeing a generation of people who always had credit cards moving from under Mommy & Daddy's wing into the working world. You're seeing people who never learned the first thing of financial responsibility suddenly out on their own.

The HSA doesn't mean that companies will abandon contributions. Even with HSAs and HRAs, companies that are participating in them still largely do matching of some kind. Yes, at the low end some may ditch out of it, but to be honest, not that many companies existing at that low end offer much coverage to begin with. And also remember that the HMO system was a huge contributor to the issue of rising health costs.

Also, it is entirely the choice of the company to provide coverage... There's no responsibility there, it's offered as a BENEFIT of working at a company. And to have the federal government try and force companies into it is dumb. Companies that offer no healthcare will have a harder time attracting new employees, the market takes care of those sorts of places on its own usually.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
When is America going to realise that socialism is coming back in and is the way forward?
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Zoomba
We will see how many companies in the future reduce or abandon company paid health coverage. The issue of Health Savings Accounts solving the lack of health coverage for most low and middle income families is clear. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Many families are below that $44,000 Median income. They have incomes in the 20"s and low 30"s. NONE of these families will have the hundreds of dollars to set aside each month for individual health insurance. H & W coverage alone is between $300-$400 per month in most places. Family coverage is even higher. If the Bush plan is approved we will still have 40 Plus millions Americans WITH NO HEALTH COVERAGE! This man has no understanding of the REAL financial situation that faces the Average American Family. He has NEVER been unable to pay his bills. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth with parents that have always had power and money!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Zoomba is on the button. A rather high percentage of kids leaving the nest these days expect it to be a "lateral" move at minimum. If finances are a problem, the healthy young think nothing of foregoing health insurance premiums in favor of Dish Network, NFL PrimeTicket, NBA SeasonPass, Oprah's book club, the LA Fitness membership, not to mention the plasma TV payments. Thanks to the "safety net" it's no problem for them.

There was a time when there was no significant healthcare crisis, you know. It was, oddly enough, prior to 1965. Our prosperity since WWII has left us so spoiled & dependent - we have no clue how good we have it.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Families, old or young making $20-35,000 per year do not have the money to put $300-400 per month in a health savings plan. It us just another example of how out of touch Bush and the GOP are with reality! This is a NON SOLUTION to a major issue facing 46 million Americans!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
HMOs failed miserably... you claim HSAs are an abomination.... WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST Col Gene!? In all your brilliance and ability to call every decision made by the Govt a bad one... where's your insight into how to solve this problem? And don't say the defecit... we're talking about a separate issue here. How would you solve the health insurance issue?

Or are you only capable of pointing out bad ideas and have no ability to propose solutions?

I'll admit the HSA deal is a bit of a raw one considering we're still dealing the HMO inflated prices, but now have to cover more out of pocket. We got ourselves into a nasty situation with HMOs so any change is going to be rough.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's not get into who's "out of touch." Have you checked recently on the gross revenues of native American casinos, not to mention Vegas? When the casino's run out of customers, we'll know there's a "real" crisis.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Zoomba is again correct. The government subsidized HMO's for years making us all think managed care was "less expensive" - now that the bait has been taken, the switch is on. Is anyone really surprised that, given a system that encouraged folks to seek out and utilize healthcare resources with little to no financial consequences to themselves, we've "suddenly" got a problem with growing healthcare costs? Does anyone really believe making healthcare "free" will lessen demand for healthcare? The growth of and control granted to healthcare corporations has resulted in, suprise, healthcare being all about the corporation rather than the care.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Does anyone really believe making healthcare "free" will lessen demand for healthcare?


What gets me is that people live under the mistaken notion that taxpayer subsidized benefits are "free" in the first place!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Healthcare is not free. The question is who can and will pay for healthcare. To propose a solution that says people without the resources will put money they do not have into an account is nuts. First, people at the low end on the income scale either do not pay taxes or the actual benefit is in the 10% range given the lowest tax rate. So what Bush is saying is that if your premium is $300 per month after the tax saving at a 10% bracket it will only cost $270 and you save $30. That is his solution.

Help would be a tax credit to business to help offset part of the cost of providing health care. Help would be to provide a direct subsidy to individuals where their employer DOES not provide health care. What Bush is suggesting does almost NOTHING to help the 46 million Americans without health care.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Healthcare is not free. The question is who can and will pay for healthcare. To propose a solution that says people without the resources will put money they do not have into an account is nuts. First, people at the low end on the income scale either do not pay taxes or the actual benefit is in the 10% range given the lowest tax rate. So what Bush is saying is that if your premium is $300 per month after the tax saving at a 10% bracket it will only cost $270 and you save $30. That is his solution.

Help would be a tax credit to business to help offset part of the cost of providing health care. Help would be to provide a direct subsidy to individuals where their employer DOES not provide health care. What Bush is suggesting does almost NOTHING to help the 46 million Americans without health care.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's going to be painful at first, but as we move off the HMOs, and as people have to pay for the care they receive, you'll see a shift where people only go to the doctor when they need to. This drops gold-plating off the map, this forces the health care market to realign to pricing that is reasonable. When you could go to the doctor 10 times a day and pay only $5 out of pocket each time, the docs were still getting the same amount of money. They could up their fees to the insurance companies and the consumer wouldn't see it unless their insurer upped their rates. And even then, a rate increase spreads the cost so far that the average yearly jump wouldn't ever be enough per person to bother too much.

Health care needs to be subjected to supply and demand rules again... It needs to be treated like an actual industry to force pricing to come in line with what is reasonable for the service rendered. Without insurance, a 20min doc visit will go a few hundred dollars... that's simply beyond reasonable. HSAs place more responsibility with the consumer... which is where it belongs.

ANd while it is unfortunate that the result is that health care becomes more burdensome to lower income people, you have to remember that affordable healthcare isn't a right. Clinics and emergency rooms have special considerations for those of low income. Sure, it's not top-rate care, but that's the breaks of a non-socialized system.

And a tax incentive is simply not going to work. Those that want to offer assistance with insurance will, those that don't, won't. You won't change the distribution too much from what it was before since HMOs actually cost companies a TON more to support than then new HSAs will... in fact if anything since the cost is shifted like it is, I bet you'll see more companies start offering it since it will be more economical to them to do so. Now, McDonalds isn't going to suddenly offer insurance to their cashiers, but then again, I don't think they were before anyway and probably had little inclination to do so.

Increase the contribution from the employee, you decrease the level needed from the employer, as a result the employer can offer more people insurance than it could before. And believe it or not, companies are generally interested in keeping their employees healthy and happy, it makes a lot of financial sense to do so.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
A tax credit to the employer to offset part of the medical insurance premium lowers the cost to the employer as well. Again people making $7 or $8 per hour can not afford the Bush Healthcare savings account or a deduction from their non-living wage pay. These are NON SOLUTIONS to this serious problem. I agree HMO's do not save money and are not liked by most patients. Please note Jeb Bush is trying to convert the Medicaid program in Florida to HMO's. Must be something in the gene pool that is off!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Seems I'm attracted to your writings Colonel. Health savings accounts are a good thing. Set up similar to an IRA or a 401(k), or similar savings plan, it would work quite well. Employer fund matching would work. Cutting a check directly to a physician or hospital is almost always less expensive than what they would bill the healthcare provider or the government. I know, I've been doing it for almost ten years.

It benefits both the employer and the employee. The money the employer currently contributes per employee to healthcare, especially in a small business, can nearly match an employee's paycheck, especially in manual labor. If the employer doesn't have to pay these dues, quite a bit of which doesn't get spent by the company or its workers, much of it will be added to wages, which, in turn will be placed into these savings accounts, growing at an interest rate similar to a passsbook savings account (or higher?). Unlike insurance, where you pay in and may not need it for years, and still have to pay a deductible, this stays in an account for this purpose.


Barring catastrophic or terminal illness, it works. It saves the employer and employee money, it reduces the paperwork and red tape for the hospitals and it pays the medical provider in a timely fashion, thereby further reducing the cost of medical expenses. In the event of terminal diseases, there are insurance companies that specialize in insurance for just such an occassion, just like life or car insurance.

Savings plans work, simply because they remove the government and bureaucrats from the equation. They remove a large, soon to be unbearable financial albatross from employers. And that is a good thing. Look at Detroit and the car manufacturers. It's really no different than the pension plans that GM and Ford are having difficulties with.

I'm not sure what your take on this is, but if you really are a Colonel, then this really has no impact on you, unless you really aren't. Because the tax revenue from service members, veterans and civilians are paying for your healthcare. That is, unless you are too discriminating to use the VA, Colonel. Are you?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Families, old or young making $20-35,000 per year do not have the money to put $300-400 per month in a health savings plan. It us just another example of how out of touch Bush and the GOP are with reality! This is a NON SOLUTION to a major issue facing 46 million Americans!


You are soooo full of it! My wife and I only make about 35K a year. And it "already costs us $300 a month for health coverage. So again your specious arguement goes down in flames.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler
I have no idea where you live or what you spend for housing, transportation but to assert that people making 20-35K will set aside 4-5 thousand to fund health savings accounts is pure fantasy. Hell the savings rate is non excitant even with people at higher incomes then these. Just watch this idea go the way of the Bush Social Security ideas. His ideas do not and will not solve the issues pure and simple.

If you have the income you claim and supoport Bush and his policies you are truly DUMB!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler
I have no idea where you live or what you spend for housing, transportation but to assert that people making 20-35K will set aside 4-5 thousand to fund health savings accounts is pure fantasy. Hell the savings rate is non excitant even with people at higher incomes then these. Just watch this idea go the way of the Bush Social Security ideas. His ideas do not and will not solve the issues pure and simple.


I find it interesting that you say this is fantasy when drmiller is telling you he is doing it. How is it that you dare to say it's not true when proof is given to you. The only dumb person here is you. He already said he pays about $300 for his families insurance and yet you still claim it's not gonna happen.

to quote Dr. Calvin from I,Robots "You are the dumbest bumb person I have ever met".
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler
I have no idea where you live or what you spend for housing, transportation but to assert that people making 20-35K will set aside 4-5 thousand to fund health savings accounts is pure fantasy. Hell the savings rate is non excitant even with people at higher incomes then these. Just watch this idea go the way of the Bush Social Security ideas. His ideas do not and will not solve the issues pure and simple.

If you have the income you claim and supoport Bush and his policies you are truly DUMB!


YOU'RE the dumb one here. WE ARE ALREADY DOING IT! If we can do it on what little we make then there is absolutely no way the economy is as bad as you seem to think it is. Do you need to see scans of my wife's paycheck to prove it?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
46 million out of 300 million. As far as offering no solutions, neither do you. I challenged you on another blog to put up or shut up and tell us how Bush could fix the problem using the REAL powers he has as President. You didn't there, and I doubt you will here. You aren't about answers, you're about skewed questions.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Companies that offer no healthcare will have a harder time attracting new employees, the market takes care of those sorts of places on its own usually.

UNREAL!
ing catastrophic or terminal illness, it works.
Aye, there's the rub.

In the event of terminal diseases, there are insurance companies that specialize in insurance for just such an occassion, just like life or car insurance.
Provided you were healthy when signing up.
You are soooo full of it! My wife and I only make about 35K a year. And it "already costs us $300 a month for health coverage. So again your specious arguement goes down in flames.
Are you willing to risk forgoing the insurance for a savings plan?--God forbid you or your wife are seriously ill after only a year of contributions.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Companies that offer no healthcare will have a harder time attracting new employees, the market takes care of those sorts of places on its own usually.

UNREAL!


Absolute truth!

In the event of terminal diseases, there are insurance companies that specialize in insurance for just such an occassion, just like life or car insurance.
Provided you were healthy when signing up.


Not always true.

You are soooo full of it! My wife and I only make about 35K a year. And it "already costs us $300 a month for health coverage. So again your specious arguement goes down in flames.
Are you willing to risk forgoing the insurance for a savings plan?--God forbid you or your wife are seriously ill after only a year of contributions.


Do you even know what the savings plans are for? Somehow I do not think so. Let me help you:


The president's key proposal calls for expanding the use of tax-free health savings accounts, where consumers who take out a high-deductible insurance policy can invest money in a tax-free savings account for routine medical expenses. The high-deductible policy would cost less than traditional comprehensive coverage, thus making insurance more affordable. Money spent from the savings accounts would escape taxation, thus providing a tax subsidy for all medical purchases.



In other words it's to help with the high deductable.