|
RisqueBarber posted:HSA's are good...why is this a debate? Because healthcare, and government spending in general, is about the distribution of resources. Is a tax-advantaged account that mostly benefits people who don't need regular healthcare and are in the top 10% of households the optimal use of tax-payer resources for providing healthcare?
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
RisqueBarber posted:HSA's are good...why is this a debate? Because they are an investment vehicle that doesn't help poor people, but are pushed as though they will. I agree they're good for the middle and upper class, but the problem with healthcare in this country is poor people not being able to afford it, and HSA's won't help them do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
No Butt Stuff posted:I don't think anyone is saying that they are. HSA's already exist. I was just responding to mcmagic's assertion that HSAs are only a tax break for the rich, when they are, in fact, not. republican senators say they are which is how the conversation started but I see what you're sayin
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
RisqueBarber posted:HSA's are good...why is this a debate? No they are not good. They don't help you AT ALL if you are poor and they don't help middle class people because they don't lower the insane prices we pay for health care in this country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
RisqueBarber posted:HSA's are good...why is this a debate? Nothing that requires the poor to pay for their health care with money they don't have is "good." Most Americans don't have "savings", and a solution that requires people rely on savings they don't have and can't create is a false solution. As a false solution, they're a distraction from actual programs that would actually help, and act as cover for cuts to helpful programs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Well, its important to keep in mind that HSA's as the Republican answer to affordable health care is a far sight better than their previous platform (kill all poors).
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
My old company offered an HSA plan where we paid like 30 bucks a month for our health insurance (with a 5k deductable) and they put $2,000 a year into our HSA. The next plan up was a PPO which would have been 170 a month, so I put the $140 difference / month into the HSA. Medical expenses were billed at the insurance mandated rate, not the uninsured rate, so they weren't too bad. Worst case scenario for us is that were exposed to like $2,000 of risk, afterwards the insurance covered 100%. Got hit with that when our child was born 4 weeks early, but honestly, we came out ahead the other 5 years we were on the HSA plan. Single payer would be way better, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:Also, the CBO released an analysis of Trump's budget. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Well, its important to keep in mind that HSA's as the Republican answer to affordable health care is a far sight better than their previous platform (kill all poors). HSA's pretty much are "kill all poors."
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
And keep in mind money in stocks, bonds, other market poo poo is just capital transfer to the wealthy who repackage it with derivative multipliers to afford more yachts. So you know... the rich still win. Money doesn't just get spent once and is gone.... if it sits in a bank account it's just a tool for the wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:Also, the CBO released an analysis of Trump's budget. J O B S
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:Money doesn't just get spent once and is gone.... if it sits in a bank account it's just a tool for the wealthy. Where do you keep your money?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
No Butt Stuff posted:I don't think anyone is saying that they are. HSA's already exist. I was just responding to mcmagic's assertion that HSAs are only a tax break for the rich, when they are, in fact, not. HSAs are not only a tax break for the rich. But, thanks to the fundamental mechanics of tax cuts in a marginal income tax structure, they are much, much more valuable to people with high incomes, and of very little benefit to people with low incomes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:Also, the CBO released an analysis of Trump's budget.  But seriously, the healthcare debate always makes me a little upset because the GOP isn't entirely wrong, just mostly. The costs ARE bad, but correctable - problem is no one actually addresses them, least of all the GOP. One example of how cost drivers differ between the US and EU as a cultural component is something I'm reviewing right now. Arrhythmias, especially AFib, are something that affects a growing number of people world wide and increasingly treated using ablation due in part to the aging of the globe, increased longetivity, and increased understanding and development of tools. All of those factors play a significant role (occurrence, utilization, more expensive devices) in the cost of healthcare. In the EU, Japan, and US, left heart procedures are done using a fluroscopy system and cardiac mapping system in conjunction with diagnostic and ablation catheters, as well as some form of transeptal puncture tool and accompanying sheaths. However, for a number of reasons, it is common for US EPs to also use an ICE catheter (ultrasound) which SIGNIFICANTLY increases the cost of the procedure. The EU does not reimburse the ICE catheter and so it is much less common. In the US, the increasing rates of procedures as well as the additional use of high cost technology compared to EU counterparts has an outsized impact on overall cost. This isn't limited to just this one example, there are many differences between the US and most UHS systems in the HOW or WHAT of treatment. Part of this is culture, part is reinforced by the FDA, and part by CMS and the wider market. It's a big problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:Also, the CBO released an analysis of Trump's budget. The CBO is known for its innaccccurasees though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
I wasn't aware only poor people had problems affording healthcare. HSA hate seems to be "this doesn't help ME therefore gently caress it. EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE ABOUT ME".
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Today in "who gives a poo poo": https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/885520053105561601
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
hiddenmovement posted:Wrestling fans skew slightly democrat iirc. You're looking for golf or nascar for a real republican vote winner. Yeah, there is a perception that all WWE fans are white dudes named Cletus, but in fact the WWE pulls in a lot of black fans. Compared to America as a whole, WWE fans are younger and less white. Which is why you notice on that chart not only do they skew democrat, they don't turn out to vote probably as a result of suppression. The disconnect between the fans and the McMahon's leads to some interesting stuff I think. I mean, the McMahon's are shitlords, but you have to, theoretically, give the fans what they want so you get story-lines like Occupy RAW where the face literally has fans storm the ring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
HSAs are exactly like the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction. The vast majority of the benefit goes to those in the top 10% and above on the income scale. It can be a major benefit for certain middle and upper-middle class people (healthy high-earners for HSA or High-COL mortgage holders that make a good, but not outrageous income) Are either of these an optimal use of resources?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:HSAs are not only a tax break for the rich. But, thanks to the fundamental mechanics of tax cuts in a marginal income tax structure, they are much, much more valuable to people with high incomes, and of very little benefit to people with low incomes. People with low incomes can't put a drat thing in HSAs, because if they had $2,000 they'd use it on getting their car fixed and catching up on rent. The poor don't have any savings at all which is why payday loan places are everywhere in poor neighborhoods.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
My employer puts money in an HSA for me every year, which is nice, but I'd rather just take the cash. Because of the contribution, I have to file extra tax forms and can't use any of the "FREE!" filing services out there <  >
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Depends where you live frankly. But uhm, no matter where you are $40k would go a much longer way with universal health care. Just saying Of course, I was dealing with the people who could barely afford the Arkansas prices, because jobs. Most of these people had only been able to get healthcare because of Obamacare... Even then, the state of Arkansas had refused until they were sued into doing it. Suddenly so many people were signing up for help that the state had to hire outside help just to catch up on piles of applications that were sometimes over 3 years old and untouched. Once the election happened, we got word that the project was not going to be continued. The general consensus around the offfice was that with Trump promising to kill Obamacare, Arkansas would be free to drop coverage for all of these people, so there was no need to keep processing the backlog.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
An HSA can only have 6750/yr contributed. Even if that was otherwise taxed at 6750/yr, the rich aren't going to give a poo poo about that. And again, just put a loving cap on who can use them and call it a day. "You make 180k? Yeah, sorry, not for you."
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:People with low incomes can't put a drat thing in HSAs, because if they had $2,000 they'd use it on getting their car fixed and catching up on rent. The poor don't have any savings at all which is why payday loan places are everywhere in poor neighborhoods. Many insurance plans offered by employers include a contribution to an HSA as part of the plan. And loving laffo at you people who think some 1%er is going to get real mad about 1k/yr max in tax advantage. HSAs are for the middle class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
CmdrRiker posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/russia-trump.html It seems to me it would be illegal for them to quietly modify his forms without informing him 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:This makes me kind of sad that we will never see President Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger routinely used state employees as punching bags during his interminable budget battles with Dems, and once or twice tried to lower wages to the FEDERAL minimum wage $5.15/hr) during impasses. Only reason it didn't happen is because John Chiang, the state controller, told him to gently caress off. Also the whole hush money for the love child thing. Schwarzenegger Gets points for being into climate change before it was cool, but he would be a bad president. Instead, John Chiang for president.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Xae posted:Many insurance plans offered by employers include a contribution to an HSA as part of the plan. Guess what the poor don't have? Insurance plans offered by employers. Most of them are working multiple part time jobs, none of which include benefits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
alpha_destroy posted:
This is interesting. Could you elaborate? I have little interest in the WWE and know very little about it, but I've been mentoring a friend this summer who has brought over Wrestlemania DVDs to watch. Not trying to start a derail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
alpha_destroy posted:Yeah, there is a perception that all WWE fans are white dudes named Cletus, but in fact the WWE pulls in a lot of black fans. Compared to America as a whole, WWE fans are younger and less white. Which is why you notice on that chart not only do they skew democrat, they don't turn out to vote probably as a result of suppression. They also have a big Latino following because one of their biggest stars, Colby Lopez, had his dick pics released by his ex girlfriend. Also they have Sami Zayn who is cool and you should donate money to Syria for him. https://twitter.com/iLikeSamiZayn/status/885225209778782208
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Guess what the poor don't have? Insurance plans offered by employers. Most of them are working multiple part time jobs, none of which include benefits. Xae posted:I wasn't aware only poor people had problems affording healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:HSA's pretty much are "kill all poors." Oh, well, of course. What I meant was they made the heroic decision to remove the word 'kill' from the language.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Today in "who gives a poo poo": I will devote a single eyeroll to this, CNN. That is all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:Also, the CBO released an analysis of Trump's budget. Remember when the GOP were saying not to take the CBO estimates on the number of uninsured seriously because they are not good at that stuff, but you can trust them to crunch the numbers on budget related stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Liberals defending HSAs are a good exemplar on how they are pure classist scum. It literally shifts more of the burden to the individual and that is a good thing because ______________
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
skylined! posted:because they are not a good enough trade off on their own to gut the aca further Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Because healthcare, and government spending in general, is about the distribution of resources. Is a tax-advantaged account that mostly benefits people who don't need regular healthcare and are in the top 10% of households the optimal use of tax-payer resources for providing healthcare? Chilichimp posted:Because they are an investment vehicle that doesn't help poor people, but are pushed as though they will. mcmagic posted:No they are not good. They don't help you AT ALL if you are poor and they don't help middle class people because they don't lower the insane prices we pay for health care in this country. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Nothing that requires the poor to pay for their health care with money they don't have is "good." Most Americans don't have "savings", and a solution that requires people rely on savings they don't have and can't create is a false solution. You are taking a small part of privatized healthcare and comparing it to universal healthcare. You are right, HSA's are nothing compared to universal healthcare and in no way should they ever be debated with each other. One does not counter the other. If people had to pick between keeping their HSA's and universal healthcare, universal healthcare would win every time. In the current system where blue collar workers are only offered high deductible health plans, HSA's give employees and employers the opportunity to contribute tax free dollars to pay for their medical, dental, and vision care. If the companies are going to offer HDHP's anyway, the only people you are hurting are the employees if you were take away HSA's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
CBO is just a filthy liberal propaganda machine anways. Can't trust a god damned word they say or print.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Dog tax question, if a dog isnt at the top of a page does it count to my dog taxes?Peven Stan posted:HENRYs. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Well, its important to keep in mind that HSA's as the Republican answer to affordable health care is a far sight better than their previous platform (kill all poors). I don't see how at all. HSAs are not bad in and of themselves. They're not exclusively a tax-avoidance scheme for the rich. I'm one of those weirdo unrepresentative people who benefits from them while still not being well-off (young, professional, healthy, low-income considering I'm the sole earner in a two-person household in a relatively pricey city, but have good benefits). But outside of people in my little niche, they do nothing. This is Kill All Poors, but yuppies can spend less of their income on their insurance plan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
No Butt Stuff posted:An HSA can only have 6750/yr contributed. If you can cap your HSA and use it as an investment vehicle, then you will shield $236,250 of your income from taxes (and this is a wildly unrealistically low estimate. It assumes that they never raise the contribution limits, which they do almost every year.) and have $1,404,317 in tax-free assets at age 65 assuming an average growth rate of 7% during your working years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:No they are not good. They don't help you AT ALL if you are poor and they don't help middle class people because they don't lower the insane prices we pay for health care in this country. I understand that your rage against HSA's is probably based on the fact that "moderate" republicans might be tempted to go "but HSA's are improved!" as a reason why destroying medicaid is fine. I get that. In an alternate universe where we are not actively loving the poor, and we make sure the medicaid expansion is fully funded and available in all states, HSA's are good. I'm not rich, but I have managed to save enough to pay for my maximum annual out of pocket four times for my cheap high-deductible plan. I wouldn't dare have a high deductible plan if I couldn't pay the deductible. HSA's are not a viable option for poor people or anyone making less than 50k, but they are pretty sweet for people making between 50k-100k
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:37
|
|
