originally posted by: matafuchs
So he wants to continue to make sure those with pre-existing conditions will be covered and allow kids to stay on their parents plans. HOW is that
saying he will not change the current laws?????
No one wants to discuss HSA's? Opening borders for a free market? Nope, just parrot what the MSM states.
Sure, lets discuss them. If you allow pre existing conditions you must leave the individual mandate in place, otherwise people can get sick and only
buy insurance when they need it. Insurance doesn't work that way. Insurance requires the healthy to pay for the sick.
So about HSA's, the idea of an HSA is that you can put some money away each year and use it to cover health care as needed. This requires you to be
paid that money in the first place. Lets take a friend of mine, he makes minimum wage 30 hours/week, which in his state disqualifies him from ACA
subsidies because of the Medicaid gap. He has to pay $300/month out of pocket for catheters due to being in a wheel chair and being paralyzed. That
$300/month amounts to more than half of his paycheck. Fortunately for him, his parents pick up the tab instead. If he was expected to cover that out
of an HSA, how would he ever do it? HSA's only work if you can put aside a small percent of your money. Even then, they only work for one time
moderate cost issues.
If you're low income, or even moderate income and have even a low cost ongoing issue it wipes out the HSA. For example, I have sleep apnea which runs
about $150/month to treat. If I were making $50k/year and putting aside 5% of my pre tax income into an HSA for medical coverage I would be putting
aside $2500/year. A simple case of sleep apnea would use up $1800/$2500 of that, for what is routine coverage. Only $700 would go into actual
Now lets look at the real issues that have resulted in all of this tinkering to coverage over the years. Cancer costs on average $5 million to treat.
If you made 100k/year, and put 30% of your earnings into medical savings for just yourself (totally ignoring the rest of your family), work for 20
years, and then get sick, you still wouldn't even have 1 million in an HSA, much less the $5 million you need.
You can answer all of this by saying that's what insurance is for... but then we're back at the original issue, rather than divide it into two
systems, both of which only thrive under catastrophic conditions, why not have just one system and make it work? If you say we subsidize the HSA's,
then isn't that the same problem as subsidizing health insurance premiums? If putting 30% of your income at 100k isn't enough to cover an HSA, how
much are we expecting people to put aside?
As far as opening borders across state lines go. It doesn't actually fix anything. Insurance is not a system where more competition reduces prices.
More competition decreases the size of risk pools which in turn raises the price. That's the whole reason we don't sell across state lines as it is.
If you think it's bad now when people complain that they're men, so their premiums shouldn't be going to cover female procedures, just wait until
someone in Wyoming starts complaining that because they live in an area with clean air, their insurance money shouldn't be going towards treatment for
people like me who live in coal country and face significantly higher rates of lung cancer.
Insurance works when you have a small known risk pool. The broader you make it the shallower the pool comes and the more spread out coverage becomes.