Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 7
of resurrecting GWB’s idea of “health savings accounts”, so that poor people can fund their own health care.
And there will be those who actually think this is a great idea, rather than recognize it for what it truly is- the opportunity for Wall Street to extract blood from a turnip.
A few nickels and dimes remain in the proles’ pockets. It’s time those nickels and dimes return to their rightful managers.
No. of Recommendations: 1
And there will be those who actually think this is a great idea, rather than recognize it for what it truly is- the opportunity for Wall Street to extract blood from a turnip.
Washington state just voted to have “Wall Street” invest its long term care funds.
And we’ve had Health Savings funds for years. I’ve had one ever since the program launched.
No. of Recommendations: 2
ProGlibs don't like people floating ideas.
That would require them to think.
No. of Recommendations: 6
And we’ve had Health Savings funds for years. I’ve had one ever since the program launched.
Like a 401k, it only works if you have the discretionary money to put into it.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
Like a 401k, it only works if you have the discretionary money to put into it.
It’s called saving money for later. It used to be an American value.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It’s called saving money for later. It used to be an American value.
It still is, the difference is, you have to be able to save and not have anything catastrophic happen to you. A divorce can be catastrophic and it happens to a lot of people.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It still is, the difference is, you have to be able to save and not have anything catastrophic happen to you.
Which is why one plans ahead.
At any rate, the idea is to mail checks to Americans and not the insurance companies. I don’t support either one.
No. of Recommendations: 3
It still is, the difference is, you have to be able to save and not have anything catastrophic happen to you.
Which is why one plans ahead.
Life is such that not every catastrophe can be planned for. For instance, you have car, health, and house insurance A sinkhole opens up and swallows most of your house and car. You had a mortgage. You discover the sinkhole coverage on your house is limited or non-existent. The car coverage is less than you thought, and your mortgage insurance co. gloms onto your car insurance, and your savings. You have to pay higher for transportation and your credit is ruined.
So even though a thousand other people had the same house insurance, you were the lucky one.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Like a 401k, it only works if you have the discretionary money to put into it.
Exactly. I have an HSA and it's worked well for me, but only because I:
a) was fortunate enough to be in a position to set money aside, and
b) was fortunate enough to be and remain in good health for some years while I was accumulating money and not have any big medical expenses come up (to contribute to an HSA, you must be on high deductible health insurance, so it only works if you're not having big expenses). It's a gamble--you have to choose your high deductible insurance without necessarily knowing what expenses are going to come up in the next year, and when.
But for many (and maybe most) people, they don't meet one or both of the above criteria, and it's not a good option for them. I was benefits administrator at my workplaces and helped a lot of people over the years choose their insurance each year, and the high deductible/HSA option didn't work well for most people that I saw. Flexible Spending accounts were much more popular because once you committed to the amount, you could access the money at any time during the year, and didn't have to wait until the money had actually been put into your account (like you do with an HSA).
So...they tend to work well for the well to do, not so much for the not well to do. Anyone surprised that Trump is pushing them?
No. of Recommendations: 1
And what you’ve described is the ramsfanray logical flow that because there’s a small chance that something bad happens we should rework the entire economy to prevent it.
One word. No.
No. of Recommendations: 3
It's a gamble--you have to choose your high deductible insurance without necessarily knowing what expenses are going to come up in the next year, and when.
Yes, I had an HSA for a few years, then wondered why I was doing it. :) I had good insurance and had minor copays. One of the fellows I worked with was happy with his HSA so I tried it. Years later, I talked with him and it seemed he had lost his low rent place and was dropping his medical care to be able to rent. Then years after that he had become diabetic and was living to be able to pay for his medicine. I remember when he dropped his medicine because it was too expensive and later lost a leg. Then he died very early by not having diabetic medicine. I remember regretting not getting interested and helping him with his problems if I could not get too involved.
No. of Recommendations: 0
5% of the population--those with chronic illnesses--use 50% of health care dollars.
Like it or not, reducing health care costs significantly means rationing the health care dollars spent on that 5%.
No. of Recommendations: 2
At the other end of the spectrum, the lowest 50% of the population accounted for only 3% of total health care spending, per Kaiser Foundation.
So: Top 5% spends 50%; bottom 50% spends 3%; middle 45% spends 47%.
You could completely eliminate all health care spent on 50% of the population and it would only reduce health care spending overall by 3%.
No. of Recommendations: 6
And what you’ve described is the ramsfanray logical flow that because there’s a small chance that something bad happens we should rework the entire economy to prevent it.
No, And it's pretty easy to understand that you can plan and something catastrophically bad can happen that negates the plan. This is not reworking the entire system - a non sequitor. This is reality.
No. of Recommendations: 3
At any rate, the idea is to mail checks to Americans and not the insurance companies. I don’t support either one.
I strongly suspect it would not be cash, but a voucher, valid only for signing over to a private insurance company. Just like the GOP wants to use a voucher system as a way around government funding of private, and religious, schools that only benefit the few.
Steve
