The HSA Healthcare Blog

The day before Bush leaves office, a new executive rule goes into effect that allows medical providers to refuse to provide service on consciencious grounds.  Historically, medical providers were required to provide treatment within the scope of their license regardless of their personal viewpoints, etc.

The general thinking is that this rule will have the greatest impact in the area of women’s reproductive rights and certain experimental treatments.

Obama may want to overturn the rule but that presents challenges.  For one thing, the process of overturning an Executive Order can take years.  For another thing, does Obama really want to be known for forcing people to provide medical services that their conscience otherwise might prevent them from doing?  Interesting dilemma, is it not?

Here’s the article, from the LA Times.

On a day when Obama announced his selection of his drinking buddy Tom Daschle to head HHS, it was readily apparent that Obama plans to move forward with his own plan to bankrupt the country.

The trick to getting their plan to work — at least on paper — is that they have to get the young healthy people to enroll so that their premiums will go to help pay for the older, most sickly people. But because younger people are healthier, their general tendency is not to purchase health care coverage, especially given its high cost, in comparison to their meager wages.

What to do?

Ah ha! They’ll just make ‘em enroll. Mandated coverage. Pay us here or pay us there. Buy coverage or pay a fine.

But what about the other people who aren’t covered at all because — well, because they can’t afford it? Don’t they have to be enrolled to?

Of course they do.

But — but — they can’t afford the cost. But — but — it’s mandated.

Oh, well THAT makes a big difference.

How about good old government subsidies? Why wouldn’t that work?

Remember on the campaign trail when Obama was talking about spreading the wealth? THIS is a CLASSIC example.

Initial ballpark estimates put the cost of funding a subsidy program at $150 Billion. And the keyword is not billion, but initial — because everyone knows what happens to an initial Washington cost estimate. It doubles or triples before the ink is dry.

Because these subsidies would go to families at up to 400% of the poverty level, these estimates are already known to be extremely low.

As the WSJ explains in this article , eventually this option will be forced to add Medicare’s price controls as it tries to manage inevitable cost overruns. When that doesn’t work, Congress will be forced to deal with the problem by capping overall spending and rationing care through politics.

Mark it down. This is one campaign promise that has the potential to bankrupt the country

In a startling report, the WSJ indicates that the cost of an average health plan is approaching half of an average family’s income.

This must be a misprint.WSJ Health Blog Link
But it’s not, of course.

The reality is that few people actually pay $12,000 a year for their health plan — the majority of that cost is subsidized, typically by an employer. Nevertheless, an increasing chunk of everything we buy is being allocated to health care costs.

But don’t worry. Help is on the way.

I have it from a very reliable source that Obamanomics will “solve” this problem, once and for all.

As if the downturn in the economy weren’t enough, small businesses are looking forward to increases in health care costs after seeing nominal hikes in the recent past.

For the last few years, increases have been lagging behind the stratospheric numbers seen just a few years before.  But now, companies are seeing big time increases once again.  In some cases, increases are double what they were just a year or two ago.

The WSJ Health Blog reports on higher rate increases.

COMMENT:

Hold on to your wallets, friends. If you think current rate increases are high, just wait until after Obamanomics grabs your company’s checkbook.

In a sure sign of the economic times, more people are putting off surgeries and other hospital treatments.  The postponement of hernias, knee replacements, weight loss surgery and the like are creating cash flow havoc in many hospitals.  The situation is so dire that some hospitals are being forced to close.

Lucrative surgeries being postponed

As fewer paying patients show up, it has a disproportionate impact as more and more non-paying patients continue to flood America’s emergency rooms.

Will Obama rescue the hospitals in time?

(last statement seething in sarcasm)

If people truly want to know the scoop on health plan proposals made both by Obama and McCain, all they need to do is read “the Journal.”

Once again, the WSJ has nailed it.

This time, the tag line to the story reads (correctly):  Obama supports huge tax subsidies for the wealthy.

What’s funny is, he doesn’t even seem to realize it.

At the core of McCain’s plan is the idea that a 40 year old concept is outdated.  By inticing employers to buy health insurance through the use of tax breaks, the government is providing a huge disincentive — the opposite of responsibility.

It’s the McCain plan, not Obama’s, that actually is progressive.

As the article states:

For reasons of historical accident and lobbying clout, individuals who buy policies get no tax benefits and pay with after-tax dollars. Mr. McCain is proposing to make the tax benefits available to everyone, regardless of how they purchase their insurance.

In contrast, Obama doesn’t want workers to have a choice in their health care.  He claims that McCain’s plan

would amount to “taxing your health-care benefits for the first time in history,” which is a wild distortion. His point seems to be that because companies wouldn’t have to pay for health care, they could raise wages and thus taxes would also increase for workers on those higher incomes. But doesn’t Mr. Obama want higher wages?

Why this discussion is not getting more air underneath its wings is beyond me.  Unfortunately, the candidates are happy to discuss their plans at a highly superficial level, which leaves the rest of us out in the dark.

So do yourself a favor — read the article from the Times and pass it on to others.

Here is the link to the WSJ article.

In their second debate held on Tuesday, Oct. 7, Senators Obama and McCain went back and forth on health care.

When asked how he would characterize health care coverage, McCain responded that it is a responsibility.  In other words, individuals have a responsibility to provide their own health care coverage.

In contrast, Obama chose to characterize health care as a right.

In isolation, that assertion is not so remarkable.  Many people characterize access to health care as a right, sometimes in line with an inalienable right. Others characterize it as an entitlement, such as with Medicare or Medicaid.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Obama’s characterization of health care as a right, surely all reasonable minded people can understand that he flatly contradicted himself by admitting that he wants to fine people who do not obtain health care coverage, especially for children (although he never specified the amount of the fine).

Obama’s system is basically a pay or pay option.  Pay the health plan or pay the government.  And given that choice, their theory is that most people will go ahead and pay for coverage under a health plan.

But what many people are missing is that Obama is effectively supporting a plan that will penalize people, by fining them, for opting not to exercise their “right” — using the term he chose to use to characterize health care.

Let’s look at some other traditional rights.  Saluting the flag, for example — that’s something we all have the right to do — or not do.  But what if the government were to fine people for choosing not to salute the flag?

What about the right to practice one’s religion?  What if the government were to impose fines against people who opted not to exercise that right?

Hopefully you can see where I am going with this.  Health care is not a right.  Perhaps it should be, but it isn’t.

McCain is the more correct of the two — health care is a responsibility.  People have a responsibility to provide for their own health care, but should they choose not to do so, they should not be fined by the government.

THAT is their right — the right to choose not to provide their own health care.

Which leads us full circle to the bigger question — should health care become a right?  Because if it truly is a right, then no one would have the option to opt out.  It would be provided to all, paid for by the populace.

(Did that last statement sound a little too socialistic for you?)

For an interesting, in-depth discussion on this topic, see this piece by Maggie Mahar

C. Dean Richard, JD, MSBA
“the HSA king”
Health savings account info and HSA insurance plan quotes
Technorati Profile

As a member of the baby boom generation, I was particuarly intrigued by this article from the Philly Daily News discussing the ever-changing eating habits of fellow boomers.

Mickey D’s?  We still eat there, but we’ll have the yogurt and salad with low-fat dressing, thanks.

We’re not searching for the fountain of youth — we’re searching for the fountain of vitality.

A major champion of this movement is Dr. Michael Roizen, creator of the RealAge program and co-author of a new book, “You Staying Young: The Owner’s Manual for Extending Your Warranty.” (Free Press, $26).

His approach is based on research suggesting that your food and lifestyle choices can add years to your life. For instance, one recent study found that people who eat five servings of fruits and vegetables a day, drink moderately, exercise and quit smoking live on average 14 years longer than people who adopt none of these behaviors.

Link: Boomers taking charge of their eating habits

COMMENT:
Unfortunately, IRS regs do not allow tax-free withdrawals from health savings accounts for healthy food - at least, not yet.

Perhaps they should?

At the very least, the healthier you are, the lower your health insurance premiums should be. Several leading insurers offer “good health” discounts for qualifying applicants. Ask us for details!

Surprise!

A new survey has shown that American workers can expect to see a rise in their health care costs in the year 2009, as premiums are expected to go up.

The new survey was conducted by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which focuses on studying health policy.

They carried out the survey by talking with a total of 1,927 employees in the U.S.

The overall rise this year was to $12,680 for families, and $4,704 for individuals.

This year, they predict that the overall cost of health insurance premiums will rise by 5%.

The average for a workers across the U.S. is to spend $3,354 this year for family premiums, up 2.2%.

On top of that, deductibles jumped by 29% on average, all the way up to $1,334 according to the survey.

This will be the smallest increase since 1999, but it is still an increase that willl have to be dealt with.

Read article from Springfield (MO) Business Journal

The numbers keep growing.  Over 7 million people now covered under HSA plans, either individually or through work.

Our independent insurance agency can help you establish your own health savings account plan. It is a 2-step process:
1. Purchase a qualifying high deductible health plan (our agency represents numerous top-rated insurers offering these plans in about 30 states).
2. Once you are insured with a qualifying high deductible health plan, open and start funding your actual health savings account at any financial institution offering account administration services.

You can click here to get quotes for high deductible health plans.