by smb » Fri Nov 07, 2008 05:10 am
I am recently self employed and shopping for family health insurance for myself (38 yo), my wife (35 yo), and my daughter (6 yo), all healthy. We live in the fine State of Oregon.
I have read Paul Zane Pilzer's book: "The New Health Insurance Solution" and was very interested in his discussion and endorsement of Health Savings Account High-Deductible health insurance plans.
However, in researching different types of plans (including HSA plans) on ehealthinsurance.com, many of the estimated premium quotes I am getting on HSA qualified plans are $50-106 more expensive than a comparable non-HSA plan with a roughly equivalent deductible.
Please see this link below for my quote details (it was too involved to place in this post):
tinyurl.com/6la83j
The only reason I can see is perhaps the difference in the annual deductibles. Although they all tout deductibles in the $2200-$2500 range, the non-HSA plans seem to be indicating that is 'per-person' whereas the HSA plans are 'total family' deductibles.
Am I analyzing this correctly? If so, are HSA's still a good 'value'?
Thanks,
SMB
system edited-link deactivated
I have read Paul Zane Pilzer's book: "The New Health Insurance Solution" and was very interested in his discussion and endorsement of Health Savings Account High-Deductible health insurance plans.
However, in researching different types of plans (including HSA plans) on ehealthinsurance.com, many of the estimated premium quotes I am getting on HSA qualified plans are $50-106 more expensive than a comparable non-HSA plan with a roughly equivalent deductible.
Please see this link below for my quote details (it was too involved to place in this post):
tinyurl.com/6la83j
The only reason I can see is perhaps the difference in the annual deductibles. Although they all tout deductibles in the $2200-$2500 range, the non-HSA plans seem to be indicating that is 'per-person' whereas the HSA plans are 'total family' deductibles.
Am I analyzing this correctly? If so, are HSA's still a good 'value'?
Thanks,
SMB
system edited-link deactivated
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 04:53 am Post Subject:
Here is a more cynical explanayion for which I have no proof. The insurance companies know that the consumer wants to use HSA eligible policies in order to save money - the consumer can shift medical expenses from a non-tax deductible to a tax deductible status.
Therefore, insurance companies can "take a cut" of the consumer's savings by charging higher premiums for the same coverage. Sadly, this is exactly how corporate usa works.
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 04:37 pm Post Subject:
insurance companies can "take a cut" of the consumer's savings by charging higher premiums for the same coverage. Sadly, this is exactly how corporate usa works.
Written by someone with no understanding of (a) business in America and (b) the insurance sector specifically.
"Corporate USA" does not "take a cut" of anyone's savings. They operate in a manner that results, in most years, with a net profit. There is no other way to remain in business over the long term. This is the essence of capitalism. In the USA, "consumers" are free to do business with any company of their choice -- no one is forced to do business with anyone, EXCEPT BUSINESSES that are forced to do business with local, state, and federal government bureaucracies and CONSUMERS with "public utilities".
Insurance companies, like all others, are in business to earn a profit -- for their investors or their policyholders. They manage to do this in most years by charging appropriate premiums, paying appropriate claims, and investing their capital resources in (a) an actuarially-sound manner (as required by law) and (b) a prudent manner with regard to their unregulated reserves.
If insurance companies, like any other company, including the Big Oil companies, simply charged whatever they wanted to charge consumers, they would soon find themselves with relatively few customers, little profits, and eventually no longer be in business. That, too, is how capitalism works. It is a "for profit" system, but it is not only about profits. Competition helps to restrain prices. Kellogg's does not charge $10 for a 15-ounce box of cereal because its two main competitors, Post and General Mills, still charge only $3.50 for a similar product.
the consumer can shift medical expenses from a non-tax deductible to a tax deductible status.
This, too, shows a complete lack of knowledge of the US (federal) tax system. Insurance companies did not create HSAs . . . Congress did. Congress also tells us, "You cannot deduct medical expenses unless they exceed 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI)" -- a standard that all but some non-working or retired folks can meet.
So then Congress said, "If you want an HSA (the ability to use pre-tax dollars) to pay for medical expenses, you will also have to purchase a HDHP." And the insurance companies responded with products to meet the need.
Those products are not one-size-fits-all, one-price-for-all. Consumers have a wide choice of plans, and competition restricts wild pricing. But, in insurance, there is also a state-based system of regulation that also prohibits wild pricing.
When Obamacare ultimately forces all consumers to do business with a single-payer system (that necessarily eliminates the state-based regulatory system and replaces it with another sprawling, inefficient, unmanageable federal bureaucracy), the discussion of pricing and competition will be moot. The new discussion will turn to the lack of providers, the long wait for service, and the fact that, "What I need, the government says I don't need, so if I want it, I have to pay for it myself. I sure wish I still had health insurance."
That discussion will be coming sometime after 2014, unless a new Congress and a new President of the US make some changes sooner rather than later . . . because the incumbents have no desire to change the discussion today. All they (the party of the president) want to talk about today is more ways to "raise revenue" to feed their addiction to spending.
That "taking", alcesalces, is what will cause your savings to evaporate. Not insurance premiums.
Less government = more savings. Less government = more profits. Less government = LOWER prices. Less = more.
Demand less from your government, not more.
Add your comment