Posted on 04/08/2006 12:31:47 PM PDT by UnklGene
You're talking about Health Savings Accounts (HSA's). They do exist, and GWB would like to extend their availability to more of us. (I wish he could!)
The way they work is that you buy a catastrophic care policy (the amount where they start to pay - say, $5,000 or $10,000 is up to you). The price is cheap.
And you get to save something like $5,000/yr. tax free to spend on medical care.
People will shop around for care, and will be judicious in their use of medical care if it's their own money. That's just human nature.
And the versions of HSA's that let you keep the money you don't spend in one year to cover costs in following years make it even better. After a healthy year or two, you can increase your deductible, pay less for the policy, and still be covered if you have a real problem.
I can't imagine why people aren't pushing hard to get HSA's for all of us.
Because most people pay very little for gold plated insurance through there employer. Why get an HSA and a $5,000.00 Deductible when family coverage only costs you $3,000.00 per year through your employer and maybe an additional $1,000.00 in small co pays. People just don't realize really how expensive there insurance is. If they were to get an HSA and catastrophic policy on there own most employers would give an extra 10% in salary to there employee's in which would pay the small premium for the policy and probably leave a few thousand to stick into the HSA every year.
Bush and congress could make them more appealing by eliminating caps on contributions and maybe a tax credit to low income individuals if they open an HSA.
You are so right. Our biggest problem is that many Americans are just not informed. I have no idea how to fix that problem.
btt
The hospitals I've worked for only charge a self-insured patient the same as they would be reimbursed from an insurance company (usually Medicare rates). If they are to be reimbursed $1200 from Medicare, that is the rate the self-insured/self-paying is billed. I'm sure every hospital system may be different, but it may be helpful to check with the hospital prior to receiving services if possible.
"I'm not sure what the insurance actually pays him though; perhaps also $200. The $600 difference in the actual charge is so interesting though."
The difference is probably due to the many different insurance plans the physician is enrolled in and covers all possible payments.
I'm not sure what the insurance actually pays him though; perhaps also $200. The $600 difference in the actual charge is so interesting though.
While doing my taxes, I had the chance to check over some medical bills. I had arthroscopic knee surgury, and the bill was a bit over $3000 for the surgeon. The "write off" was about $2200, and the surgeon was paid about $800 by the insurance company.
Mark
For a single it is $140.00 per month, which includes prescription drug coverage. That is what my son pays.
Is he self insured, or is that through a group policy where he works? When I was employed by a previous employer, I had a similar insurance payment, which was subsidized by my employer. When they let me go, I was able to keep the same coverage through COBRA, but had to pay the full $560 a month premium. Many people who have insurance have never had to price it for themselves, and don't realize just how expensive it can be.
Mark
Catastrophic coverage is true medical insurance. Unfortunately what many people call "health insurance" is really a health maintainance payment plan. The idea of having a catastrophic plan plus setting aside a separate account for periodic medical costs is a good one, and doesn't need a law for people to do it. The law would provide tax incentives, which would certainly encourage the behavior. The problem with tax incentives, like the one's employers have had since WWII, is that it encourages more money to flow into health care. This is one of the reasons (in addition to 3rd party payers and increasing demand) that health care costs inflate.
Ideally, health care would be treated like any other commodity. People would leverage risk with catastrophic insurance, and shop around for more routine health services which they would pay out of pocket.
Putting healthcare squarely back into the market economy could be a natural result of replacing the income tax with a simple consumption tax. The initial result of dropping tax deductions would be that health care would be more difficult to afford. Over time, however, healthcare inflation would decrease and a market balance would be achieved. Out-of-pocket payments would be more affordable.
Ironically, the most likely healthcare reform is nationalized care. This would hugely amplify the third party payer inflation problem. It would also simultaneously amplify the inflation currently associated with tax deductions, by completely severing all choice in how the income is channelled. On top of that, it establishes a coercive monopoly--wiping out all competition in third party payers. Demand would skyrocket, and the eventual cost-cutting measures would cut supply of phyicians and other healthcare goods and services. It is the worst conceivable "cure" for rising healthcare costs, as has been demonstrated everywhere it has been tried. In fact, it is an idealized model for healthcare cost inflation in this country.
Anyone interested in the topic can find more at:
http://www.hospitalpricegouging.org/main.html
I have personal knowledge of an incident where a self-insured patient was billed more than $50,000 for a heart stent procedure that took about 15 minutes ... and would have been billed to an insurance company at $10-15,000. It was non-negotiable and the hospital, the major hospital in the particular area, would not accept anything other than full and immediate payment.
Not likely. Stossel produces pieces that are popular with the audience. Most Americans today are more interested in gov't based medical care than in making their own choices. That's why there's so much fuss about the Medicare drug coverage - it's making people choose private plans instead of having a "one plan fits all" gov't solution.
No, Americans want what they *think* Canadian style health care is. They mostly don't know about the long waiting lines (Canadians can wait 6 mos. or more for procedures we'd get within a week); or that people as young as their 60's can be declared "too old" for expensive care; or that Canadians with money are spending a lot of it in medical clinics on our side of the border.
If you really want to turn your health care costs over to someone else (be it gov't, your employer, an HMO, etc.) they will be the ones deciding what care you get.
If you want to make your own health care decisions, you have to also be responsible for the costs.
Why is that so hard for people to comprehend?
The 800 bill is customarily "bartered" down to something near where the doctor can still make money. The rest of the "unbillable" is written off as a loss....makes the taxes the doctor/hospital owe at the end of the year less.......
It's not that people are gullible. They are badly informed. The MSM is still most people's source of information, and they have a liberal agenda to push. Even the Internet isn't a complete help, because some people use it to read major newspapers like the NYT and the WaPost.
This is just one issue of many where the MSM basically lies to their readers/viewers.
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.