Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (204234)	9/24/2006 7:50:21 PM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So when Bill Clinton was racking up SURPLUSES why didn't he move on healthcare.

To: bentway who wrote (204234)	9/24/2006 9:46:08 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

One of the ways to tell what's the "best deal" for health care coverage is to look at what the federal government offers to its own employees. Reason being, federal employees are essentially immune from most free-floating policy bullshit in the workplace, and interference from Congress, and they know all the secret little ways the government sets up to save money, plus they've got really powerful lobby groups of their own. After researching this, I discovered that our own family (my husband works for the federal government) would actually be financially better off with a HSA/HDHP. I have rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, so, even though we belong to an HMO, I am out of pocket $2K to $3K a year on copays for doctor visits and drugs, which we can't deduct because our income is too high. We just kiss that money goodbye (along with our HMO premium contributions, which can't be deducted, either.) With an HSA/HDHP, we could deduct everything because the money would go into the HSA before we spend it, so it's like putting the money into an IRA and then taking it right back out, after the tax break. Also, the HDHP premium would less than our HMO premium, which is about $5000 a year. These things are fairly new (2004) so it's no surprise that you haven't heard much about them, nor I, but I think we'll switch next Open Season. BTW -- using the money spent on the military as a comparison isn't terribly persuasive, that's well known for boondoggles.

To: bentway who wrote (204234)	9/24/2006 9:51:54 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

US spends $4 trillion on health care per year. If the government spent that, we'd have to raise federal taxes by about 30%. Whatever you spend on taxes a year, multiply by 1.3. I suspect you spend far less than that on health care per year. But of course, in your imagination, you wouldn't have to pay taxes, we could no doubt just "tax the rich", or else get rid of the military, who needs a military, just offer our enemies tea and cookies, much more cost effective.