The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
The Brand Spankin' New ACA and Health Care Thread!
ElJeffe
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Registered User, ClubPA regular
This is where you can discuss health care and the ACA and doctors and stuff. It is not a place for discussion that is not one of these things, so kindly remain on topic.
Robot Santa, feel free to exercise your power of nice-making should the fleshies become troublesome.
Robot Santa, feel free to exercise your power of nice-making should the fleshies become troublesome.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Posts
I'm asking because for the first time my employer is offering an HDHP/HSA plan, and so far I like it. It would be a shame if Obamacare took that away from me after only one year.
There's a lot of concern within the insurance industry that HDHPs won't be able to meet the MLR requirement. However, the Department of Health & Human Services has some wiggle room regarding how the MLR is calculated, and there are industry groups actively working with HHS to amend the requirements to fit HDHPs.
The most common proposal I've seen is to include patient expenditures through a tied HSA in the MLR, which would pretty much fix* the problem.
If DHHS can't figure something out to change the requirements within the confines of the law, then yeah HDHPs will go extinct.
* - This assumes that salvaging HDHP/HSAs is a "fix" which is a bit controversial, but the White House seems to support HDHPs and I think DHHS is motivated to keep them around.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
However, this means that Anthem would risk running afoul of the law if they offered too many HDHPs, and it would take multiple high-utilization PPOs to balance out even one HDHP. So Anthem would be stuck between a rock and a hard place: deincentivize HDHPs (which insurance companies find desirable) or incentivize highly-utilized PPOs.
But Anthem can't just raise premiums on HDHPs, because that would screw their MLR. They'd have to increase coverage levels on the HDHPs, or lower deductibles and increase coverage on their PPOs.
Naturally, the insurance companies are not happy about this state of affairs.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
They said we'd have impersonal Death Panels and I, I didn't believe them.
Now they're here and....and they're Jolly!
I hated my FSA when I had one. Turrible.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Oh shit, it's the end of the calendar year and I still have $800 in my FSA. I guess I'll buy a few cases of Robotussin and make it a Christmas to remember!
Stock up on sudafed and make some meth.
Sorry, your Robotussin is not a covered item because the receipt doesn't actually say "FSA" next to it
You now owe your FSA company $800
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
but you can't use it because you owe the bank money
hope you resolve this before december 31! gl hf
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Argh!
Goddamn it. Let me put aside a lil pre-tax monies while Im young and healthy so that I don't immediately fall into medical bankruptcy when shit goes down.
Seems like it was mostly an appeals ruling of "since this is law, we have to hear this now", rather than on any merit.
Mine is amazing and I love it to death. Pretty unhappy it'll be capped next year, even though the resulting tax increase turns out to be probably less than $100 for me.
Much higher for others though.
It makes no sense for practically everyone else.
I used the wrong term. The 80% MLR is already in effect and is distributed across the company just as you say. I'm talking about the minimum 60% of expenses being covered by a 'Bronze' plan, 70% by a 'Silver plan, etc that kicks in in 2014. Whatever that 60% is called. Actuarial value?
But it sounds like that'll depend on the same rule, whether HSA contributions will be allowed to count towards it.
I had been purchasing these things through Walgreens using the FSA debit card, which they said would simplify the claims. Obviously it didn't.
I sent in (some of) the receipts but they were rejected because they didn't actually say "FSA" on the receipt. Apparently saying "rx" and "tylenol" on the receipts wasn't good enough.
Not only did I have to reimburse the FSA from my own damn money, but they re-credited the money I'd spent on "ineligible" purchases back to the FSA... in November, which meant I effectively lost it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I assume it has to do with the fact that your "savings account" is not an actual account with actual money in it, but rather some accounting practice that lets them properly anticipate potential expenditures. UIOLI then keeps them from being suddenly tapped for $Texas because a bunch of people who had racked up huge savings suddenly get cancer, or something.
I don't think this necessarily justifies the practice - practically speaking, this probably is not a thing that happens enough to really impact them, as opposed to, say, vacation days at work - but I'm guessing there is an actual reason that makes some kind of vague sense.
Yeah, my answer is still more or less the same. Depends on what DHHS does.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Why is it bad again? Because that seems like a good group of people to help out.
Also @Deebaser you should definitely do it now if you're going to do it. Starting with the plan year after this one, you won't be able to put more than $2500 in your FSA.
Why not set up some kind of bank account where a full year's worth of copays are there.
And then, when the year ends, keep it there. Perhaps earn interest on it. Maybe call this a savings account. Let's add in some tax deferment benefits so people can use it pre-tax.
Read Feral's story.
They suck for some people.
I don't see the problem in saying "Having access to it if you need it is good, if you don't have a chronic illness they're dumb."
I don't have car insurance right now because I don't have a car, either.
I'm not wild about encouraging a system in which people need to save up to afford a medical procedure. So whatever the rationale for slowly killing it, I'm not too sad to see it go.
That said, I'm a dirty hippie who supports single-payer and thinks that people are shitty at cost-benefit analyses as regards health care.
Not unless employers magically turn their businesses into church affiliated organizations.
chick-fil-a isn't going to get the same kind of clearance as the First Baptist Church.
You can get entirely mostly the same benefit from an HSA with an employer contribution, without the use-it-or-lose-it provision.
Edit: there are some things you can buy with an FSA that you can't buy with an HSA, like glasses.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
FYI, I see what you did thar.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Hell, Im all for doubling that for married single income peeps like the spoolster.
Robot Santa, please change the name of the thread to reflect the evolving rhetoric surrounding the issue.
...oh it doesn't work like that?
The thing about an FSA that I like is that the full yearly value is 100% available on the first day of the plan year. Deebaser can go get his $4000 implant on January 1, even though it'll take him a year of paychecks to cover the amount.
Is this also true for the HSA?