ObamaCare and Bankruptcy

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by merrylander

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-for-rich.html.

Warren Buffett, the Oracle of Omaha, is one of the few honest capitalists left in this country.

[bobabode]

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?

Dodging as usual. You've seen what the Republicon plan does to Medicaid i.e. gut it.

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Dodging as usual. You've seen what the Republicon plan does to Medicaid i.e. gut it.

He has medical at work so no need to be concerned.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Dodging as usual. You've seen what the Republicon plan does to Medicaid i.e. gut it.

Uh, no. The real dodge is yours for throwing up a red herring: Medicaid funding has yet to be changed, if it ever does get changed. Yet, HSA's are real and are available to everyone now.

http://khn.org/news/block-grants-medicaid-faq/

Giving the states the money and letting them figure out how to spend it is not "gutting it." Yes, the left is quick to focus on the "potential" risks. One real risk is that the cost inflates to 16% of GDP over time. Not a pleasant alternative.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

HSA's unquestionably offer a tax break, with a greater break going to those in higher tax brackets and zero break going to those with no income tax liability (i.e., the poor).

http://money.usnews.com/money/person...vings-accounts

You do realize, of course, that the "tax benefit" your referring to doesn't actually occur until the funds in the Health Savings Account are spent. It's at that point that the tax benefit is truly meaningful, cause the individual is using pre-tax funds to pay for medical services rather than post tax funds. For everyone - including the "poor" - that's a significant savings.

Also, consider this: most folks in these plans are working for employers who offer health plans - including premium deductions - under section 125 rules. HDHP plans - which one must enroll in to fund an HSA - are less costly than their traditional health plan counterparts. Individuals then trade the "tax benefit" of higher premium deductions for the "tax benefit" of HSA deductions. In other words, for most folks who move from a traditional health plan to an HDHP, there is minimal "current" tax benefit.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You do realize, of course, that the "tax benefit" your referring to doesn't actually occur until the funds in the Health Savings Account are spent. It's at that point that the tax benefit is truly meaningful, cause the individual is using pre-tax funds to pay for medical services rather than post tax funds. For everyone - including the "poor" - that's a significant savings.

Just how dense are you? The higher your tax bracket (i.e., the higher your income), the greater your tax savings via an HSA.

[Oerets]

You have to have extra money in order to save, RIGHT? The better off benefit period!

Does one really want fifty one or more different delivery systems for healthcare in this country? I happen to live in an area where two states border. With two different coverage's, now some can't cross state lines to see the best medical care.



Barney

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Just how dense are you?

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?

[CarlV]

This pretty much says it all.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by CarlV

This pretty much says it all.

Barbara Rank much wiser person than Rod Blum! She should be the congressperson!