ObamaCare and Bankruptcy

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

I thought the poor already have a solution with Medicare or Medicaid. Or are you suggesting that solution isn't adequate?

No it is not because Medicare sets cost ceilings for types of treatment. When many doctors and hospitals find that those 'ceilings' don't match their obscene wishes they refuse/reject medicare patients. BTDT

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by whell

Correlation without causation. There was NOTHING in 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013 that was going in with the ACA that would have been a driver for the reduction of bankruptcies. On the other hand, there was a modest economic recovery underway, which was far more likely to account for improving personal finances.

Nice try, though.

I kind of have to agree with Whell on this one. There may be an actual link, but if so it is not known or how much effect it had on bankruptcies. Of course this is MY intuitive guess. But, I really think Whell is correct on this. The economic recovery from the 2008 crash is far more likely the cause.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Its not about me being dense. Its about you failing to understand math. Since most folks are purchasing these plans via their employer under a Sec 125 plan, calculate the "savings" difference:

Scenario 1 - traditional health plan participant (unable to fund an HSA). Plan full premium family coverage is $1500 per month, employer picks up 60%, so employee pays $600 per month.

Scenario 2 = HDHP plan with a $900 per month full premium for family coverage. Employer picks up 60%, so employee pays $360 per month. The employee takes the "savings" - what they're not spending on premium - and funds their HSA with it ($240, or $2880 over 12 months).

In this scenario - which is pretty common - there is no net "current" tax savings ("benefit") for the employee. Even if the employee diverts additional pre-tax income to the HSA, their "current" tax savings, the incremental gain isn't huge. There's also a limit - a maximum family HSA contribution this year is $6750. Even if the employee maxed out their HSA contribution and did the full $6750, the tax benefit (assuming a 20% effective federal tax rate) is only $774 for the whole year compared to Scenario 2. BIG F'ING DEAL!

Oh, and the owners of the company can't take advantage of any pre-tax savings if they're in a partnership or are taxed as 2% or more S-Corp owners.

So, if please point out for me where this "giant tax break for the rich" is in this scenario?

Your verbal diarrhea does nothing to change the fact that people in higher tax brackets benefit more from tax breaks afforded by HCA's than people in lower tax brackets.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Your verbal diarrhea does nothing to change the fact that people in higher tax brackets benefit more from tax breaks afforded by HCA's than people in lower tax brackets.

What's an HCA? I'm talking about Hsa's. And you still don't understand basic math. How sad. Or maybe it's sad that you'd begrudge someone a stinking $75 bucks a month.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

What's an HCA? I'm talking about Hsa's. And you still don't understand basic math. How sad. Or maybe it's sad that you'd begrudge someone a stinking $75 bucks a month.

HSA. FWIW, I'm quite certain my math skills are far superior to your logic skills or understanding of when you're being conned. FWIW, I begrudge nobody anything. However, HSA's aren't the panacea for our health care system. In fact, they're hardly relevant other than they offer tax breaks for those with enough money to sock money into them. I suppose this is consistent, however, with the GOP's intent to use their repeal of Obamacare as a mechanism to finance a massive tax cut for the wealthy.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

HSA. FWIW, I'm quite certain my math skills are far superior to your logic skills or understanding of when you're being conned.

Right, Finn. I know how much you like to remind folks about your superiority.

Originally Posted by finnbow

FWIW, I begrudge nobody anything. However, HSA's aren't the panacea for our health care system. In fact, they're hardly relevant other than they offer tax breaks for those with enough money to sock money into them. I suppose this is consistent, however, with the GOP's intent to use their repeal of Obamacare as a mechanism to finance a massive tax cut for the wealthy.

Your superior understanding of the health system, of course, leads you to this conclusion. Well, since you're convinced I'm being conned, do tell me what your proposed solution is. You must have a factual basis for your conclusions. Therefore, you must have solutions that you believe are superior. Please describe them here.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

However, HSA's aren't the panacea for our health care system. In fact, they're hardly relevant other than they offer tax breaks for those with enough money to sock money into them.

You continue to miss the point here, and I'm convinced you're missing it purposefully. The tax benefits of an HSA are never fully realized until the money placed into an HSA is spent. The tax "benefit" is the ability to purchase health care at a discount that is in line with the individual's effective tax rate.

One way to look at this, of course, is to use the liberal lie that "the rich don't pay their fair share" of taxes. That rich guy Barack Obama paid a Federal effective tax rate of 18.7%. If they'd had an HSA account and put in the full $6750, they'd have saved $1262.25 in taxes. But they typically would save this amount ONLY if they spent it on health care costs.n If they spent the money on anything else, the tax savings are forfeit, including the risk of an additional penalty tax. I really don't think $1262 in a year is a major tax savings for the rich?

The average Federal effective tax rate for someone the average Joe is probably closer to 17%. For that person, the savings would be $1147.50. Frankly, for someone earning less than $250K per year, that's real money, and a significant help with health care expenses. Even if they put in half that, say $3350, that's a savings of around $570, and still a significant savings. Not sure why you'd think that kind of money isn't "relevant."

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You continue to miss the point here, and I'm convinced you're missing it purposefully. The tax benefits of an HSA are never fully realized until the money placed into an HSA is spent. The tax "benefit" is the ability to purchase health care at a discount that is in line with the individual's effective tax rate.

Nope. Your tax savings are based upon your marginal tax rate and not your effective tax rate, Mr. Math. In other words, a rich person will save 39.6% and a poor person will save 10% (if they're even able to sock away any many).

HSAs provide tax incentives for Americans to put aside money to cover future health care costs. But benefiting from an HSA requires an individual to be able to save in the first place. The principal beneficiaries are wealthy Americans who save at much higher rates and who are able to max out tax-free HSA contributions by saving a small percentage of their incomes. A family making $214,000 a year would only have to save 6 percent of their income to max out their HSA, while a family making $44,000 a year would have to save 30 percent. For most Americans, HSAs would do little to help them afford the health care they need.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/in...not-the-answer

Moreover, only 47% of Americans say that they would be able to afford a one-time $400 emergency expense of any type. How they hell are they supposed to afford an HSA to the extent that they would benefit the same as wealthy folks?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...xpense/446454/

Give it a rest, Whell. You have no idea what you're talking about and have let ideology get in the way of common sense.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Nope. The tax savings are calculated with your marginal tax rate, Mr. Math.

HSAs provide tax incentives for Americans to put aside money to cover future health care costs. But benefiting from an HSA requires an individual to be able to save in the first place. The principal beneficiaries are wealthy Americans who save at much higher rates and who are able to max out tax-free HSA contributions by saving a small percentage of their incomes. A family making $214,000 a year would only have to save 6 percent of their income to max out their HSA, while a family making $44,000 a year would have to save 30 percent. For most Americans, HSAs would do little to help them afford the health care they need.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/in...not-the-answer

Moreover, only 47% of Americans say that they would be able to afford a one-time $400 emergency expense of any type. How they hell are they supposed to afford an HSA to the extent that they would benefit the same as wealthy folks?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...xpense/446454/

Give it a rest, Whell. You have no idea what you're talking about and have let ideology get in the way of common sense.

Uh, no. You're still getting it wrong. And pulling quotes from a Democrat Senator's web site - particularly one who is an advocate for a single payer system - doesn't help you. Your Atlantic quote points out a symptom but not the cause.

You don't offer any alternatives. Your best argument so far is to tell me I'm biased, yet you post from Dem web sites (odd behavior for someone who steadfastly claims he's not a Dem ). You're a stitch, but so far you've offered little that's productive to the discussion.

Oh, and yes, you're correct - the calcs / numbers I provided were based on marginals. So, the numbers are correct. You've still not responded to the central question about why someone would not consider this savings - which again can only be realized when spent on health care - is somehow a benefit that is exclusively for the rich.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Uh, no. You're still getting it wrong. And pulling quotes from a Democrat Senator's web site - particularly one who is an advocate for a single payer system - doesn't help you. Your Atlantic quote points out a symptom but not the cause.

You don't offer any alternatives. Your best argument so far is to tell me I'm biased, yet you post from Dem web sites (odd behavior for someone who steadfastly claims he's not a Dem ). You're a stitch, but so far you've offered little that's productive to the discussion.

Oh, and yes, you're correct - the calcs / numbers I provided were based on marginals. So, the numbers are correct. You've still not responded to the central question about why someone would not consider this savings - which again can only be realized when spent on health care - is somehow a benefit that is exclusively for the rich.

Forget it, you're proven wrong and still insist you're right. How on earth can ~50% of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck and have no savings save enough with an HSA to realize any meaningful tax savings? Answer: They can't, and even if they could, they'd save at 10% rather than 39.6%. I'm done with this pointless back-and-forth.