My wife recently informed me that at the beginning of the year, the health insurance company she works for, AVMED Health Plans, will no longer be providing employer-sponsored insurance to its employees. Instead, they will be offering her to buy into a personal Health Savings Account.
This, just a few months before we were planning to take her to a surgeon for a procedure to correct her scoliosis -related spinal curvature. This decision by her employer just moved the time table up to ASAP.
I just need to scream quickly. . .
MY WIFE WORKS AT AN INSURANCE COMPANY THAT WONT PROVIDE FUCKING HEALTH INSURANCE!
Some information on Heath Savings Accounts
QUOTE
A Health Savings Account (HSA) is a tax-advantaged medical savings account available to taxpayers in the United States who are enrolled in a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). The funds contributed to the account are not subject to federal income tax at the time of deposit. Unlike a Flexible spending account (FSA), funds roll over and accumulate year over year if not spent. HSAs are owned by the individual, which differentiates them from the company-owned Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) that is an alternate tax-deductible source of funds paired with HDHPs. Funds may be used to pay for qualified medical expenses at any time without federal tax liability. Withdrawals for non-medical expenses are treated very similarly to those in an IRA account in that they may provide tax advantages if taken after retirement age, and they incur penalties if taken earlier. These accounts are a component of consumer driven health care.
Proponents of HSAs believe that they are an important reform that will help reduce the growth of health care costs and increase the efficiency of the health care system. According to proponents, HSAs encourage saving for future health care expenses, allow the patient to receive needed care without a gate keeper to determine what benefits are allowed and make consumers more responsible for their own health care choices through the required High-Deductible Health Plan.
Some consumer organizations, such as Consumers Union, and many medical organizations, such as the American Public Health Association, have rejected HSAs because, in their opinion, they benefit only healthy, younger people and make the health care system more expensive for everyone else. According to Stanford economist Victor Fuchs, "The main effect of putting more of it on the consumer is to reduce the social redistributive element of insurance."[15]
Another criticism of the HSA model is that it disproportionately benefits wealthier individuals who can use the HSA account as a tax shelter, and can afford to pay the high-deductible using other savings. Critics contend that low-income people who are more likely to be uninsured, do not earn enough to benefit from the tax-breaks offered by HSAs. These tax breaks are too modest—when compared to the actual cost of insurance—to persuade significant numbers to buy this coverage.[16] There is also concern that the lower premiums of HSA-qualified high-deductible health plans might attract lower-income individuals who cannot afford to fund an HSA account, and may therefore forego necessary health care services under the high-deductible.
In testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Health in 2006, Commonwealth Fund Assistant Vice President Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., said that all evidence to date shows that health savings accounts and high-deductible health plans worsen, rather than improve, the U.S. health system's problems.[17]
Proponents of HSAs believe that they are an important reform that will help reduce the growth of health care costs and increase the efficiency of the health care system. According to proponents, HSAs encourage saving for future health care expenses, allow the patient to receive needed care without a gate keeper to determine what benefits are allowed and make consumers more responsible for their own health care choices through the required High-Deductible Health Plan.
Some consumer organizations, such as Consumers Union, and many medical organizations, such as the American Public Health Association, have rejected HSAs because, in their opinion, they benefit only healthy, younger people and make the health care system more expensive for everyone else. According to Stanford economist Victor Fuchs, "The main effect of putting more of it on the consumer is to reduce the social redistributive element of insurance."[15]
Another criticism of the HSA model is that it disproportionately benefits wealthier individuals who can use the HSA account as a tax shelter, and can afford to pay the high-deductible using other savings. Critics contend that low-income people who are more likely to be uninsured, do not earn enough to benefit from the tax-breaks offered by HSAs. These tax breaks are too modest—when compared to the actual cost of insurance—to persuade significant numbers to buy this coverage.[16] There is also concern that the lower premiums of HSA-qualified high-deductible health plans might attract lower-income individuals who cannot afford to fund an HSA account, and may therefore forego necessary health care services under the high-deductible.
In testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Health in 2006, Commonwealth Fund Assistant Vice President Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., said that all evidence to date shows that health savings accounts and high-deductible health plans worsen, rather than improve, the U.S. health system's problems.[17]
HSAs were established as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act which was sponsored by Dennis Hastert and signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003.
T
QUOTE
he Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (Pub.L. 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066, also called Medicare Modernization Act or MMA) is a law of the United States which was enacted in 2003.[1] It produced the largest overhaul of Medicare in the public health program's 38-year history.
The MMA was signed by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003, after passing in Congress by a close margin.
One month later, the ten-year cost estimate was boosted to $534 billion, up more than $100 billion over the figure presented by the Bush administration during Congressional debate. The inaccurate figure helped secure support from fiscally conservative Republicans who had promised to vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion. It was reported that an administration official, Thomas A. Scully, had concealed the higher estimate and threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he revealed it.[2] By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion.[3]
The MMA was signed by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003, after passing in Congress by a close margin.
One month later, the ten-year cost estimate was boosted to $534 billion, up more than $100 billion over the figure presented by the Bush administration during Congressional debate. The inaccurate figure helped secure support from fiscally conservative Republicans who had promised to vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion. It was reported that an administration official, Thomas A. Scully, had concealed the higher estimate and threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he revealed it.[2] By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion.[3]
)
