Posted on 02/28/2006 6:36:48 AM PST by kiryandil
Heads up, Americans. The Bush administration is now greasing the skids for employers to drop your health coverage. This is a biggie.
Radical change was not the headline when the president unfurled his latest proposals for health savings accounts. It was presented mainly as a sensible-sounding way for people without medical insurance to buy it with pre-tax dollars, the same way companies do.
George Bush's new HSA is actually a rocket-powered tax shelter dressed up as a sweet little program to help the uninsured. It would also undermine the traditional health coverage now offered by employers. (More on that in a minute.) And in case anyone still cares about deficits, it would cost the Treasury $156 billion in lost tax revenues over 10 years more than wiping out any savings Bush hopes to achieve with his cuts in projected Medicare spending.
An HSA lets people put pre-tax earnings into a tax-advantaged account to be tapped for medical expenses. They must also buy a high-deductible health insurance policy to pay for big-ticket medical needs.
Bush's HSA proposal is a wedding cake of tax credits piled on top of tax deductions. And unprecedented in the annals of tax breaks, this one would tax neither the earnings going into the accounts nor the withdrawals coming out. This is unlike 401(k) plans, where people contribute pre-tax dollars into accounts but pay taxes on the money they withdraw.
If you thought that the people most in need of help buying health coverage were the working poor, you haven't been hanging around administration circles. The Bush plan would raise the amount that could be contributed into an HSA to $10,000 a year, a sum even most middle-class families don't have lying around.
"This is not about health care anymore," notes Jason Furman, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "It's an excuse for allowing people to put $10,000 away tax-free."
The center figures that for a family making $180,000, a $1,000 contribution into an HSA would reap a $433 tax subsidy. If that family makes $15,000, the subsidy would total only $153.
Demonically, the Bush proposal gives employers new reasons not to offer traditional health coverage, or any medical benefits at all. Indeed, the new health savings accounts could do to the traditional health plan what the 401(k) plan did to the traditional pension: Kill it off.
Like 401(k)s, the proposed HSAs could save money for employers while transferring the cost and risk of providing what was once an expected benefit onto the workers. The move from traditional pensions to 401(k) plans has already amounted to a major hidden pay cut for millions of American workers.
Under the Bush plan, small businesses would have new reasons not to offer employees coverage. Big companies can still get good deals by buying insurance in bulk. But because the Bush plan would end the tax advantages of purchasing employer-based coverage over buying insurance in the individual market, small businesses might just opt out of the whole health-benefit thing. The boss and other top-earning people, meanwhile, could retreat to their own HSA tax shelters.
Health savings accounts would be most attractive to the healthy and wealthy, drawing this group out of traditional coverage. That would leave the sick and poor in the higher-cost insurance plans, which would then sink.
So the Bush proposal would actually cause more Americans to lose coverage than to gain it. In 2004, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber computed the numbers on the basis of a health-savings-account proposal that was far more modest than Bush's. He figured that adding a tax deduction for buying high-deductible health insurance to the tax-advantaged HSA would result in 1.1 million currently uninsured people obtaining coverage. These would be mostly the richer folks who are uninsured for some reason and who make enough money to fully enjoy the tax breaks. But the changes would lead to 1.4 million people losing their employer coverage. Guess who they would be.
Just what the American people need: fewer safety nets and bigger federal deficits. Americans would do well to go Code Red on this new potential threat to their economic security, or what's left of it.
Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is fharrop@projo.com
2006, The Providence Journal Co.
How is a program that takes the burden off of the government and puts it on the individual going to cost the government?
That statement alone tells you it's a commie, left-wing hit piece designed to scare people by telling them that Uncle Sugar isn't taking care of them by keeping them pinned down under Big Brother's thumb.
Is it because "the money" would be leaving the hands of big government?
Great post! Thanks, mek!
Well, that is where the law needs to change.
"Is an HSA Right for You?" Wall Street Journal Sarah Rubenstein February 02, 2006
http://www.healthdecisions.org/HSA/News/default.aspx?doc_id=50054
Isn't that remarkable spin? I have never seen that word used as an adverb before.
Yeah, but he's one of the stupid demons... ;-)
Anyone who's had a catastrophic illness knows that something needs to be done about healthcare costs. You can't blame the insurance companies for not wanting to pay for everything they're charged for and by the same token you can't blame the pharmaceutical companies for expecting a profit after spending 10's of millions to get a new drug to market. But fer crying out loud, some of these charges are outrageous. I was diagnosed with cancer last April and since then I've racked up about $80,000 in medical expenses. I'm able to get the treatment I need because I've got adequate insurance. Thank God and my bosses. I really feel for the small business owner just barely making it who's not adequately insured. If he were in my shoes his life expectancy could be measured in weeks or months. But at the same time I don't want the government subsidizing the industry anymore than they already do.
Yeah, they have to get rid of the "Use It or Lose It" clause. Unfortunately, this issue is just to hard for most people to grok. I have trouble getting my arms around it myself.
And it's going to get a lot worse as time goes on because the aging of the baby boom generation is going to increase the demand for healthcare exponentially, while our government continues to clamp down on the supply of healthcare in the mistaken belief that too much supply is the problem.
I see, said the blind man.
I am amazed at some of the uninformed comments on this. Just goes to show how entrenched managed care is in our society and it will take a lot to rip it out. It hasn't been good and will eventually collapse the healthcare system.
And that is a good thing, being truthful here, not sarcastic.
I agree with you, but the costs are artificially pumped up partially because of Managed Care, but, IMO, mostly because of Medicare. I cannot fathom how ordinary people can save enough to pay for $350 prescriptions or indefinite care like PT. I'll say this, the costs of drugs and copayments are starting to make me self-ration my healthcare. I just can't afford it all, so I have some things that insurance would help pay for but I'm just going to have to live with, at least for now.
Don't ya know, its your fault for getting sick!
The author of this piece got one thing right: the Federal Gov't, at the behest of its master Big Business, will be dumping health insurance onto the taxpayers.
Max pre-tax contribution = yer deductible - So, not like a IRA/401k i.e. not every year
Crappy return rate & lots of fees for the HSA admins. here
I was wondering just now how many high schools offer courses on health care options? How many colleges mandate that you take at least one term of health care planning?
All they are doing is telling the person who goes to the doctor is that they would need to pay for it and decide, no one, no "bureaucrat" is telling them not to. That is a jump on your part about this program.
The use it or lose it aspect of the Flex Plan was inserted by Mr Chappaquidick himself. The purpose was to kill the Flex Plan because dems hate it when people get to spend their own money.
I find they are still pretty useful. It's not too hard to make a conservative estimate of expected medical expenses that won't be covered by insurance. It's a nice tax deduction.
Right. I was reading a Leftie's piece on the AMT that said that indexing it for inflation would "cost" the government X billions of dollars. Hunh?
Guess Teddy, John Effing and Hillary! have already got THAT money in the government bank...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.