Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I honestly don't understand. Why can't you keep the current insurance? What part of Obamacare says you have to give up your current plan? Why is an alternate insurance plan so much more costly and why is it the only option. I'm not being argumentitive, I really want to know.
Those who are self-insured are no longer allowed HSA's under Obamacare come 2013. HSA's continue to be allowed if employer paid but not for those who provide their own insurance (Private contractors, self-employed, etc...). Therefore, I and others similarly self-insured with HSA's will be forced into non-compliance (read IRS fine/punishment) or whatever "pool" the HHS dictates. Meanwhile, Obamacare has already eliminated non-prescription drugs and non-prescription medical devices from being paid for via private HSA funds.
I honestly don't understand. Why can't you keep the current insurance? What part of Obamacare says you have to give up your current plan? Why is an alternate insurance plan so much more costly and why is it the only option. I'm not being argumentitive, I really want to know.
I don't know all the reasoning behind why, but for whatever reason, the types of plans that I and MoGal have (high deductible plans) do not meet the minimum federal requirements for insurance under this new law. I am truly upset about this as this is the absolute best plan I've ever had.
The alternative plans are HMO based and that was the stated cost as of June 1, 2010 for family coverage through Aetna. I know all of this off the top of my head because I just dumped them for this HD plan that I find out I won't even be able to keep now.
A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1.
"The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral."
"Overall, 30 percent favored the legislation, while 40 percent opposed it, and another 30 percent remained neutral."
First, the Department of Health and Human Services will make the ultimate ruling on HSAs when it decides how to calculate the actuarial value of the high-deductible health insurance policies that must accompany HSAs.
The health law requires that all insurance policies provide a minimum actuarial value of at least 60% for the benefits covered. If HHS allows contributions by individuals and employers to health savings accounts to "count" as part of the actuarial value, then HSAs and other account-based plans would likely meet the test. But if contributions are not included, the plans likely would not qualify, removing an important tool to hold health costs down.
Second, it is uncertain whether high-deductible policies will satisfy the government's legal definition of health insurance that we all must have to comply with the federal government's individual mandate that's coming in 2014.
I could answer yes or no to this question.... Too vague, this law didn't go far enough in the right direction of lowering health care costs for the people paying into the system now which is what most Americans expect when they think of health care reform. Matter of fact it went the other way and could possibly increase costs. Lots of benefits for those without insurance, nothing for those supporting the system.
Those who are self-insured are no longer allowed HSA's under Obamacare come 2013. HSA's continue to be allowed if employer paid but not for those who provide their own insurance (Private contractors, self-employed, etc...). Therefore, I and others similarly self-insured with HSA's will be forced into non-compliance (read IRS fine/punishment) or whatever "pool" the HHS dictates.
"It sounds like a rout for Robin Hood, but President Obama and Congress ultimately spared one big tax break — the health savings account — that Republicans love and senior members of George W. Bush’s administration had championed. In fact, the legislation makes it likely that many more people will take advantage of the accounts by the middle of the decade, keeping even more money out of the hands of the government."
Meanwhile, Obamacare has already eliminated non-prescription drugs and non-prescription medical devices from being paid for via private HSA funds.
GOOD! Why on earth should YOU get a tax break the rest of us don't, especially on buying things like Tylenol and Thera-Flu for g-d's sake? Whatever moron allowed that to happen in the first place should have their legs cut off at the knees. Oh wait, that would be the Republicans under George W. Bush. The same ones who got that legislation passed by violating procedure, threatening elected officials on the House floor (and following through on those threats when they couldn't bribe a vote out of him), intentionally hiding the CBO's cost estimates and threatening to fire the Medicare Actuary if he revealed the true cost to Congress before the vote!
Frankly, the whole HSA scheme is a crock. Why should people who are enrolled in their employer's health insurance plan have to pay Federal taxes on the money they have to use to cover deductibles and co-pays, but people with HSAs can pay those expenses tax-free?
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 09-25-2010 at 09:18 PM..
Reason: Please discuss the topic, not each other.
"It sounds like a rout for Robin Hood, but President Obama and Congress ultimately spared one big tax break — the health savings account — that Republicans love and senior members of George W. Bush’s administration had championed. In fact, the legislation makes it likely that many more people will take advantage of the accounts by the middle of the decade, keeping even more money out of the hands of the government."
GOOD! Why on earth should YOU get a tax break the rest of us don't, especially on buying things like Tylenol and Thera-Flu for g-d's sake? Whatever moron allowed that to happen in the first place should have their legs cut off at the knees. Oh wait, that would be the Republicans under George W. Bush. The same ones who got that legislation passed by violating procedure, threatening elected officials on the House floor (and following through on those threats when they couldn't bribe a vote out of him), intentionally hiding the CBO's cost estimates and threatening to fire the Medicare Actuary if he revealed the true cost to Congress before the vote!
Frankly, the whole HSA scheme is a crock. Why should people who are enrolled in their employer's health insurance plan have to pay Federal taxes on the money they have to use to cover deductibles and co-pays, but people with HSAs can pay those expenses tax-free?
There are lots of good reasons for the government to incentivize usage of these plans with perks like allowing HSA funds to pay for non-prescription health care costs. From your article:
Quote:
Why were H.S.A.’s created in the first place? The big idea was that if people had to pay more out of pocket each year, they’d have an incentive to shop around and be less wasteful with their health care spending. The cumulative effect of millions of people doing that would supposedly lower costs.Tax savings from the accounts, meanwhile, would lure the uninsured into high-deductible plans, which often have lower premiums. And if the new enrollees were young and healthy, their premiums could subsidize coverage for the old and the sick.
If more people used these plans, the overall cost to consumers would go down. That's why they are called consumer driven plans and they make health care more affordable and hold the consumer accountable for costs, thus creating smarter health care consumers.
And many employers are now offering these types of plans as well. They aren't just for self employed individuals. Why do you think so many hospitals offer this for their employees? Hospitals surely know both sides of the health care cost dilemma from an employer standpoint and as their source of business revenue.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 09-25-2010 at 09:19 PM..
Reason: Edited quoted text
A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1.
Thats why most people who have a clue were upset with this, it was essentially "Socialism" for healthcare insurance and capitalism for consumers of healthcare insurance.
There are lots of good reasons for the government to incentivize usage of these plans with perks like allowing HSA funds to pay for non-prescription health care costs. From your article:
If more people used these plans, the overall cost to consumers would go down. That's why they are called consumer driven plans and they make health care more affordable and hold the consumer accountable for costs, thus creating smarter health care consumers.
And many employers are now offering these types of plans as well. They aren't just for self employed individuals. Why do you think so many hospitals offer this for their employees? Hospitals surely know both sides of the health care cost dilemma from an employer standpoint and as their source of business revenue.
And there are a lot of reasons to oppose this kind of favoritism in the health care coverage arena, too. And there are also drawbacks that increase both healthcare and insurance costs for those not enrolled in them.
Since HSAs require having a high-deductible plan, a catastrophic accident or illness could still lead to financial ruin of a family or individual. And those most likely to participate are the young and healthy, so when they take away funds from the insurance risk pool, it forces insurers to raise premiums and/ or cut benefits for those who cannot afford high deductible plans, which are usually low to middle-income families.
Not to mention, it's just another pocket-padding scheme for the well-to-do, cooked up by the Bush administration. The right to pay medical expenses with pre-tax income is worth a lot more to people in higher income brackets than to lower income families who don't have the ability to put the maximum amount allowed into their savings accounts.
And there are a lot of reasons to oppose this kind of favoritism in the health care coverage arena, too. And there are also drawbacks that increase both healthcare and insurance costs for those not enrolled in them.
Since HSAs require having a high-deductible plan, a catastrophic accident or illness could still lead to financial ruin of a family or individual. And those most likely to participate are the young and healthy, so when they take away funds from the insurance risk pool, it forces insurers to raise premiums and/ or cut benefits for those who cannot afford high deductible plans, which are usually low to middle-income families.
Not to mention, it's just another pocket-padding scheme for the well-to-do, cooked up by the Bush administration. The right to pay medical expenses with pre-tax income is worth a lot more to people in higher income brackets than to lower income families who don't have the ability to put the maximum amount allowed into their savings accounts.
so it's the young and healthy's fault the health care problems are such a mess! got it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
