ZRod Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 I don't think you understand how it works. The HSA money can pay for more than a deductable, it covers a lot of healthcare related expenses, and the money is never taxed. In a 401k or IRA the money will be taxed at some point. Either when you initially earn it (a Roth version) or when you withdraw it later (a traditional version). Also, I do contribute to my retirement account(s) and get that match. Obviously if my company didn't give me anything for an HSA I may choose a different rout. You're right, it is better for healthy individuals such as myself. Its an investment based on an assumption, that I will be relatively healthy while I am young, and need the money when I am older for medical expenses. There should be another system that fills the gap though (hence my "it needs work" comment). I fail to see how it is really all that beneficial for the wealthy when they can only invest relatively small sums of money annually Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 So doesn't that mean you either pay out-of-pocket + copays until you hit your deductible? I can't say I'm terribly familiar with how HDHPs work. I see why it is a popular option for consumer-driven healthcare. I do like the fact it doesn't tax people for their expenditures. That seems like a good option to help people keep a little more of their own money. But I still think it's a fundamentally regressive venture. The more money you have, the more access to healthcare. I don't like that. Link to comment
zoogs Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 I think my biggest problem with HSAs is not HSAs themselves (I don't know much about the details here), but the idea that we can recede in coverage because of it. "Guys, we'll repeal the ACA and associated taxes but it's okay because you can just buy HSAs." It's not the same and the people who end up in the s#t as a result aren't necessarily less responsible, though I think that's the idea: offload taxes, offload responsibility, and try to say people still have coverage. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted July 14, 2017 Author Share Posted July 14, 2017 Whatever happened to the 'free market' approach fixes to the ACA?? Cheap talk by cheap politicians. The repubs had 8 years - should have had a bill ready on day one that would accomplish all that needed to be done to improve health care. Good things these guys weren't around when Social Security was written up in the 1930s. 3 Link to comment
Kiyoat Husker Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 ... The repubs had 8 years - should have had a bill ready on day one .... Yup. I think it's obvious by now that all of the uproar over Obamacare was primarily just a political rallying tool and empty rhetoric crafted to rile up the conservative base. If they were at all serious about it they would have had plenty of time to create some kind of consensus among republicans on a solution. 5 Link to comment
ZRod Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 So doesn't that mean you either pay out-of-pocket + copays until you hit your deductible? I can't say I'm terribly familiar with how HDHPs work. I see why it is a popular option for consumer-driven healthcare. I do like the fact it doesn't tax people for their expenditures. That seems like a good option to help people keep a little more of their own money. But I still think it's a fundamentally regressive venture. The more money you have, the more access to healthcare. I don't like that. A lot is dependent on the plan, but yes pretty much what you said for co-pays etc.. Some meds are free and I get one free physical a year on my plan. I'm not sure how procedures work. I also get a free bio screening and some money back for completing that and taking a health survey. It's the status quo right now... Link to comment
zoogs Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 Whatever happened to the 'free market' approach fixes to the ACA?? Cheap talk by cheap politicians. The repubs had 8 years - should have had a bill ready on day one that would accomplish all that needed to be done to improve health care. Good things these guys weren't around when Social Security was written up in the 1930s. I think you'll find some real commitment to this by a number of Republicans. Which is partly the problem -- now that the ACA has been in effect, it turns out that canceling "Healthcare is a human right" is an unpalatable thing. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 Seriously Senate GOP? It didn't work for the House GOP, why try it again? How much more unpopular can you make this bill? Senate Republicans included a provision that exempts members of Congress and their staff from part of their latest health care plan. Link to comment
Kiyoat Husker Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 ^^^ they will be committing political suicide by voting for that. Link to comment
zoogs Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 You'd think so, but in reality there will probably be no consequences. And objectively it maybe isn't the most outrageous thing. Imperfect optics at little real cost. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 That's how I feel, zoogs. The GOP has its hooks into too many people with their news outlets. They can create any story they want about it. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 My immediate thoughts as well. It's only politically risk insofar as Fox News and the rest of the gang wants to make it sound. It is INCREDIBLY beneficial politically for Republican MOCs to know that they need only concern themselves with how things are interpreted through the lens of Fox News et al... it's the sole place the vast majority of their base consumes their news. It's also incredibly toxic for our democracy and ability to rationally discuss things as a nation. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 I didn't know the cheap plans that would be allowed under the Cruz Amendment would also include people in the 6-month lockout phase to buy good insurance. But it does. I can't believe these people are about to lay their political lives on the line for this piece of crap. 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 It might pass And it's their dream. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 They aren't putting much of anything on the line. Their mouthpieces will blame it all on the Democrats and their sheep will believe it. Then if we do get a Democrat president and congress anyway sometime down the road and things get turned around, the GOP will convince their sheep to be mad that things didn't get turned around well enough or fast enough. Look no further than Obama's "worst economic recovery in history" nonsense that was spouted without mentioning he had the 2nd worst recession in history. No, I'm not saying the Democrats always fix the GOP's mistakes, but the GOP convinced their base to hate a guy like Obama. Imagine if we actually had a bad president? Oh wait, we do now, but he's not a Democrat. So everything is great. Anyhow, even if it did manage to unseat some of them, I'm sure they will have gotten paid off enough for it to have been worth it for them. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts