Another nail in Trump's coffin about to be pounded...

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, Trump is done?

AGAIN?

 

[Spare_change]

The ACA replacement suggested by Trump is yet another fuck up.....

Follow this.......

Trump (going considerably back from his bullshit promise that his HC plan would cover EVERYBODY, be CHEAPER, and be BETTER)......is now laying out his new plan.

He proposes to allow pre-existing conditions to be insured, BUT has eliminated the mandate.....which anyone with a few functioning brain cells knows is WHAT insurance companies need to help defray the costs of insuring someone with diabetes.

But, it goes further.....Trump wants t give "tax credits" to the poor to help in paying for their health coverage........BUT, we should know that most of the poor pay little or NO taxes, so that these credits are meaningless....SWo these poor are royally screwed.

Wait until those coal miners in WVA and KY who "loved" Trump find out what he has done for them..........It'd be almost funny if it weren't so fucking sad.....

This is step in the right direction.

WVA and KY will be able to do thier own now that we won't be carrying the cost of the freeloaders in blue states.

Just wait until the CBO crunches the numbers......
I'm going to LOVE it.

Yo scumbag

The Taxpayers DO NOT OWE YOU A MOTHERFUCKING LIVING

Enslaving the taxpayers is NOT a civil right.

Find an insurance policy that you like and purchase it.


.

.

Seems like you should be addressing this to Trump and his Merry Band of robbers. Doesn't it bother you that they just came up with a plan that will cut a check of up to $4,000 per year to anyone who makes less than $75,000, whether he pays taxes, or not?

Nope.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Savings accounts won't cut it. Poor can't save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Your demonstration of your lack of understanding of HSAs is amazing.

HSAs are intended to fill the deductible gap ... it provides a tax-free pool of money to offset the deductible. In addition, instead of having to scramble to make payments on your medical bills, the pool of money is invested, thus further driving down the cost of healthcare.

A sound healthcare insurance program will consist of a catastrophic insurance policy (covers above $10,000, for example) - thus, driving down the cost of insurance significantly - and an HSA in which a person makes monthly pre-tax (driving down cost) investments (which return a dividend - driving down cost). After a relatively short period of time, the HSA contains enough money to cover deductible healthcare costs, and eventually, it generates enough income (from investment) that you don't even need to put any more money in it.

HSAs do NOT require "hundreds of thousands of dollars" - that is complete nonsense - or, liberal generated scare tactics (depending on your motivation).

$500 is a good amount for an HSA. They are meant to cover office visits and medication.

 

[Fang]

The ACA replacement suggested by Trump is yet another fuck up.....

Follow this.......

Trump (going considerably back from his bullshit promise that his HC plan would cover EVERYBODY, be CHEAPER, and be BETTER)......is now laying out his new plan.

He proposes to allow pre-existing conditions to be insured, BUT has eliminated the mandate.....which anyone with a few functioning brain cells knows is WHAT insurance companies need to help defray the costs of insuring someone with diabetes.

But, it goes further.....Trump wants t give "tax credits" to the poor to help in paying for their health coverage........BUT, we should know that most of the poor pay little or NO taxes, so that these credits are meaningless....SWo these poor are royally screwed.

Wait until those coal miners in WVA and KY who "loved" Trump find out what he has done for them..........It'd be almost funny if it weren't so fucking sad.....

You figured all this out before the plan is even released? And here I thought Democrats needed to pass bills to find out what's in them.

 

[Mac1958]

Savings accounts won't cut it. Poor can't save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Ask the average Republican to explain an HSA, and how it makes health care more accessible or affordable.

They can't.
.

I'm the average Republican, and I'll be happy to explain HSAs - as they REALLY work, not as liberals want to portray them.

HSAs are a savings/investment vehicle in order to offset the first-dollar costs of healthcare.

1. An HSA is funded with pre-tax dollars (you don't pay taxes on the money put in it). That is an automatic 15% (or so) return on your investment. The maximum amount of tax-free money you can contribute to the HSA is $3350 (single) or $6100 (family) per year. You may, however, put as much post-tax money into an HSA as you wish.

2. The money put into an HSA is invested (as defined by the individual - you get to choose the investment vehicle) in order to gain a return on the money. If we assume an average of 5% return on your investment (a very reasonable expectation), your return on investment (ROI) is now 20%. You have cut the cost of your deductible by 20% (you're actually using money you earned from investing, plus the taxes you didn't pay).

3. If you put money into an HSA and don't use it, you can rollover the money (tax-free) into the next fiscal year. The money remains tax-free as long as it is in the HSA.

4. If you take money out of the HSA to cover healthcare costs, it remains tax free (as does any ROI you made).

5. If you take money out of the HSA (yes, you can do that) for some non-medical reason (you want to buy a new car), you must pay taxes on the money.

This program is especially attractive to young people/couples - those who have a reasonable expectation of low medical costs.

The national average for the cost of $5,000 deductible health insurance for a 20 year old is $1,050/year, while it is about $4,000/year for a 40 year old. So, a reasonable program for a 20 year old would be about $100/month for insurance, and $100/month into an HSA. After about 4 years, the HSA will be total-funded for a deductible of $5,000, and the $100/month investment can be transitioned to offset the increasing cost of insurance (because of increasing age).

It ain't rocket surgery, folks.

------------------------------------------------------
Oh, by the way .... if a young person (under 26) uses an HSA and a catastrophic healthcare policy, it actually can be cheaper than being a rider on Dad's policy (since Dad's rates are pro-rated based on HIS age, and the rider is a percentage of Dad's rate). The "until 26" Obamacare rider was actually a sop to insurance companies because they got money to cover people who probably wouldn't have bothered to cover themselves. But, you never hear that from liberals, do you?

Good.

So you have two parts of this plan into which you have to pay: An HDHP (High Deductible Health Plan) and your HSA, which is essentially a "medical IRA" account. For a typical family of four, that may be, say, $600 a month. Then you have to contribute to your HSA. For a $6,100 deductible, that's another $500 per month.

So if you don't have the money to contribute into your HSA on top of your health care plan premium, you won't have money to pay your deductible. Hospitals have long since figured this out, so they are now demanding payment of your deductible before they render significant care.

How does this make your health care more affordable or accessible?
.

 

[Spare_change]

One of the impacts of the bill will be to give companies the ability to sell across state lines. This will tend to stabilize prices, making geographical location unimportant.

The above is just the Trump lap dogs parroting what they heard on Fox........

Currently, under the ACA, there is NO restriction on HC insurers from selling across state lines....NONE.

Really? Are you saying there is no restriction on selling across state lines? Really?

While you may be technically correct (an accident, i'm sure - ACA does not prevent selling across state lines - but other existing law does) ACA made no effort to remove the restriction.

 

[NightFox]

But, it goes further.....Trump wants t give "tax credits" to the poor to help in paying for their health coverage........BUT, we should know that most of the poor pay little or NO taxes, so that these credits are meaningless....
.

The current proposal includes Refundable Tax Credits based on age and income meaning that even if you don't pay any income taxes you get the value of the credit as a refund and the older you are and/or less income you make the bigger the refundable credit, it's just income theft and redistribution with a different label on it, therefore you gub'mint worshiping nimrods should love it.

 

[nat4900]

While you may be technically correct (an accident, i'm sure - ACA does not prevent selling across state lines - but other existing law does) ACA made no effort to remove the restriction.

Moron.....I thought you right wingers were fully against any infringement of state rights....NOW, you want the Feds to impose penalties if a state chooses not to allow the selling across its borders???


Choose ONE of your many hypocrisies......

 

[Spare_change]

Savings accounts won't cut it. Poor can't save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Ask the average Republican to explain an HSA, and how it makes health care more accessible or affordable.

They can't.
.

I'm the average Republican, and I'll be happy to explain HSAs - as they REALLY work, not as liberals want to portray them.

HSAs are a savings/investment vehicle in order to offset the first-dollar costs of healthcare.

1. An HSA is funded with pre-tax dollars (you don't pay taxes on the money put in it). That is an automatic 15% (or so) return on your investment. The maximum amount of tax-free money you can contribute to the HSA is $3350 (single) or $6100 (family) per year. You may, however, put as much post-tax money into an HSA as you wish.

2. The money put into an HSA is invested (as defined by the individual - you get to choose the investment vehicle) in order to gain a return on the money. If we assume an average of 5% return on your investment (a very reasonable expectation), your return on investment (ROI) is now 20%. You have cut the cost of your deductible by 20% (you're actually using money you earned from investing, plus the taxes you didn't pay).

3. If you put money into an HSA and don't use it, you can rollover the money (tax-free) into the next fiscal year. The money remains tax-free as long as it is in the HSA.

4. If you take money out of the HSA to cover healthcare costs, it remains tax free (as does any ROI you made).

5. If you take money out of the HSA (yes, you can do that) for some non-medical reason (you want to buy a new car), you must pay taxes on the money.

This program is especially attractive to young people/couples - those who have a reasonable expectation of low medical costs.

The national average for the cost of $5,000 deductible health insurance for a 20 year old is $1,050/year, while it is about $4,000/year for a 40 year old. So, a reasonable program for a 20 year old would be about $100/month for insurance, and $100/month into an HSA. After about 4 years, the HSA will be total-funded for a deductible of $5,000, and the $100/month investment can be transitioned to offset the increasing cost of insurance (because of increasing age).

It ain't rocket surgery, folks.

------------------------------------------------------
Oh, by the way .... if a young person (under 26) uses an HSA and a catastrophic healthcare policy, it actually can be cheaper than being a rider on Dad's policy (since Dad's rates are pro-rated based on HIS age, and the rider is a percentage of Dad's rate). The "until 26" Obamacare rider was actually a sop to insurance companies because they got money to cover people who probably wouldn't have bothered to cover themselves. But, you never hear that from liberals, do you?

Good.

So you have two parts of this plan into which you have to pay: An HDHP (High Deductible Health Plan) and your HSA, which is essentially a "medical IRA" account. For a typical family of four, that may be, say, $600 a month. Then you have to contribute to your HSA. For a $6,100 deductible, that's another $500 per month.

So if you don't have the money to contribute into your HSA on top of your health care plan premium, you won't have money to pay your deductible. Hospitals have long since figured this out, so they are now demanding payment of your deductible before they render significant care.

How does this make your health care more affordable or accessible?
.

First, you fail to understand the significant DECREASE in cost when you transition from an ACA insurance program to a HDHP. The saving will be significant - depending on your age. The reason for this is simple - YOU get to decide what coverage you want. You will not be paying for programs you don't want - i.e., birth control, end-of-life planning, Planned Parenthood, etc., etc., etc. You get a program tailored to you - and you aren't funding free contraceptives for college co-eds, morning after pills, exercise programs for old people, pedicures for diabetics, etc.

The $6,100 you so blithely quote isn't a deductible - it is the maximum tax-deductible contribution to the HSA for a family.

But, let's take what I think you meant - let's assume you have a $5,000 deductible HDCP policy - you are not REQUIRED to fund the entire deductible in the HSA. You can choose to fund $2500 in the HSA (keep in mind that''s actually only about $2150 in actual net income - the rest is tax saved), and be ready to fund the additional $2500 out of pocket in the event you have medical costs. At the end of 2 years, you may choose to never pay into the HSA again, and just have it there in case. In reality, you'll probably fund it at a much lower level, as a hedge against multiple catastrophic events.

While we all realize that a medical catastrophe is possible in Year 1, it is highly unlikely. If it doesn't happen, the $2500 you put in the HSA is now available to be added to the $2500 from Year 2.

Take a realistic look at your ACTUAL health care costs for the past 5 years - that should be your planning target. If you have have an expectation of a catastrophic health incident in the next 5 years, tailor your HDCP accordingly. If you haven't, the same applies.

Is healthcare free? No. Can it be managed? Yes.

It is not an all-or-nothing program.

 

[NightFox]

While you may be technically correct (an accident, i'm sure - ACA does not prevent selling across state lines - but other existing law does) ACA made no effort to remove the restriction.

Moron.....I thought you right wingers were fully against any infringement of state rights....NOW, you want the Feds to impose penalties if a state chooses not to allow the selling across its borders???


Choose ONE of your many hypocrisies......

Article I Section 8 US Constitution
"3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

That's the whole purpose of including "and among the several states" in that clause, specifically to keep the states from erecting trade barriers against other states you fucking moron.

 

[Spare_change]

But, it goes further.....Trump wants t give "tax credits" to the poor to help in paying for their health coverage........BUT, we should know that most of the poor pay little or NO taxes, so that these credits are meaningless....
.

The current proposal includes Refundable Tax Credits based on age and income meaning that even if you don't pay any income taxes you get the value of the credit as a refund and the older you are and/or less income you make the bigger the refundable credit, it's just income theft and redistribution with a different label on it, therefore you gub'mint worshiping nimrods should love it.

Yes, it is wealth redistribution ... but it's a pay me now or pay me later proposition.

You are going to pay for healthcare for low income people - either in increased insurance costs or in tax credits. That is simply a fact of life - unless, of course, you make it cash only and leave the poor people to die in the streets.

We don't have to like it - but we do have to accept it.

 

[Mac1958]

Savings accounts won't cut it. Poor can't save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Ask the average Republican to explain an HSA, and how it makes health care more accessible or affordable.

They can't.
.

I'm the average Republican, and I'll be happy to explain HSAs - as they REALLY work, not as liberals want to portray them.

HSAs are a savings/investment vehicle in order to offset the first-dollar costs of healthcare.

1. An HSA is funded with pre-tax dollars (you don't pay taxes on the money put in it). That is an automatic 15% (or so) return on your investment. The maximum amount of tax-free money you can contribute to the HSA is $3350 (single) or $6100 (family) per year. You may, however, put as much post-tax money into an HSA as you wish.

2. The money put into an HSA is invested (as defined by the individual - you get to choose the investment vehicle) in order to gain a return on the money. If we assume an average of 5% return on your investment (a very reasonable expectation), your return on investment (ROI) is now 20%. You have cut the cost of your deductible by 20% (you're actually using money you earned from investing, plus the taxes you didn't pay).

3. If you put money into an HSA and don't use it, you can rollover the money (tax-free) into the next fiscal year. The money remains tax-free as long as it is in the HSA.

4. If you take money out of the HSA to cover healthcare costs, it remains tax free (as does any ROI you made).

5. If you take money out of the HSA (yes, you can do that) for some non-medical reason (you want to buy a new car), you must pay taxes on the money.

This program is especially attractive to young people/couples - those who have a reasonable expectation of low medical costs.

The national average for the cost of $5,000 deductible health insurance for a 20 year old is $1,050/year, while it is about $4,000/year for a 40 year old. So, a reasonable program for a 20 year old would be about $100/month for insurance, and $100/month into an HSA. After about 4 years, the HSA will be total-funded for a deductible of $5,000, and the $100/month investment can be transitioned to offset the increasing cost of insurance (because of increasing age).

It ain't rocket surgery, folks.

------------------------------------------------------
Oh, by the way .... if a young person (under 26) uses an HSA and a catastrophic healthcare policy, it actually can be cheaper than being a rider on Dad's policy (since Dad's rates are pro-rated based on HIS age, and the rider is a percentage of Dad's rate). The "until 26" Obamacare rider was actually a sop to insurance companies because they got money to cover people who probably wouldn't have bothered to cover themselves. But, you never hear that from liberals, do you?

Good.

So you have two parts of this plan into which you have to pay: An HDHP (High Deductible Health Plan) and your HSA, which is essentially a "medical IRA" account. For a typical family of four, that may be, say, $600 a month. Then you have to contribute to your HSA. For a $6,100 deductible, that's another $500 per month.

So if you don't have the money to contribute into your HSA on top of your health care plan premium, you won't have money to pay your deductible. Hospitals have long since figured this out, so they are now demanding payment of your deductible before they render significant care.

How does this make your health care more affordable or accessible?
.

First, you fail to understand the significant DECREASE in cost when you transition from an ACA insurance program to a HDHP. The saving will be significant - depending on your age. The reason for this is simple - YOU get to decide what coverage you want. You will not be paying for programs you don't want - i.e., birth control, end-of-life planning, Planned Parenthood, etc., etc., etc. You get a program tailored to you - and you aren't funding free contraceptives for college co-eds, morning after pills, exercise programs for old people, pedicures for diabetics, etc.

The $6,100 you so blithely quote isn't a deductible - it is the maximum tax-deductible contribution to the HSA for a family.

But, let's take what I think you meant - let's assume you have a $5,000 deductible HDCP policy - you are not REQUIRED to fund the entire deductible in the HSA. You can choose to fund $2500 in the HSA (keep in mind that''s actually only about $2150 in actual net income - the rest is tax saved), and be ready to fund the additional $2500 out of pocket in the event you have medical costs. At the end of 2 years, you may choose to never pay into the HSA again, and just have it there in case. In reality, you'll probably fund it at a much lower level, as a hedge against multiple catastrophic events.

While we all realize that a medical catastrophe is possible in Year 1, it is highly unlikely. If it doesn't happen, the $2500 you put in the HSA is now available to be added to the $2500 from Year 2.

Take a realistic look at your ACTUAL health care costs for the past 5 years - that should be your planning target. If you have have an expectation of a catastrophic health incident in the next 5 years, tailor your HDCP accordingly. If you haven't, the same applies.

Is healthcare free? No. Can it be managed? Yes.

It is not an all-or-nothing program.

The HDHP deductible is directly relational to the amount you're contributing to your HSA account. That's the whole point, unless you're going to write a check for your deductible, which most people can't do.

If you're healthy and you don't access your HSA for deductibles, great. The amount grows tax-deferred and will be available for retirement income. But if you're not healthy, or if shit just happens, you have to keep contributing.

The word just came out today that more than half the country can't write a check for $500. And we're expecting Americans to pay for both an HDHP and an HSA? This just simply is not realistic.
.

 

[tyroneweaver]

And your running out of W's

BTW, illiterate deplorable, the word is YOU'RE, not "your"......LOL

I suppose you're saying that with your mouth full.

 

[Spare_change]

Savings accounts won't cut it. Poor can't save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Your demonstration of your lack of understanding of HSAs is amazing.

HSAs are intended to fill the deductible gap ... it provides a tax-free pool of money to offset the deductible. In addition, instead of having to scramble to make payments on your medical bills, the pool of money is invested, thus further driving down the cost of healthcare.

A sound healthcare insurance program will consist of a catastrophic insurance policy (covers above $10,000, for example) - thus, driving down the cost of insurance significantly - and an HSA in which a person makes monthly pre-tax (driving down cost) investments (which return a dividend - driving down cost). After a relatively short period of time, the HSA contains enough money to cover deductible healthcare costs, and eventually, it generates enough income (from investment) that you don't even need to put any more money in it.

HSAs do NOT require "hundreds of thousands of dollars" - that is complete nonsense - or, liberal generated scare tactics (depending on your motivation).

$500 is a good amount for an HSA. They are meant to cover office visits and medication.

While they can be used to build up a larger reservoir of money, this is a very valid approach. Put in enough to cover your average anticipated costs, but be prepared to assume additional debt if you have a catastrophic event.

I would recommend three years of average anticipated costs being deposited each year ( in your case, $1500) to build up a reservoir, but it's a question of how much risk you're willing to assume each year.

 

[Spare_change]

While you may be technically correct (an accident, i'm sure - ACA does not prevent selling across state lines - but other existing law does) ACA made no effort to remove the restriction.

Moron.....I thought you right wingers were fully against any infringement of state rights....NOW, you want the Feds to impose penalties if a state chooses not to allow the selling across its borders???


Choose ONE of your many hypocrisies......

Psst --- dumb ass.

The federal government controls interstate commerce, not the individual states.

States may impose specific restrictions (called licensing) on companies, but they have no input into the interstate commerce issues. Removing the federal limitations actually INCREASES states rights, not infringes on them.

Do you always shoot off your mouth with so little knowledge?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Trump is rocking the house.

 

[NightFox]

But, it goes further.....Trump wants t give "tax credits" to the poor to help in paying for their health coverage........BUT, we should know that most of the poor pay little or NO taxes, so that these credits are meaningless....
.

The current proposal includes Refundable Tax Credits based on age and income meaning that even if you don't pay any income taxes you get the value of the credit as a refund and the older you are and/or less income you make the bigger the refundable credit, it's just income theft and redistribution with a different label on it, therefore you gub'mint worshiping nimrods should love it.

Yes, it is wealth redistribution ... but it's a pay me now or pay me later proposition.

You are going to pay for healthcare for low income people - either in increased insurance costs or in tax credits. That is simply a fact of life - unless, of course, you make it cash only and leave the poor people to die in the streets.

We don't have to like it - but we do have to accept it.

This doesn't have anything to do with "poor people" it's a subsidy for people that are NOT below the poverty line, just like the 87 cents of every subsidy dollar that currently gets spent by government.

The reason that these NOT POOR people need a subsidy in the first place is because of government interference in the health care insurance and provisioning market, if they'd keep their grubby mitts off the market price inflation wouldn't be so damn high and government would have a lot more resources (and have to confiscate a lot less resources from tax payers) to provide subsidies to actual POOR citizens instead of having to blow them on people that aren't poor.

This whole "health care law" imbroglio is nothing more than an exercise in the douche bags in government trying to "fix" a problem that they themselves created and every time they try to "fix" it they just make things worse and end up making the common citizenry poorer, It's like trying to cure cancer with more cancer.

 

[Spare_change]

Savings accounts won't cut it. Poor can't save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Ask the average Republican to explain an HSA, and how it makes health care more accessible or affordable.

They can't.
.

I'm the average Republican, and I'll be happy to explain HSAs - as they REALLY work, not as liberals want to portray them.

HSAs are a savings/investment vehicle in order to offset the first-dollar costs of healthcare.

1. An HSA is funded with pre-tax dollars (you don't pay taxes on the money put in it). That is an automatic 15% (or so) return on your investment. The maximum amount of tax-free money you can contribute to the HSA is $3350 (single) or $6100 (family) per year. You may, however, put as much post-tax money into an HSA as you wish.

2. The money put into an HSA is invested (as defined by the individual - you get to choose the investment vehicle) in order to gain a return on the money. If we assume an average of 5% return on your investment (a very reasonable expectation), your return on investment (ROI) is now 20%. You have cut the cost of your deductible by 20% (you're actually using money you earned from investing, plus the taxes you didn't pay).

3. If you put money into an HSA and don't use it, you can rollover the money (tax-free) into the next fiscal year. The money remains tax-free as long as it is in the HSA.

4. If you take money out of the HSA to cover healthcare costs, it remains tax free (as does any ROI you made).

5. If you take money out of the HSA (yes, you can do that) for some non-medical reason (you want to buy a new car), you must pay taxes on the money.

This program is especially attractive to young people/couples - those who have a reasonable expectation of low medical costs.

The national average for the cost of $5,000 deductible health insurance for a 20 year old is $1,050/year, while it is about $4,000/year for a 40 year old. So, a reasonable program for a 20 year old would be about $100/month for insurance, and $100/month into an HSA. After about 4 years, the HSA will be total-funded for a deductible of $5,000, and the $100/month investment can be transitioned to offset the increasing cost of insurance (because of increasing age).

It ain't rocket surgery, folks.

------------------------------------------------------
Oh, by the way .... if a young person (under 26) uses an HSA and a catastrophic healthcare policy, it actually can be cheaper than being a rider on Dad's policy (since Dad's rates are pro-rated based on HIS age, and the rider is a percentage of Dad's rate). The "until 26" Obamacare rider was actually a sop to insurance companies because they got money to cover people who probably wouldn't have bothered to cover themselves. But, you never hear that from liberals, do you?

Good.

So you have two parts of this plan into which you have to pay: An HDHP (High Deductible Health Plan) and your HSA, which is essentially a "medical IRA" account. For a typical family of four, that may be, say, $600 a month. Then you have to contribute to your HSA. For a $6,100 deductible, that's another $500 per month.

So if you don't have the money to contribute into your HSA on top of your health care plan premium, you won't have money to pay your deductible. Hospitals have long since figured this out, so they are now demanding payment of your deductible before they render significant care.

How does this make your health care more affordable or accessible?
.

First, you fail to understand the significant DECREASE in cost when you transition from an ACA insurance program to a HDHP. The saving will be significant - depending on your age. The reason for this is simple - YOU get to decide what coverage you want. You will not be paying for programs you don't want - i.e., birth control, end-of-life planning, Planned Parenthood, etc., etc., etc. You get a program tailored to you - and you aren't funding free contraceptives for college co-eds, morning after pills, exercise programs for old people, pedicures for diabetics, etc.

The $6,100 you so blithely quote isn't a deductible - it is the maximum tax-deductible contribution to the HSA for a family.

But, let's take what I think you meant - let's assume you have a $5,000 deductible HDCP policy - you are not REQUIRED to fund the entire deductible in the HSA. You can choose to fund $2500 in the HSA (keep in mind that''s actually only about $2150 in actual net income - the rest is tax saved), and be ready to fund the additional $2500 out of pocket in the event you have medical costs. At the end of 2 years, you may choose to never pay into the HSA again, and just have it there in case. In reality, you'll probably fund it at a much lower level, as a hedge against multiple catastrophic events.

While we all realize that a medical catastrophe is possible in Year 1, it is highly unlikely. If it doesn't happen, the $2500 you put in the HSA is now available to be added to the $2500 from Year 2.

Take a realistic look at your ACTUAL health care costs for the past 5 years - that should be your planning target. If you have have an expectation of a catastrophic health incident in the next 5 years, tailor your HDCP accordingly. If you haven't, the same applies.

Is healthcare free? No. Can it be managed? Yes.

It is not an all-or-nothing program.

The HDHP deductible is directly relational to the amount you're contributing to your HSA account. That's the whole point, unless you're going to write a check for your deductible, which most people can't do.

If you're healthy and you don't access your HSA for deductibles, great. The amount grows tax-deferred and will be available for retirement income. But if you're not healthy, or if shit just happens, you have to keep contributing.

The word just came out today that more than half the country can't write a check for $500. And we're expecting Americans to pay for both an HDHP and an HSA? This just simply is not realistic.
.

Half the knowledge, my friend --- half the knowledge.

The amount contributed into an HSA is NOT driven by the size of the deductible of your HDHP, nor vice versa. You can buy a HDHP and make no contribution to an HSA whatsoever. Further, you do not have to "keep contributing". You control the size, duration, and rhythm of your HSA contributions.

I have heard there are products out there that tie the two together - but they are trying to take advantage of your ignorance. If your insurance specialist tells you that you MUST buy a linked product, get a new insurance specialist.

Also, your assumption that you must cover all the deductible isn't exactly true, either. Some private hospitals may require an up-front payment, or verification that your deductibles have been previously covered, but most doctors or hospitals don't. This may happen for routine care, but not usually. For catastrophic care? Never.

Think of it this way ---- you have had a catastrophic incident. The hospital can NOT refuse you service (by law). You have a HDCP that covers everything above $10,000 and about $2500 in your HSA against what is going to be a $100,000 medical bill. Do you seriously believe they are going to turn you away? They will take the $92,500 and work with you for the remaining.

 

[Spare_change]

But, it goes further.....Trump wants t give "tax credits" to the poor to help in paying for their health coverage........BUT, we should know that most of the poor pay little or NO taxes, so that these credits are meaningless....
.

The current proposal includes Refundable Tax Credits based on age and income meaning that even if you don't pay any income taxes you get the value of the credit as a refund and the older you are and/or less income you make the bigger the refundable credit, it's just income theft and redistribution with a different label on it, therefore you gub'mint worshiping nimrods should love it.

Yes, it is wealth redistribution ... but it's a pay me now or pay me later proposition.

You are going to pay for healthcare for low income people - either in increased insurance costs or in tax credits. That is simply a fact of life - unless, of course, you make it cash only and leave the poor people to die in the streets.

We don't have to like it - but we do have to accept it.

This doesn't have anything to do with "poor people" it's a subsidy for people that are NOT below the poverty line, just like the 87 cents of every subsidy dollar that currently gets spent by government.

The reason that these NOT POOR people need a subsidy in the first place is because of government interference in the health care insurance and provisioning market, if they'd keep their grubby mitts off the market price inflation wouldn't be so damn high and government would have a lot more resources (and have to confiscate a lot less resources from tax payers) to provide subsidies to actual POOR citizens instead of having to blow them on people that aren't poor.

This whole "health care law" imbroglio is nothing more than an exercise in the douche bags in government trying to "fix" a problem that they themselves created and every time they try to "fix" it they just make things worse and end up making the common citizenry poorer, It's like trying to cure cancer with more cancer.

You can choose to look at it like that ... you'd be wrong, but you can look at it like that.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Good. The mandate needs to go. Ocare is dying quickly. That should put the joke of a law to death.

Yeah, we need to make sure the poor die and the rich get richer, I mean, what other reason is there for people to have the vote other than to vote to give up?

More people are dying under ocare. How heartless can one be? It has killed hundreds of thousands.