Health Savings Accounts
The Tribune has an interesting point/counterpoint today on the issue of health savings accounts, but I cannot find it online. I'll keep looking.
Health savings accounts are like an IRA. You put your money in tax-free and, as long as you use it for health care, you withdraw it tax-free. In the meantime, you can drastically cut your health insurance premium because you can switch to a high-deductible, catastrophic loss policy. In order to pay the high deductible, you use the save funds in the HSA. Great idea, right?
Well, not if you're a collectivist congressman from Seattle named Jim McDermott. And why does Rep. McDermott oppose it? It's hard to tell, other than the reasons appear to be related to a series of unconnected socialist precepts tied together with some left-wing talking points.
First, he addresses the suggestion that, by putting this money in the hands of the individual we will turn health care consumers into better consumers. He then makes some offhand reference to coupon clipping, and off we go to the next argument: "A fundamental premise of this social re-engineering is that Americans would shop for health care bargains, as if they were shopping for pans. In many newspapers, Wednesday is grocery coupon day. Under the president's plan, Thursday might become medical coupon day."
Hmm. So we'll just make fun of the idea instead of responding to it. Good approach. And why wouldn't people shop for the best deal on their health care? Anyone else notice the Lasik and laser surgery ads? What's this competition thing again?
He then says that HSA's should be called GIA's for "Go it alone." You know what? I agree. We should go it alone, rather than expecting our neighbors to be responsible for us. Further, a credible case can be made that the third-party payor system is what got is into this mess in the first place.
He then says "Who but the wealthiest could afford to save enough money to pay the expenses resulting from a serious medical illness or injury before a high-deductible policy even kicked in? Would saving fifty bucks a month protect you financially from the cost of your deductible for a heart transplant, hip replacement or even a broken arm? Do you forgo car insurance and set aside a hundred bucks a month in case you’re in an accident?"
Give me a break from this alarmist baloney. Actually, yes, you do save a hundred bucks a month. For fifteen months, until you set aside enough to pay the deductible. Or maybe a little less than that, or maybe a little more. Whatever you choose to set aside. And where does the money come from? Just compare the premium prices on a full-service health insurance plan with one from a high deductible plan. When you raise your deductible, your premium goes down. Your premium savings go into your savings plan. Get it? It's yours, not the insurance company's.
He then says that HSAs will accelerate a trend that sees fewer and fewer employers offering health insurance. Why are fewer employers offering health insurance? Oh yeah, the cost keeps going up. So, if we reduce the premiums then fewer employers will offer insurance? Only a leftist could accept that logic. To me, as an employer, it seems that if we reduce premiums I will be more likely to offer health insurance.
Whew, we're almost done (he's wearing me out!). Let's see, what more do we need? I know, a gratuitous shot at the GOP: "How many workers will have employer sponsored health insurance five years from now if the president gets his way? The answer can be seen by looking at what Republican policies have done for defined benefit pensions. By the millions, workers are being forced to go it alone — promises broken, contracts broken, lives broken — as more companies cancel or deny pension programs. That’s the model for the HSA."
If you had any question about how stupid the Democrats think you are, just read the foregoing. He does not even attempt to explain the relationship between alleged GOP policies, the pension debacle, and HSA's. Hell, he figures we're so stupid, he can just throw some stuff together in the same sentence and, shucks, we'll believe it. "Heck, yeah. Them durn Republicans done stole my pentzin. And thur plannin' ta do it again."
He finishes: "America’s health-care crisis isn’t going to be solved until we create a national program, covering everyone, and sharing the risks as one nation." Yup, a government program is the only solution, according to McDermott. Just look at Medicare, Welfare, and all the rest.
Any more, these guys don't even hide the fact that they are socialists.
4 comments:
Geeguy; My biggest problem with HSAs comes from a fundamental assumption; namely that premiums will go down with a high-deductible, or catastrophic, HI policy.
Logic and common sense seem to imply that would be case. However, how often does the insurance industry follow the conventional wisdom.
I have a slightly different perspective. I actually have a catastrophic policy covering my family. The policy has been in place for years, the insurance company has never had to pay a dime on the policy, and the rates are anything but low. They see the same twenty and thirty percent annual increases that I pay for my employee's more conventional health plans.
When I compare the costs of the plans, I cannot say that the incremental savings make the HSA program with it on a large scale.
On the other hand, I noticed a significantly lower premium when I switched.
So, why not pay the few extra cents, TSJ, and buy the 'good' policy for yourself?
Also, is it really necessary to worry about the amount of the savings? In other words, if I save $50.00 a month in premiums, how is that somehow 'not enough' for me to save money up to pay my deductible?
All a matter of an opportunity/cost tradeoff. After factoring what I pay toward premiums, the catastrophic policy turns out to be marginally cheaper.
I am not opposed to HSAs, but I have not found them to be a panacea. It is a mistake to tell people that they will save great amounts of money over a more traditional fee-for-service insurance policy, because at the end of the day, they don't.
Perhaps in areas where there is medical competition, they might work better. However, here your choices are clinic doc or clinic doc; and for many specialties (cardiology, nephrology, etc.) there is only one doc in all of Northcentral MT.
I am sure I misspelled a few words in there, apologies in advance.
For the small employer with lower income employees this is a great vehicle to combine retirement and medical. It also gives them some coverage for expensive discretionary expenses like dental. I’ve had 20 year olds working for me making pull it or fill it decisions with their teeth and ultimately having a tooth pulled because they didn’t have the money for proper treatment. A low deductible medical policy is of little value for most young low wage workers. Employer sponsored medical insurance for the young is mostly an income redistribution money pit. The HSA idea would work a lot better if the small group problem could be fixed. I was recently quoted an HSA plan (our traditional plan went up $100/month this year) and it was about $50 cheaper/month. My agent said the small difference was because of utilization in our group and Blue Cross felt there was too much potential for large claims. This is the small group employer trap; you can afford insurance as long as you get rid of your sick and old employees. Employers should not be penalized for hiring sick and seasoned employees.
Geeguy, you are exactly right about McDermott. He’s an idiot and does damage to this country by trivializing important issues like this. If he likes Canada’s system so much I recommend he go there for his next tumor and see what rationed health care is like: Doctor says, “Bad news is we found a shadow on your chest x-ray. Good news I was able to pull some strings and we can get you in for a PET scan in four months”. I get Canadians in all the time that have all sorts of four letter words for what the CA system has cost them and their families because of limited care. Again, it works great as long as you are not sick.
Post a Comment