• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

HSA solution to universal healthcare

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
I've brought this up several times over the years and have never gotten a response. Since the healthcare debate has flared again, I thought I would take another shot at it.
Instead of Universal healthcare or the abysmal failure of public opinion ObamaCare what would be wrong with universal health savings accounts?
The basic system would be that most employers would be required to furnish a $5000 deductible policy for employees. They could offer better insurance if they chose to but, the $5000 would be the minimum. So, your full time entry level job would provide you insurance coverage after you hit the $5000 deductible. People that are very poor our out of a job would be means tested and get as low as a $500 deductible.

The problems it solves that the left generally makes:
A single injury or illness could throw you into bankruptcy.

Problem solved. Now a single injury could only damage you up to $5000.
Healthcare is a right and all people deserve to be able to see a doctor.
Done.

The problems it solves that the right generally makes:
Government should have no say of who healthcare professionals can treat.
Done. All handled through private insurance
If you give someone a free lunch, they will abuse the system and clog the healthcare system with useless concerns.
Not if they have to pay the first few hundred or few thousand out of pocket.
Universal healthcare cost too much.
High deductible plans are cheap. Most of it could be covered through medicaid.

This has just always seemed like the American solution to me. We want to be compassionate at the same time we want to be independent. We want the government to stay the hell out of our business and we people to be responsible for their choices. I don't know why it wouldn't work well.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
I've always liked this solution. The main thing to me is the consumer footing at least some of the bill out of his pocket, this cuts down on abuse.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
I'm getting Blue Cross/Blue Shield because of the healthcare bill. I like that a bit better than this savings accounts proposal, I gotta say.
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
My resistance to a plan like this is that it still puts mandates on the employer. Can't we leave them out of it? With a $5K deductible, all costs would be out of pocket except for catastrophic. Therefore an inidividual can hold private insurance that will prevent bankruptcy (just like car, house, etc). In the end though, ANY plan has to force health costs to be transparent and actual.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
People that are very poor our out of a job would be means tested and get as low as a $500 deductible.
I don't understand this sentence.

I also don't think it's feasible for many employers to be forced to provide a minimum policy. I'm with shelgarr on this one - leave the employer out of it.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
I don't understand this sentence.
The same as medicaid now except instead of offering services for free, the patient would need to meet the first $500 of the bill.

I also don't think it's feasible for many employers to be forced to provide a minimum policy. I'm with shelgarr on this one - leave the employer out of it.
I've seen the numbers on this and it makes sense, but I can't find it now to save my life. It may not be the employers that cover the cost and may come elsewhere. I will find it one day.
 

Unity

Living in Ikoria
Staff member
The same as medicaid now except instead of offering services for free, the patient would need to meet the first $500 of the bill.
First, keep in mind that Medicaid recipients have often been paying into the system before needing it.

Second, regarding the plan for those in poverty, it's just unrealistic...$500 is a lot of money for the person needing to go on Medicaid in the current system. There are single mothers working jobs and when looking at that cash amount taking care of kids, buying medicine, paying bills, paying rent, etc. it's just a ton of money. How would you define "very poor?"

And (let's assume that they can meet the deductible, which I'm assuming is a yearly deal...right?): what if they're chronically ill? Needing hospitalization after hospitalization, surgery after surgery, and a pile of medications? What do these HSAs say about the current state of copayments?

Also, about this quote in your solutions section:

Healthcare is a right and all people deserve to be able to see a doctor.
Done.
This doesn't cover the idea of the disabled, severely mental ill, severely physically ill, individuals in hospice, etc. Does your plan keep Medicare in place, MiT?
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
I have here, right in front of me, a $244.00 CAD cheque from Manitoba Public Insurance, which is our sinister communist government-run car insurance firm. It's a proportion of the vehicle insurance I've paid over the last little while; my parents, and many other Manitobans, actually recieved over $800.00. The reason I have this cheque is because it was recently determined that the government was overcharging on their premiums, and MPI income was not matching their expenditure, to a total surplus of about $300 million.

Unfair premiums? Yes. But on the other hand, they refunded all of the money. No profit-driven insurance company in the universe would ever do the same. "It seems we've accidentally made too much profit this year. What should we do with all this excess money? (a) Refund it, (b) Disperse it amongst employees as a Christmas bonus, or (c) Pocket it amongst ourselves? Hmmm, tough call."

Which brings me to my point; one of the fundamental things I've always found disturbing about this debate was the shifting of reliance for stuff like this from government to profit-driven corporations. Car insurance isn't exactly an analogue, and if anything should be privatized, it should be that as opposed to healthcare, but I still think it adequately elucidates the point: Compared to the corporation, at least the government is only out to screw our lives over some of the time.
 
Last edited:

shelgarr

Registered Member
I have here, right in front of me, a $244.00 CAD cheque from Manitoba Public Insurance, which is our sinister communist government-run car insurance firm. It's a proportion of the vehicle insurance I've paid over the last little while; my parents, and many other Manitobans, actually recieved over $800.00. The reason I have this cheque is because it was recently determined that the government was overcharging on their premiums, and MPI income was not matching their expenditure, to a total surplus of about $300 million.

Unfair premiums? Yes. But on the other hand, they refunded all of the money. No profit-driven insurance company in the universe would ever do the same. "It seems we've accidentally made too much profit this year. What should we do with all this excess money? (a) Refund it, (b) Disperse it amongst employees as a Christmas bonus, or (c) Pocket it amongst ourselves? Hmmm, tough call."

Which brings me to my point; one of the fundamental things I've always found disturbing about this debate was the shifting of reliance for stuff like this from government to profit-driven corporations. Car insurance isn't exactly an analogue, and if anything should be privatized, it should be that as opposed to healthcare, but I still think it adequately elucidates the point: Compared to the corporation, at least the government is only out to screw our lives over some of the time.

Because I can CHOOSE which company I want to use. Car insurance has a wide market of providers. We have all sorts of premium levels and service levels. As demand goes up to supply for varying types of consumers we have seen an increase of options. Some may make big profits, some medium, some none. As long as it suits my needs, I don't care. If things become increasingly consolidated, our choices will fade.
 
Top