Get Ready for the SOTUA, Learn About Health Savings Accounts
Tomorrow, your television viewing plans will inevitably be ruined by the State of the Union Address. I don't care who's in the White House, no SOTUA is more worthwhile than back-to-back episodes of Scrubs. (I hope that Love Monkey isn't Pre-empted.) The State of the Union Address is almost always short-sighted, one-sided, self-serving, unrealistically optimistic, and boring.
But the President will devote several minutes tomorrow to promoting "health savings accounts." I'm glad to hear that Dubya will be discussing the oft-neglected, but extremely important, issue of healthcare; but I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around these health savings accounts. Fortunately, a recent article in the New York Times offers a good overview of the President's healthcare plan:
I still don't entirely understand how these health savings accounts work, but for those who are already insured, these plans are an alternative worth considering. But I'm not terribly concerned about people who are insured; I'm worried about people who are not. (Sure, those of us with relatively good health coverage have to worry about rising costs and capricious decisions about what is or is not covered; but at least we have something.) For the uninsured, a health savings account seems like just another substandard, high-deductible healthcare plan that they can buy into.
But I could be way off; I'm curious to learn what the President has to say. Of course, I'll just read about it on the Internet after the address has been given.
But the President will devote several minutes tomorrow to promoting "health savings accounts." I'm glad to hear that Dubya will be discussing the oft-neglected, but extremely important, issue of healthcare; but I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around these health savings accounts. Fortunately, a recent article in the New York Times offers a good overview of the President's healthcare plan:
As the plans were conceived, people using their own money could be expected to spend less on health care, switching to lower-cost drugs, for example, and adopting healthier lifestyles. Employers were promised savings as they shifted responsibility to workers for thousands of dollars in costs. Uninsured employees of small companies and self-employed people would be able to set aside pretax dollars for low-cost, limited coverage.
But for those who criticized the idea of health savings plans from the start, the early results simply confirm their gloomier forecasts. The critics say this approach is increasing many people's out-of-pocket expenses and warn that it will make them less likely to seek routine preventive care that might stave off bigger problems down the road.
I still don't entirely understand how these health savings accounts work, but for those who are already insured, these plans are an alternative worth considering. But I'm not terribly concerned about people who are insured; I'm worried about people who are not. (Sure, those of us with relatively good health coverage have to worry about rising costs and capricious decisions about what is or is not covered; but at least we have something.) For the uninsured, a health savings account seems like just another substandard, high-deductible healthcare plan that they can buy into.
But I could be way off; I'm curious to learn what the President has to say. Of course, I'll just read about it on the Internet after the address has been given.
posted by Tinley | 7:06 PM
2 Comments:
Josh,
Aren't "health savings accounts" just another tax break for the folks who have money to save, and who earn enough to begin with to need to find more tax savings? And won't the biggest breaks go to those with the biggest incomes? Isn't this just another way to expand the deficit and line the pockets of the already wealthy?
On my modest income I can't hope to save for retirement much less save for major medical emergencies. And tax breaks don't mean much if you don't have a large, taxable income to begin with.
Hi Josh,
Thanks for alerting me to the subject matter as I might have nodded off on the SOTUA.
I like the idea of "health savings accounts" as an incentive to give control of medical spending back to the consumer of the product - the patient. But I don't know about the specific implementation the President will propose would be good enough or not. It could be more harmful if not done right.
The contemptuous view that somehow it will only be a device to make poor people poorer and rich people richer is, ahem, ill-informed. The basis for the health savings account is rooted in real economics and the realization that the past 60 years as a model has failed. Inelasticity of demand and lack of consumer choice are what have created health care products and services that are over-priced. That began with the economic realignment of the post-depression era where employers sought a cheap way to lure employees to work by providing "health insurance" as an extra benefit. The government at that time really didn't have much stake in the matter. Only later, as companies realized that employees became dependent on them for health care did the government have to take an interest. That was because the companies were dropping people as the cost of providing the benefit increased. Suddenly it seemed like "The Man" was putting the little guy down so we had to call on the "Fed" to make things "right".
I want control over my health care spending. I am not rich. I want to reduce the tax burden that I do pay by reserving a part of my income solely for healthcare spending. That is responsible for me and for society. Nothing is free, maybe the company that I work for will have more money for my salary if they don't have to keep buying my health benefits. And this does't mean that I cannot purchase health insurance for myself out of my health spending account. I get to pick the coverage amounts and deductibles. I get to choose what doctor I want and what services I want.
I'm not a fool, though. Sadly, there are millions of irresponsible people in our country who will make themselves a burden on the rest of society. And we will have to spend some money on them. There are those, too, who will be "poor" financially and not have much money left to place into HSAs to adequately cover themself and their family members. Again, we will be forced to spend money on other people. But I believe there is a greater role that religious institutions can play in those cases, as they did much more so in the past. Government has a role, but it must be as limited as possible, else we encounter problems just like Tenncare has.
I hope people are more open minded while listening to the president tonight on this matter. Contempt prior to investigation gains a man little. I think it is possible that it can be a positive direction for our country. But it must be viewed as part of a larger change in mindset to work.
Post a Comment
<< Home