Obama Allowing States to Opt Out

[Winter_123]

The penalty stuff will eventually erode away. Too much heat from the courts, the states and the public.

Instead, Obama will revert back to what he does best: Hand out goodies and free stuff. If your state does not come up with a plan then it will need to deal with its citizens who ask how come premiums are going up and other states are getting goodies and they are not.

Not saying this is a good plan. Just saying that we are still headed where we were always headed which is that the mandate/penalty stuff is nothing but heartburn for Obama and he knows it now. So......it is all carrot and stick stuff to arrive at the same point. Remember our earlier discussions from earlier years where I would point out that Obama would eventually arrive at the "oh you don't want a seatbelt law. Fine, no highway funds for your state then" strategy. That is where he is headed.

Lots of pitfalls along the way on that road too. Most notably that he has to get the goodies to hand out from congress in order to play the candy man role. He had a shot at that the first time around but he bet on a different horse. Not sure you can just back now and try to play it differently.

Ahhh. who the frig knows. The nature of a mess is that it is a mess but that seems to be the direction he is flailing in.

 

[pahealthquotes]

How in the world is guarantee issue going to work without
the individual mandate.

Are states going to tell the insurance companies that nobody can be denied coverage? Are states going to punish those who dont purchase health insurance? You cant have one without the other.

 

[Winter_123]

You cant have one without the other.

Sure you can. Maine has guaranteed issue without mandate. Unfortunately the Maine system is totally expensive and broke but nevermind. Obama took one look at it and has consistently said: "That's just what I want for entire country. It may not be working in Maine but I am special so it will work nationwide if everyone cheers loud enough when I tell them about it." Kind of hard to argue with a guy who parts the Red Sea and tells his base that he is "going to heal the planet." We don't have anyone in Maine who can heal the planet. We don't even have a government that can pay its bills. Fortunately the feds have Obama-money to hand out.

 

[pahealthquotes]

NJ is also a G-Issue state and the rates are horrendous. I thought this reform was about AFFORDABLE health care for all. Guess not.

 

[Yagents]

WSJ thoughts. Too bad the dems don't like HSA's, the solution to bringing costs down. Idiots. Free this, free that....freedom bye bye

Review & Outlook: Obama's Health Waiver Gambit - WSJ.com

 

[somarco]

HSA = personal responsibility.

No room for that in the new world order.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

States like Massachusetts are barely hanging on and trying to control costs, not by going after utilization, but going after how providers get paid.

They want to move towards a "global" payment system where providers get a flat fee regardless of how many tests and procedures they perform. Problem with that if you can't enact that kind of system without addresses the doctor's liability: "My doctor didn't recommend a test that could have saved Johnny's life so we're suing for 20 million." A system like that means tort reform.

They're also after hospitals that charges carriers more yet the MA AG's office found that care in those "elite" hospitals was no better than care anywhere else. They are moving to a method of payment where all providers - including hospitals are reimbursed the same amount.

This, of course, it just pressing down on one end of the balloon.

 

[AndreaSti]

HSA = personal responsibility.

No room for that in the new world order.

You know why that is (tax tax tax)!

I have a question, since you are the smartest most intelligent poster here (kissup). Can you re-fund your HSA account if you are involved in an accident which is repaid by the person who's fault it was AFTER you have paid your doc bills? Explanation - we have a client who was run over by a car. Is alive, but has bills before the claim can be settled. In the meantime, the client is getting billed for hospital, docs, and drugs up to the deductible. The claim is paid, but the HSA fund is depleted since he didn't have any money when the bills were due. After the settlement, the client gets a chunk of cash, and even his health insurance company even gets reimbursed. My question is, can he put the money back that he took out without incurring overfunding, or is the fund just SOL? Not a big deal since he got the cash anyway (tax free thank you) but I was just wondering what the answer was. I think he is afraid he will spend the money if it is just sitting around and won't have it for later (IF there is a later for HSAs).

 

[somarco]

I have a question, since you are the smartest most intelligent poster here

That is redundant, but proceed . . .

Can you re-fund your HSA account if you are involved in an accident which is repaid by the person who's fault it was AFTER you have paid your doc bills?

Nope.

Treasury limits how much you can deposit each year, regardless of how much you pull out.

However your scenario raises a question about the proceeds possibly being taxable.

HSA funds are supposed to be used to cover UNREIMBURSED medical (dental, vision) expenses. Since these expenses were EVENTUALLY reimbursed, chance that money is taxable.

That is a tax question, not insurance.

While it is true I know everything there is to know about health insurance, Arnguy is the tax guru.

 

[AndreaSti]

That is redundant, but proceed . . .



Nope.

Treasury limits how much you can deposit each year, regardless of how much you pull out.

However your scenario raises a question about the proceeds possibly being taxable.

HSA funds are supposed to be used to cover UNREIMBURSED medical (dental, vision) expenses. Since these expenses were EVENTUALLY reimbursed, chance that money is taxable.

That is a tax question, not insurance.

While it is true I know everything there is to know about health insurance, Arnguy is the tax guru.

Don't think the client had the funds anywhere else to pull from. Sounds like his docs etc weren't interested in getting paid later (AFTER settlement). I guess what's done is done on this one. It was in 2010. Plus, when he paid the bills I don't think the reimbursement was guaranteed. But again, it was reimbursed whether that was guaranteed or not.