Jeb Bush to pitch replacing Obamacare with tax credits, higher health savings account limits

[cigaretteman]

Jeb Bush will return to New Hampshire on Tuesday to pitch his plan for repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act -- an approach that includes providing a tax credit for purchasing health plans and upping limits on contributions to health savings accounts.

The former Florida governor's decision to give the speech highlights the sharp resistance to the law that remains in the Republican Party, even after the Supreme Court upheld it and GOP efforts in Congress to shred it have fallen flat.

Ahead of the Republican hopeful's Tuesday morning speech at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Bush's campaign said his plan would accomplish three things: "promote innovation," "lower costs" and "return power to states."

[Obamacare mandated better mental health-care coverage. It hasn’t happened.]

Bush's plan would "provide a tax credit for the purchase of affordable, portable health plans that protect Americans from high-cost medical events," according to his campaign, and it would "increase contribution limits and uses for Health Savings Accounts to help with out of-pocket costs." The campaign did not provide more details about the credit or what the new contribution caps would be.

The plan also calls for increasing funding to the National Institutes of Health; reviewing regulations seen as "barriers" to innovation; capping "the employer tax exclusion to lower insurance premiums;" and enabling "small businesses to make tax-free contributions to their workers’ individual, portable health plans," the Bush campaign said.

The campaign did not provide any information about Bush's tactical plan for repealing the health-care law. Republicans control the House and Senate but lack a super-majority in the upper chamber, making repeal a difficult proposition. What's more, the law's provisions have already been in effect for years and trying to undo them could prove politically costly for a Republican president.

Under Bush's plan, states would get capped federal funding and be responsible for a "transition plan" for individuals "entangled" in the law, his campaign said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nt-with-tax-credit-and-an-emphasis-on-states/

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Just what we need, more tax credits.

 

[Huey Grey]

This plan isn't exactly the thing that dreams are made of. Just more of the shoulder shrugging the Republicans have when it comes to healthcare.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

it is what his brother wanted, anything would be better than obamascare

the health savings accounts are good, then we can buy our own healthcare services with our cash, obamacare does not approve things to be covered, cash talks

 

[Joes Place]

Jeb Bush will return to New Hampshire on Tuesday to pitch his plan for repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act -- an approach that includes providing a tax credit for purchasing health plans and upping limits on contributions to health savings accounts.

The former Florida governor's decision to give the speech highlights the sharp resistance to the law that remains in the Republican Party, even after the Supreme Court upheld it and GOP efforts in Congress to shred it have fallen flat.

Ahead of the Republican hopeful's Tuesday morning speech at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Bush's campaign said his plan would accomplish three things: "promote innovation," "lower costs" and "return power to states."

[Obamacare mandated better mental health-care coverage. It hasn’t happened.]

Bush's plan would "provide a tax credit for the purchase of affordable, portable health plans that protect Americans from high-cost medical events," according to his campaign, and it would "increase contribution limits and uses for Health Savings Accounts to help with out of-pocket costs." The campaign did not provide more details about the credit or what the new contribution caps would be.

The plan also calls for increasing funding to the National Institutes of Health; reviewing regulations seen as "barriers" to innovation; capping "the employer tax exclusion to lower insurance premiums;" and enabling "small businesses to make tax-free contributions to their workers’ individual, portable health plans," the Bush campaign said.

The campaign did not provide any information about Bush's tactical plan for repealing the health-care law. Republicans control the House and Senate but lack a super-majority in the upper chamber, making repeal a difficult proposition. What's more, the law's provisions have already been in effect for years and trying to undo them could prove politically costly for a Republican president.

Under Bush's plan, states would get capped federal funding and be responsible for a "transition plan" for individuals "entangled" in the law, his campaign said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nt-with-tax-credit-and-an-emphasis-on-states/

Curious as to what their rationale is that this will 'lower costs'....

 

[jscott78]

Jeb Bush will return to New Hampshire on Tuesday to pitch his plan for repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act -- an approach that includes providing a tax credit for purchasing health plans and upping limits on contributions to health savings accounts.

The former Florida governor's decision to give the speech highlights the sharp resistance to the law that remains in the Republican Party, even after the Supreme Court upheld it and GOP efforts in Congress to shred it have fallen flat.

Ahead of the Republican hopeful's Tuesday morning speech at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Bush's campaign said his plan would accomplish three things: "promote innovation," "lower costs" and "return power to states."

[Obamacare mandated better mental health-care coverage. It hasn’t happened.]

Bush's plan would "provide a tax credit for the purchase of affordable, portable health plans that protect Americans from high-cost medical events," according to his campaign, and it would "increase contribution limits and uses for Health Savings Accounts to help with out of-pocket costs." The campaign did not provide more details about the credit or what the new contribution caps would be.

The plan also calls for increasing funding to the National Institutes of Health; reviewing regulations seen as "barriers" to innovation; capping "the employer tax exclusion to lower insurance premiums;" and enabling "small businesses to make tax-free contributions to their workers’ individual, portable health plans," the Bush campaign said.

The campaign did not provide any information about Bush's tactical plan for repealing the health-care law. Republicans control the House and Senate but lack a super-majority in the upper chamber, making repeal a difficult proposition. What's more, the law's provisions have already been in effect for years and trying to undo them could prove politically costly for a Republican president.

Under Bush's plan, states would get capped federal funding and be responsible for a "transition plan" for individuals "entangled" in the law, his campaign said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nt-with-tax-credit-and-an-emphasis-on-states/

So Jeb's plan is to kill off the uninsurable. At least he is blatant about it.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Jeb Bush will return to New Hampshire on Tuesday to pitch his plan for repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act -- an approach that includes providing a tax credit for purchasing health plans and upping limits on contributions to health savings accounts.

The former Florida governor's decision to give the speech highlights the sharp resistance to the law that remains in the Republican Party, even after the Supreme Court upheld it and GOP efforts in Congress to shred it have fallen flat.

Ahead of the Republican hopeful's Tuesday morning speech at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Bush's campaign said his plan would accomplish three things: "promote innovation," "lower costs" and "return power to states."

[Obamacare mandated better mental health-care coverage. It hasn’t happened.]

Bush's plan would "provide a tax credit for the purchase of affordable, portable health plans that protect Americans from high-cost medical events," according to his campaign, and it would "increase contribution limits and uses for Health Savings Accounts to help with out of-pocket costs." The campaign did not provide more details about the credit or what the new contribution caps would be.

The plan also calls for increasing funding to the National Institutes of Health; reviewing regulations seen as "barriers" to innovation; capping "the employer tax exclusion to lower insurance premiums;" and enabling "small businesses to make tax-free contributions to their workers’ individual, portable health plans," the Bush campaign said.

The campaign did not provide any information about Bush's tactical plan for repealing the health-care law. Republicans control the House and Senate but lack a super-majority in the upper chamber, making repeal a difficult proposition. What's more, the law's provisions have already been in effect for years and trying to undo them could prove politically costly for a Republican president.

Under Bush's plan, states would get capped federal funding and be responsible for a "transition plan" for individuals "entangled" in the law, his campaign said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nt-with-tax-credit-and-an-emphasis-on-states/

The devil is in the details. Is Jeb's plan going to be robust enough that the working poor can purchase insurance with these tax credits? They don't have the money now to contribute to an HSA so that won't work for them. If he's repealing the individual mandate, will disallowing preexisting condition riders be feasible?

 

[unIowa]

The devil is in the details. Is Jeb's plan going to be robust enough that the working poor can purchase insurance with these tax credits? They don't have the money now to contribute to an HSA so that won't work for them. If he's repealing the individual mandate, will disallowing preexisting condition riders be feasible?

This...I have to lol at the republicans on this issue because their approach is awful having said that the Dem plan isn't much better.

Why not just bring the two plans together and give people options. Since we are giving out tax credits now and the repubs think that is a good idea as well just open up Medicare to those that would like to enroll with them as the provider. Also, open up competition by allowing insurers to sell between state lines and offer a healthy HSA limit (which is great tool for me but if we are being honest it isn't useful for about 97% of Americans).

Ultimately, if wealth and income inequality are going to remain at our now current ridiculous levels, the ultra wealthy (see not the top 1% but more along the lines of the top .02%) are going to finance more to get insurance costs off the backs of individual households. This helps small businesses and individual households resulting in more hiring and spending in the areas we need it most.

 

[Titanhawk2]

How about less money thrown at it so that cost increases will actually slow?

 

[Vroom_C14]

This plan isn't exactly the thing that dreams are made of. Just more of the shoulder shrugging the Republicans have when it comes to healthcare.

But can we keep the plan we have if we like it?

 

[Funky Bunch]

This will be Trump's plan next week. He'll throw in a couple China and Mexico mentions and people will eat it up.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I know liberals don't understand competition and free markets and cost decreases due to several interested parties bidding for our cash dollars

 

[unIowa]

So Jeb's plan is to kill off the uninsurable. At least he is blatant about it.

You don't think overpopulation is a problem? This seems like a good strategy to combat global warming.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Overpopulation is not a problem and neither is climate change, both hoaxes

 

[Skidlt]

I think this is a better approach than ACA. It's what I basically have now.

It forces people to question costs, premiums are lower, and a HSA allows you to save for future expenses.

It is totally different than what people are familiar with though.

Great for most males and those that are healthy.

 

[Joes Place]

This...I have to lol at the republicans on this issue because their approach is awful having said that the Dem plan isn't much better.

Why not just bring the two plans together and give people options. Since we are giving out tax credits now and the repubs think that is a good idea as well just open up Medicare to those that would like to enroll with them as the provider. Also, open up competition by allowing insurers to sell between state lines and offer a healthy HSA limit (which is great tool for me but if we are being honest it isn't useful for about 97% of Americans).

Ultimately, if wealth and income inequality are going to remain at our now current ridiculous levels, the ultra wealthy (see not the top 1% but more along the lines of the top .02%) are going to finance more to get insurance costs off the backs of individual households. This helps small businesses and individual households resulting in more hiring and spending in the areas we need it most.

Part of the problem with healthcare and health insurance, is that is really is NOT a 'free market', and most free market principles do not easily apply.

When you need care and you walk into a clinic/hospital (or are transported), you don't have the option to 'shop around' for the best prices or best/appropriate care. You are pretty much hostage to whatever costs/charges the clinic or hospital 'decides' for you. Thus, at point of care, there is virtually zero 'competition' from a market perspective.

Health insurance and insurers 'pre-negotiate' these prices for you, enabling reasonable free market principles to take over, but ONLY if you are insured, and if enough people participate in the insurance.

When people are un-insured, for whatever reason, a chain is set off which leads to increased costs:

1) They don't go in for preventive care, because they don't have the insurance to provide early preventive care anyway.
2) Conditions they have which are easily preventable for fairly low cost get progressively worse, leading to much more expensive intervention later.
3) When things get bad enough, they go into Urgent Care facilities or ERs for care; these are THE most expensive facilities for most healthcare providers to operate.
4) They cannot pay for that hyper-expensive care, so those costs get pushed off onto those who ARE insured.

This is why at least SOME elements of ACA are good: it forces people to have at least BASIC coverage, and gets many into clinics on at least an annual basis, to catch problems/risks early, where intervention eliminates the risks. For example, blood pressure: people with BP problems don't seek out care, and end up in the hospital after a stroke or kidney failure or something else directly resulting from high BP. Some of the interventions can be as simple as a $5/month supply of inexpensive medications.

Unless we are willing to turn people away from hospitals/clinics and NOT treat them for anything (including life-threatening issues) if they do not have insurance, this is essentially an unsolvable problem, because hospitals cannot provide free care for some without recouping those costs from others.

A caveat here, is that despite requiring people to have insurance, there is little or no incentive for people to engage in healthy behavior; if something is subsidized or 'free', they aren't going to put in any effort to improve their own health with simple changes to diet or exercise, etc. THIS is where ACA fails; it provide no 'stick' penalty on those who choose to engage in unhealthy lifestyles. And if someone wants to smoke or drink, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do what they want. But when the rest of us foot the medical bills for their bad decisions, it raises costs on everyone. Call it a 'sin tax' or whatever you want, but it is one of the drivers of healthcare costs (particularly smoking).

Requiring everyone to have SOME level of insurance and SOME 'skin in the game' is only part of the solution, and ACA helps on some of that. But it is not going to drive costs down in an environment where people do not have to pay more for unhealthy behavior. If you are significantly overweight and sedentary, you SHOULD have rising premiums over a period of years, based upon your health profile; if you lose the weight, your premiums should drop. There should be a financial/market-based approach to the premiums, and you should have the information on the metrics you have control over to meet to lower your costs. If you want to eat what you want and engage in unhealthy activity, nothing wrong with that, but expect to pay more in premiums for the more expensive care you are more likely to incur. Thus, something like this would provide SOME element of control over individual costs to people.

Simply providing 'tax breaks' without any requirement of health insurance is simply not a way to solve the problem, or a viable alternative to ACA.

ACA is clearly imperfect, and there need to be modifications to the law, but eliminating it entirely will only serve to increase insurance and care costs for most people rather significantly in the long term.

 

[unIowa]

I think this is a better approach than ACA. It's what I basically have now.

It forces people to question costs, premiums are lower, and a HSA allows you to save for future expenses.

It is totally different than what people are familiar with though.

Great for most males and those that are healthy.

I have this and have saved around $30k (tax free) in my HSA account (I just pay for medical items out of my regular checking accounts) but most people are not going to be able to take advantage of the HSA to a very meaningful level, just those that do well financially and who are relatively healthy.

 

[Joes Place]

I have this and have saved around $30k (tax free) in my HSA account (I just pay for medical items out of my regular checking accounts) but most people are not going to be able to take advantage of the HSA to a very meaningful level, just those that do well financially and who are relatively healthy.

That's great, but $30k won't come close to paying expenses if you end up with a serious and unexpected illness like cancer, Parkinson's, MS, etc. Individual savings go 'poof' when you end up with something treatable (or only palliatively treatable), and very expensive. That's where pooling resources via insurance from EVERYONE makes the system work.

Very much like car insurance; if we had an 'HSA' option for 'self insurance' for your cars, you could easily pay for simple fender-benders with no problem. The minute you're in a serious accident you are liable for, where another party requires $200k or more in medical intervention, you are screwed and likely bankrupt. Exactly why you most likely NEVER get the money back you are paying for car insurance premiums. It's being used to pay for other people's accidents, and on the rare occasion, your accident. I'm absolutely certain I have paid out 10x, maybe 50x in car insurance premiums vs. what I have ever claimed.

Health insurance is no different, only in that most of us will pay out more in our early years than we will benefit from it, but later in life, your costs will likely exceed what you pay in premiums. The system only works when a significant fraction of the people ARE paying in more than they are using, so that extra money is used for those with unexpected and expensive care issues.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Exactly how does anything in his plan allow the working poor to get insurance?

 

[Joes Place]

Exactly how does anything in his plan allow the working poor to get insurance?

Exactly my question. Because those are the people who will clog up the ERs and Urgent Care facilities, not pay, and end up costing the overall system 2x or 3x (or more) for care which could have and should have been addressed in a preventive manner.

 

[jscott78]

Exactly how does anything in his plan allow the working poor to get insurance?

Exactly. This is not a serious proposal, but a political statement designed to appeal to a hard-hearted base.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Exactly how does anything in his plan allow the working poor to get insurance?

If there are significant tax credits for the working poor, they can certainly purchase insurance with those credits. The question is how big those credits are going to be. This plan does nothing to penalize those who choose to go uninsured. When the uninsured go to a hospital and skip out on the bill, the insured pay more.

If a Republican would propose a plan that eliminates the individual mandate, but also forbids Medicare funded providers from treating the uninsured, you have a serious proposal.

 

[unIowa]

That's great, but $30k won't come close to paying expenses if you end up with a serious and unexpected illness like cancer, Parkinson's, MS, etc. Individual savings go 'poof' when you end up with something treatable (or only palliatively treatable), and very expensive. That's where pooling resources via insurance from EVERYONE makes the system work.

Very much like car insurance; if we had an 'HSA' option for 'self insurance' for your cars, you could easily pay for simple fender-benders with no problem. The minute you're in a serious accident you are liable for, where another party requires $200k or more in medical intervention, you are screwed and likely bankrupt. Exactly why you most likely NEVER get the money back you are paying for car insurance premiums. It's being used to pay for other people's accidents, and on the rare occasion, your accident. I'm absolutely certain I have paid out 10x, maybe 50x in car insurance premiums vs. what I have ever claimed.

Health insurance is no different, only in that most of us will pay out more in our early years than we will benefit from it, but later in life, your costs will likely exceed what you pay in premiums. The system only works when a significant fraction of the people ARE paying in more than they are using, so that extra money is used for those with unexpected and expensive care issues.

What are you talking about Joe???

I have an insurance plan that is high deductible so it qualifies me to have an HSA account as well. My max out of pocket is $3k per year with my insurance so I have been able to save up 10 years worth of deductibles...where did I ever state I was going to try and self insure?

Also, to my point earlier, an overwhelming majority of Americans will not really be able to take advantage of an HSA account bc they live so close to paycheck to paycheck so while this tax free savings vehicle has been great for me, it won't be of benefit for most.

Did you just totally misread what I was getting at? Seems very unlike you.

 

[Huey Grey]

But can we keep the plan we have if we like it?

Shouldn't the right have a better plan for healthcare beyond not liking the ACA?

 

[Huey Grey]

Exactly how does anything in his plan allow the working poor to get insurance?

It doesn't. If anything, it will just leave more of them on the street.

 

[Joes Place]

What are you talking about Joe???

I have an insurance plan that is high deductible so it qualifies me to have an HSA account as well. My max out of pocket is $3k per year with my insurance so I have been able to save up 10 years worth of deductibles...where did I ever state I was going to try and self insure?

Also, to my point earlier, an overwhelming majority of Americans will not really be able to take advantage of an HSA account bc they live so close to paycheck to paycheck so while this tax free savings vehicle has been great for me, it won't be of benefit for most.

Did you just totally misread what I was getting at? Seems very unlike you.

I was referring, in general, to the concept of 'tax credits' and savings accounts as a solution vs. actual insurance requirements.

As you have noted, high deductible plans are a great solution for many, as the money you save on premiums can accrue and compound for when you need to meet your deductibles. The benefits there are also that you get the 'negotiated rates' for any care via the insurer as well. Without a real health policy (e.g. one of the non-conforming 'plans' which isn't actually 'health insurance', but simply a repayment plan where you will have high deductibles and probably pay full-rate from caregivers), you can end up paying a lot more...

 

[unIowa]

I was referring, in general, to the concept of 'tax credits' and savings accounts as a solution vs. actual insurance requirements.

As you have noted, high deductible plans are a great solution for many, as the money you save on premiums can accrue and compound for when you need to meet your deductibles. The benefits there are also that you get the 'negotiated rates' for any care via the insurer as well. Without a real health policy (e.g. one of the non-conforming 'plans' which isn't actually 'health insurance', but simply a repayment plan where you will have high deductibles and probably pay full-rate from caregivers), you can end up paying a lot more...

I agree with that. I also think there is room for both a public and private system. I say let people buy into Medicare if they so please and we should stop subsidizing insurance companies for people purchasing their products (that type of system seems ripe for fraud).

If you want to purchase private insurance you can do so and we should tear down some regulations and allow health insurance to be sold more like auto insurance. If you have a private plan though govt payments/subsidies should not be going to your insurance company (why make a transfer payment with a built in margin to a private company). If you need a subsidy then you probably should be in the govt based Medicare system.

 

[naturalmwa]

If there are significant tax credits for the working poor, they can certainly purchase insurance with those credits. The question is how big those credits are going to be. This plan does nothing to penalize those who choose to go uninsured. When the uninsured go to a hospital and skip out on the bill, the insured pay more.

If a Republican would propose a plan that eliminates the individual mandate, but also forbids Medicare funded providers from treating the uninsured, you have a serious proposal.

Do tax credits work like this? If you aren't paying income taxes, you can't use a credit, right? They aren't "insurance vouchers" you can just turn in for a health plan.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

This plan isn't exactly the thing that dreams are made of. Just more of the shoulder shrugging the Republicans have when it comes to healthcare.

I had a high deductible medical plan at Aegon with and HSA and I LOVED it. Having full coverage insurance was WORSE than having the High deductible plan. People buy full coverage because they don't like risk, which is a big mistake for lots of people. Here is how to calculate which is best for you:



Full coverage cost : the total premium for the year (4K) + the maximum out of pocket expense for the family (5K)

High deductible with HSA: the total premium for the year(free) + the maximum out of pocket expense for the family(6K) - the tax savings from contributions to the HSA(1K).

So as the example above shows the total cost of Full Coverage for the year was 9K (and you are still paying copays after this point)
For High Deductible with HSA, the total cost was 5K.

Every plan is different and your tax rate depends on if you pay taxes. But the worst case scenario at Aegon was that the full coverage would cost you +9K a year and you will still pay copays even every time at the doctor. For the High deductible HSA plan, the worst case scenario was 5K per year, and after that, everything was free.

The High deductible plan paid for all wellness checkups. And it rewards you for being healthy, because you can put the equivalent of your premium into your HSA, and that money is yours forever. When you retire, it can stay in your HSA or be rolled over to an IRA.

Even after documenting this to many other employees, many STILL choose the full coverage because they don't like risk, even though it COST them money to do so.

Obama hate these plans since it does not give the government power, and because most of his voters don't pay taxes, so they don't get the tax deduction. Millions of people do benefit from it, and he wants to stop that because it is not fair in his feeble mind.

 

[Huey Grey]

I had a high deductible medical plan at Aegon with and HSA and I LOVED it. Having full coverage insurance was WORSE than having the High deductible plan. People buy full coverage because they don't like risk, which is a big mistake for lots of people. Here is how to calculate which is best for you:



Full coverage cost : the total premium for the year (4K) + the maximum out of pocket expense for the family (5K)

High deductible with HSA: the total premium for the year(free) + the maximum out of pocket expense for the family(6K) - the tax savings from contributions to the HSA(1K).

So as the example above shows the total cost of Full Coverage for the year was 9K (and you are still paying copays after this point)
For High Deductible with HSA, the total cost was 5K.

Every plan is different and your tax rate depends on if you pay taxes. But the worst case scenario at Aegon was that the full coverage would cost you +9K a year and you will still pay copays even every time at the doctor. For the High deductible HSA plan, the worst case scenario was 5K per year, and after that, everything was free.

I understand that HSAs may be a good plan for some people, but they are simply incapable of replacing the ACA. If all you have are HSAs, you're pretty much admitting that you don't know what to do about our national healthcare system.

 

[unIowa]

I understand that HSAs may be a good plan for some people, but they are simply incapable of replacing the ACA. If all you have are HSAs, you're pretty much admitting that you don't know what to do about our national healthcare system.

Allow people to buy/enroll Medicare if they want and subsided the entire entity vs individuals as needed. Gather premiums from them based on their earnings.

HSA plans are great though they are more of a niche product for those with some real disposable income.

 

[Skidlt]

Thanks for the thoughts UnIowa and CeMar. High deductible plans with HSAs are very misunderstood.

Our premiums have not gone up at my large company for the past 4 years. It lowers your taxable income, makes you question whether procedures are really necessary, has caps on out of pocket expenses per year, etc.

My scenario is 4 other insured, besides myself, on the high deductible, low premium plan with the HSA. My wife(no pic) is a teacher with a plan that most people would consider to be great, but when comparing plans over a five year period she ends up saving our family thousands of dollars a year by using my plan.

The kicker for most people is that currently they pay a high premium that is decucted from their paycheck and have a small co-pay at the office for a visit so it seems cheaper.

It seems like they are spending less for healthcare, because with high deductible/low premium/HSA plans you are paying the bills up to the yearly deductible and care caps.

My prediction is that most consumers would hate my plan at first, but would come out way ahead of the game in the long run once they got used to paying the true cost of their office vists and comparing the totals of what they paid before under a "standard plan".

 

[theiacowtipper]

Do tax credits work like this? If you aren't paying income taxes, you can't use a credit, right? They aren't "insurance vouchers" you can just turn in for a health plan.

Depends on if the credits are refundable. If the credit can lower your tax credit below zero, it might work, depending on the size of the credit.

 

[naturalmwa]

Depends on if the credits are refundable. If the credit can lower your tax credit below zero, it might work, depending on the size of the credit.

Tax credits can sometimes go back and get you a refund on taxes you paid in a prior year. But they aren't vouchers. You can't transfer them to an insurance company and get a policy.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Shouldn't the right have a better plan for healthcare beyond not liking the ACA?

Broken promises are what is not liked. You want to blame the reaction and not the cause...

 

[CeMar_Clone]

I understand that HSAs may be a good plan for some people, but they are simply incapable of replacing the ACA. If all you have are HSAs, you're pretty much admitting that you don't know what to do about our national healthcare system.

Here is a solution, if you don't have insurance, than go get a job that has insurance. I did it, anyone can. Probably a better solution than the ACA.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

Thanks for the thoughts UnIowa and CeMar. High deductible plans with HSAs are very misunderstood.

Our premiums have not gone up at my large company for the past 4 years. It lowers your taxable income, makes you question whether procedures are really necessary, has caps on out of pocket expenses per year, etc.

My scenario is 4 other insured, besides myself, on the high deductible, low premium plan with the HSA. My wife(no pic) is a teacher with a plan that most people would consider to be great, but when comparing plans over a five year period she ends up saving our family thousands of dollars a year by using my plan.

The kicker for most people is that currently they pay a high premium that is decucted from their paycheck and have a small co-pay at the office for a visit so it seems cheaper.

It seems like they are spending less for healthcare, because with high deductible/low premium/HSA plans you are paying the bills up to the yearly deductible and care caps.

My prediction is that most consumers would hate my plan at first, but would come out way ahead of the game in the long run once they got used to paying the true cost of their office vists and comparing the totals of what they paid before under a "standard plan".

My wife is a teacher as well, and for here the family coverage was 14k a year. But if you elect to NOT be insured, the school paid you 250 a month.

The HSA plans are great, they encourage people to be and stay healthy, they encourage people to save for their future, and it encourages people to find cheap healthcare. Most people don't realize this, but doctors will sometimes charge you less for paying cash, rather than insurance. My own doctor charge 90 for insured visits, but if I paid cash and skipped the insurance, it was 50. Hospitals now will give you a discount if you pay cash. Doctors have to hire huge staffs just to handle the insurance claims.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

Allow people to buy/enroll Medicare if they want and subsided the entire entity vs individuals as needed. Gather premiums from them based on their earnings.

HSA plans are great though they are more of a niche product for those with some real disposable income.

Here is the dirty little secret, the government is the cause of High medical insurance premiums for private insurance. The majority of patients that come into the hospital are either medicare or medicaid patients. Every one of these patients is a loss for the UIHC. What does this mean, it means that when you pay your medical premium, you are subsidizing the US governmnet. Over 100% of the profit at the UIHC comes from private insurance policies. So why is this, well it is because the government (democrats) has promised something that it can not deliver. The government screws the hospital and the doctors, and they are forced to jack the rates for everyone else. This is what is known as democratic accounting.

 

[Pepperman]

That's great, but $30k won't come close to paying expenses if you end up with a serious and unexpected illness like cancer, Parkinson's, MS, etc. Individual savings go 'poof' when you end up with something treatable (or only palliatively treatable), and very expensive. That's where pooling resources via insurance from EVERYONE makes the system work.

Very much like car insurance; if we had an 'HSA' option for 'self insurance' for your cars, you could easily pay for simple fender-benders with no problem. The minute you're in a serious accident you are liable for, where another party requires $200k or more in medical intervention, you are screwed and likely bankrupt. Exactly why you most likely NEVER get the money back you are paying for car insurance premiums. It's being used to pay for other people's accidents, and on the rare occasion, your accident. I'm absolutely certain I have paid out 10x, maybe 50x in car insurance premiums vs. what I have ever claimed.

Health insurance is no different, only in that most of us will pay out more in our early years than we will benefit from it, but later in life, your costs will likely exceed what you pay in premiums. The system only works when a significant fraction of the people ARE paying in more than they are using, so that extra money is used for those with unexpected and expensive care issues.

You clearly do not know what an HSA plan entails.

Hint - the "savings" that you accrue are not your only benefit. You also pay a premium (just like for auto insurance) that covers catastrophic losses.

Seriously, learn what you are talking about next time.