Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »One question that should be answered, is an insurance based solution a good methodology for ALL medical costs? If you think about it, home owners insurance, auto insurance, flood insurance, are all based on dealing with unexpected catastrophic events. Maybe another model is needed for more predictable events, such as the savings model like HSAs.
Sure that is were the high deductable plans and HSA's come in. The challenge is the average American family has less than $1,000 in a savings account:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx
Have to get people's mindset to save instead Starbucks everyday, the newest iPhone, etc.
I could skip Starbucks every day for a year (in fact, I guess I did because I never go) and it wouldn't have covered the co-pay we had when my husband accidentally cut his hand last year. We're relatively fortunate with our high deductable plan because we don't use a lot of health care, but it doesn't take much to wipe an account completely out.
Know all about it. Had about $10k out of pocket because the woman that was texting while driving hit my son and busted up his him. Had plenty of money for the damn phone, but not for proper insurance.
The Starbucks is just an example not to be taken literally. The problem with high deductable plans and HSAs it the savings rate in the US is already so low. Some people could increase their savings rate by reducing spending on luxury items like $5 a cup coffee. Some could not.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you don't have it and end up getting care from the emergency room, the rest of us have to pay.
Everything a provider has to write off for people who don't pay and use the ER as their personal doctor raises the prices for people who do pay.
A VP of our company was on the board of a hospital in a rust belt community. He told us the hospital actually collected 30% of the total amount billed.
Can confirm similar stats for the major health care system I work for in Texas.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »One question that should be answered, is an insurance based solution a good methodology for ALL medical costs? If you think about it, home owners insurance, auto insurance, flood insurance, are all based on dealing with unexpected catastrophic events. Maybe another model is needed for more predictable events, such as the savings model like HSAs.
Sure that is were the high deductable plans and HSA's come in. The challenge is the average American family has less than $1,000 in a savings account:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx
Have to get people's mindset to save instead Starbucks everyday, the newest iPhone, etc.
I could skip Starbucks every day for a year (in fact, I guess I did because I never go) and it wouldn't have covered the co-pay we had when my husband accidentally cut his hand last year. We're relatively fortunate with our high deductable plan because we don't use a lot of health care, but it doesn't take much to wipe an account completely out.
The Starbucks is just an example not to be taken literally. The problem with high deductable plans and HSAs it the savings rate in the US is already so low. Some people could increase their savings rate by reducing spending on luxury items like $5 a cup coffee. Some could not.
I'm sorry that I took your example too literally. My point is that skipping little luxuries like Starbucks isn't really the solution to health care costs. My husband and I already save much more than the average American family, including what is in our HSA and one (minor) medical event was still a pretty big expense for us. If it was something major like a significant illness or accident . . . Starbucks or skipping a new phone is going to be the answer.
I'm not saying people shouldn't save money. I think we should and live that value in my own life. But it seems like a savings account is much more useful when it comes to emergencies like car trouble than it is for medical needs. I make all my coffee at home, it isn't going to help me swing chemotherapy bills.10 -
Lol, obviously YOU don't understand how business and economics work. Insurance companies pull of of markets that aren't profitable...that's why Obamacare is failing. Some states have only one option available. Being forced to cover very high risk people at artificially low premiums has resulted in unbalanced risk pools. That is a failing business model...for any insurance provider.
Just to clarify the ACA has failed, not failing. Some states (technically individual markets within states) have zero options. The new proposed plan will have the same inherent risks of Adverse Selection which you describe in your post. It's truly a lose-lose position.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Know all about it. Had about $10k out of pocket because the woman that was texting while driving hit my son and busted up his him. Had plenty of money for the damn phone, but not for proper insurance.
My previous car was totaled when a texting driver rear ended me. I was stopped in traffic, the impact was so hard my car slammed into the one in front of me. Traffic was jammed for a mile ahead of me and it was blatantly obvious the driver wasn't paying attention. He admitted fault on the spot. This was expensive for everybody involved, but nobody was injured.
I was also hit by a car while doing hill repeats on my bike. I spent about 20 hours in the ER and ICU after that, with a $19,000 bill, plus the loss of an $8,000 bike. At least she had insurance.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you don't have it and end up getting care from the emergency room, the rest of us have to pay.
Everything a provider has to write off for people who don't pay and use the ER as their personal doctor raises the prices for people who do pay.
A VP of our company was on the board of a hospital in a rust belt community. He told us the hospital actually collected 30% of the total amount billed.
Can confirm similar stats for the major health care system I work for in Texas.
If you rely on actually collecting 30% of what you bill, and you are a very technology and skilled labor intensive field, you have to bill a lot to keep afloat.4 -
Increasing physical activity among children is a potentially important public health intervention. Quantifying the economic and health effects of the intervention would help decision makers understand its impact and priority. Using a computational simulation model that we developed to represent all US children ages 8–11 years, we estimated that maintaining the current physical activity levels (only 31.9 percent of children get twenty-five minutes of high-calorie-burning physical activity three times a week) would result each year in a net present value of $1.1 trillion in direct medical costs and $1.7 trillion in lost productivity over the course of their lifetimes. If 50 percent of children would exercise, the number of obese and overweight youth would decrease by 4.18 percent, averting $8.1 billion in direct medical costs and $13.8 billion in lost productivity. Increasing the proportion of children who exercised to 75 percent would avert $16.6 billion and $23.6 billion, respectively.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/36/5/9023 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you don't have it and end up getting care from the emergency room, the rest of us have to pay.
Everything a provider has to write off for people who don't pay and use the ER as their personal doctor raises the prices for people who do pay.
A VP of our company was on the board of a hospital in a rust belt community. He told us the hospital actually collected 30% of the total amount billed.
Can confirm similar stats for the major health care system I work for in Texas.
If you rely on actually collecting 30% of what you bill, and you are a very technology and skilled labor intensive field, you have to bill a lot to keep afloat.
Yep, lots of fixed costs. You have to have all that fancy stuff in the hospital in case someone comes in and needs it. Might be anyone needing a particular item for several days or weeks. The person that rolls in and it saves their life will be pretty happy to have it.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »One question that should be answered, is an insurance based solution a good methodology for ALL medical costs? If you think about it, home owners insurance, auto insurance, flood insurance, are all based on dealing with unexpected catastrophic events. Maybe another model is needed for more predictable events, such as the savings model like HSAs.
Sure that is were the high deductable plans and HSA's come in. The challenge is the average American family has less than $1,000 in a savings account:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx
Have to get people's mindset to save instead Starbucks everyday, the newest iPhone, etc.
I'm not assuming it would be tied with a HIGH deductible plan. Also, hopefully this would reduce the overall cost of insurance because of fewer claims for stuff that is not catastrophic, and so the difference would go in the HSA. I would also expect Medicaid to be part insurance, part HSA. Companies already contribute into HSAs now.
Couple that with more price transparency since individuals are paying and seeing the costs.0 -
Somewhat related: My insurance company is offering a discount if you can run a 9-minute mile, or deadlift your weight.
More related: I think this is just inevitable, given all the tracking devices we have and whatnot.
And for those who say it ignores individual variation, well yes, that's how it works. When I was under 25, I paid a hell of a lot more for car insurance, despite being a really safe driver. Because *in general,* males of that age get in lots of accidents. Just as in general, someone carrying around lots of extra mass is at risk for all kinds of health i$$ues.2 -
richardgavel wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »One question that should be answered, is an insurance based solution a good methodology for ALL medical costs? If you think about it, home owners insurance, auto insurance, flood insurance, are all based on dealing with unexpected catastrophic events. Maybe another model is needed for more predictable events, such as the savings model like HSAs.
Sure that is were the high deductable plans and HSA's come in. The challenge is the average American family has less than $1,000 in a savings account:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx
Have to get people's mindset to save instead Starbucks everyday, the newest iPhone, etc.
I'm not assuming it would be tied with a HIGH deductible plan. Also, hopefully this would reduce the overall cost of insurance because of fewer claims for stuff that is not catastrophic, and so the difference would go in the HSA. I would also expect Medicaid to be part insurance, part HSA. Companies already contribute into HSAs now.
Couple that with more price transparency since individuals are paying and seeing the costs.
So are you saying people would self insure for smaller expenses? That is what a high deductible plan is. Maybe I'm not understanding you. Your premiums are lower, but you have to pay for minor things (and/or parts of major things) until you meet your deductible. A HSA may be offered so you could in theory put the premium difference in the HSA so you could pay the expenses up to your deductable. I have what qualifies as a high deductible plan that qualifies for a HSA (not all plans qualify under current rules). The company provided $500 "seed" money but that's their only contribution to the HSA. The company also pays part of the premium.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you don't have it and end up getting care from the emergency room, the rest of us have to pay.
Everything a provider has to write off for people who don't pay and use the ER as their personal doctor raises the prices for people who do pay.
A VP of our company was on the board of a hospital in a rust belt community. He told us the hospital actually collected 30% of the total amount billed.
Can confirm similar stats for the major health care system I work for in Texas.
If you rely on actually collecting 30% of what you bill, and you are a very technology and skilled labor intensive field, you have to bill a lot to keep afloat.
And pay a whole lot of money for a collections department to even get the small percentage you do. There's a lot in health care costs that has nothing to do with either health or care.4 -
richardgavel wrote: »One question that should be answered, is an insurance based solution a good methodology for ALL medical costs? If you think about it, home owners insurance, auto insurance, flood insurance, are all based on dealing with unexpected catastrophic events. Maybe another model is needed for more predictable events, such as the savings model like HSAs.
Health insurance is not a good model for medical costs but neither are HSAs because it links income to ability to pay for health care when the sick and disabled will almost never have the income to pay for health care as fast as they need to. Only the healthy and lucky with above average incomes will see their HSAs grow. I have used an HSA before and I ended up spending more than the limit I could save into it due to the fact that three of us in my family were born with asthma and the fourth was born with a chemical imbalance...so we all four were born with chronic health conditions requiring expensive prescription meds and the occasional ER visit. I remember entire pay checks that went into the HSA to fund our health costs.
Really, the single payer system is the fairest way. Yes, it means healthy people are subsidising my asthmatic wheezing self but shouldn't people who are unhealthy through an accident of birth not be cared for by society? Too, these same healthy people know they may be subsidised if they are unlucky enough to be the victims of an accident in life....actual accident, or cancer, or mental illness, or anything. Too people under these systems value their healthcare highly...yes we gripe and groan about the NHS but it's our way of keeping pressure on the Gov to fund it properly not a sign we don't want it. Just look at the Parliament petitions about not privatising the NHS, increasing funds by £350m per week, pleas that we're willing to pay more tax to keep it going, etc and you'll see the public likes and wants the NHS to be around for future generations. It is also a lot cheaper to cut out the middle man of the insurance company. Any comparison shows that the US healthcare costs are almost triple the UK fir the same drugs, procedures, care, etc.
I know it's probably an impossible feat to do in the US. After all, millions of people in the insurance industry would lose their jobs. As would anyone who does medical billing and coding. Yes this would be savings on healthcare costs making the system very affordable but it would be a huge impact much like when the rust belt lost all the steel mills.
4 -
Here is an article relevant to this thread:
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/us-has-fattest-poor-people-world-why
What I find galling about the "study" is that it tries to make correlations about providing food benefits to the poor and BLAMES them for their poor food choices and their obesity. It's a classic blame the victim piece.
Specifically, many poor people exist in a food desert. If a person doesn't live near fresh food, how are they supposed to get to it, buy it, prepare it and eat it? Yes, eggs are cheap. But most of these corner stores that these people have access to in the inner city don't carry them.
Additionally, until recently, there were no restrictions on the EBT cards like there are with the WIC program (for women, infants and children) that stipulate that only cheese, eggs, and dairy can be purchased with the funds on the cards.
Case in point:
In my career I have worked at both the USDA and the US Navy Yard in SE DC. Until recently, (last 8 to 10 years) there was only 1 large grocery store (a Safeway) near South Capital Street and it was nearer the waterfront condos and wharf than it was near the low-income apartments and houses.
Things were so dire (in 2000) that the Navy brought in restaurants and a farmer's market for employees inside the base. If you didn't have a car, there was nothing close by. Not even food trucks would venture into SE. And, after dark - "forgetaboutit". While there were a few corner markets accepted EBT / SNAP food subsidy cards they only carried some frozen items like hot pockets and pizza as well as soda, candy, beer, chips, cigarettes, and lottery tickets. They didn't carry things like fresh meat, fruit, vegetables or eggs or cheese.
Also, there were TONS of fast food restaurants closer to these neighborhoods than grocery stores Domino's Pizza, Wendy's, KFC, Taco Bell are all generally more accessible than a grocery store. And, with $10.00 a mom can get a bucket of chicken and two sides (and nod, nod, wink, wink, sodas for the kids) or a loaf of bread, a half a dozen eggs, and a half a gallon of milk, which she still has to cook (if she has the time or the means) -- if she has the means to get to a store as well as the time and energy to cook if her stove works.
What the above article doesn't mention is that the food (the author deems that they should be buying) isn't where these people are, because the areas are considered high crime / high risk and companies don't want to put their stores in a high crime area.
(Industry leaders who met with the DC Council said that they couldn't attract employees that wouldn't steal from them and managers would rather quit than work a night shift in a DC store). Furthermore real estate per square foot is expensive and why lease to a grocery store when you can clear out the poor people and put up a high dollar / high rise apartment, with a grocery store in the lobby?
With the gentrification of the Navy Yard district, "The Yards" ball field (Go Nats!) and multi-million dollar apartments, things began to improve in order to attract higher income residents. (It's the law of supply and demand). There is also the Eastern Market area that is within walking distance, but, the shops in there are more boutiques and cater to people who can pay more for their food.
The low-income apartments and houses were bull dozed and the elderly and poor were moved out to PG County in Maryland (to make room for the gentrification), beginning 2003. So, those people who want to shop at a grocery store still have to get in their cars and drive somewhere else around the beltway in Maryland or Virginia (or get someone to take them if they don't have a car). There are now some strip malls with anchor stores like Giant or Safeway, but they are not where these folks can get to easily from the "projects".
Michelle Obama's "My Plate" initiative was not just about the food desert, it was also about portion control and "clean" eating; not eating a ton of grains and empty carbs and things from a box. It was about getting kids familiar with home grown foods and learning to grow them and eat them. Children who are used to fast food as their only food are not accustomed to eating "fresh" fruit and vegetables.
Additionally, many of these children are fed at school and the food is basically all from a box, a can or frozen (based on the contracts that the District has with its vendors). It's kind of like going to a foreign county as an American tourist and the first thing people generally look for is food that they are familiar with. These kids are being taught that other food exists and that they should try them and perhaps want to have them more often. There is a huge non-profit program sponsored by the Friends of the National Arboretum that goes to schools and helps them build urban gardens so that the kids can become familiar with good nourishing food.
In relation to the obesity epidemic, many of the fast foods are high in sugar and salt. If that is all a person is eating (e.g. the Super Size Me movie) then obviously something is going to happen metabolically to a person't body. Some time ago Dr Oz and Oprah also discussed that many African Americans (as well as poor white people) are predisposed to certain medical conditions because they have generationally survived dire conditions and that their bodies adapted to allow them to survive. They hold onto salt; their pancreases exude glucose. Additionally, add the stress of being poor, not feeling safe (these kids can't even play outside due to gun violence a lot of times) and not having access to minerals like iodine, they become hypothyroid / develop acute adrenal fatigue.
The SNAP program now limits what can be bought with the card. While box foods are still permitted and chips and soda are not, these box foods contain MSG -- and are fed to kids every school day if they get lunch at school regardless of their economic situation. MSG is also in most restaurant food unless they specifically tell you it isn't.
Ref: http://www.livestrong.com/article/408512-neurological-effect-of-monosodium-glutamate/
MSG actually cause people to eat more and is used in research circles used to fatten up rats for experimentation, because it dramatically increases insulin production. According to "Contemporary Nutrition," the food additive industry readily admits that MSG has addictive properties and can cause people to gain weight, but they justify its use by claiming that this can be beneficial to elderly persons who are sometimes malnourished. Glutamate, the main component of MSG, is the primary excitatory neurotransmitter in the brain, and it has been linked to neurological symptoms when taken in excess.
Finally, people who still think that Walmart food is good for you need to really examine their labels. Walmart came into many communities that had a family grocery store and forced them out of business. If you want to buy food, you now have to buy it at Walmart. Many people in rural areas have no choice in the matter. There is very little food at Walmart that is hormone, antibiotic, additive free. It's all factory farm food and the animals are fed expired box food!
So, I am not sure that blaming poor people for being fat is such a good idea -- because they are just the end point on the factory food supply chain.
It's all actually quite depressing... Anyway - that's all I have to offer the discussion.6 -
I think people saw my HSA comment and focused on that, but my real point was that catastrophic health care and "everyday" health care are two different animals and should be dealth with differently. When the comment is made that everyone will eventually need health care, I can concede that, but only for the latter. Plenty of people go thru life without actually using catastrophic/accidental care, which does fit the insurance model. But maybe a different type of coverage is needed for stuff like pregnancy, physicals, blood pressure, arthritis, your average non threatening visit, and other regular health care BECAUSE those expenses are going to occur.3
-
CatchMom13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Think about the fact that a large percentage of overweight/obese are lower income. You can't compare this to buying cigarettes, because smoking is an additional purchase. Often folks only purchase cheap food. Cheap food is not filling, which lends itself to eating more of it, hence becoming overweight/obese. Adding that type of financial burden is not going to help overweight people. It's only going to further benefit those who are either naturally slim, or fit.
Less food costs less than more food.
Higher quality food costs more. Everyone knows that. I see it in my own grocery bill when I buy BETTER QUALITY food and stay away from processed food.
No it doesn't. I eat a mostly whole foods, plant based diet (with fish included 4-5 times a week), and I'm spending less money on what I eat now, than when I was eating a lot of processed food. I eat a ridiculous amount of veggies, a small amount of fruit, whole grains, beans/lentils, fish, eggs and then very small amounts of butter and cheese. These things are cheap.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »One question that should be answered, is an insurance based solution a good methodology for ALL medical costs? If you think about it, home owners insurance, auto insurance, flood insurance, are all based on dealing with unexpected catastrophic events. Maybe another model is needed for more predictable events, such as the savings model like HSAs.
Sure that is were the high deductable plans and HSA's come in. The challenge is the average American family has less than $1,000 in a savings account:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx
Have to get people's mindset to save instead Starbucks everyday, the newest iPhone, etc.
I could skip Starbucks every day for a year (in fact, I guess I did because I never go) and it wouldn't have covered the co-pay we had when my husband accidentally cut his hand last year. We're relatively fortunate with our high deductable plan because we don't use a lot of health care, but it doesn't take much to wipe an account completely out.
The Starbucks is just an example not to be taken literally. The problem with high deductable plans and HSAs it the savings rate in the US is already so low. Some people could increase their savings rate by reducing spending on luxury items like $5 a cup coffee. Some could not.
I'm sorry that I took your example too literally. My point is that skipping little luxuries like Starbucks isn't really the solution to health care costs. My husband and I already save much more than the average American family, including what is in our HSA and one (minor) medical event was still a pretty big expense for us. If it was something major like a significant illness or accident . . . Starbucks or skipping a new phone is going to be the answer.
I'm not saying people shouldn't save money. I think we should and live that value in my own life. But it seems like a savings account is much more useful when it comes to emergencies like car trouble than it is for medical needs. I make all my coffee at home, it isn't going to help me swing chemotherapy bills.
Don't most HSA accounts go hand in hand with high deductible insurance plans? (we've had several HSA/high deductible combos, including our current one). So after you get your HSA built up, that should cover the cost of the high deductible if someone runs into high medical costs. With your chemo example-the HSA account balance covers the cost of the deductible and then the insurance part kicks in and covers the big medical bills. The kicker is to get the HSA account built up asap and hope nothing big hits until you get that set aside.
We had our HSA built up pretty nicely until last year, when we had several thousand dollars of dental work happen. So at the time of our dd's accident a few weeks ago our HSA balance was around $400. That, along with new bi-weekly deposits (automatically deducted from dh's paycheck), will cover all the smaller dr. bills coming in but then we'll have to cover the bigger hospital bill oop. As a follow up to my previous posts-the $7,000ish bill has cleared claims and our oop expense will be $2,871. With that amount we've decided to just pay it right away from our regular savings, and not bother with their payment option. The bill breakdown didn't have any crazy surprises (no $50 gauze), and it did include the CT scan as well. My husband and I were actually surprised it wasn't more, considering everything it covered.0 -
richardgavel wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »One question that should be answered, is an insurance based solution a good methodology for ALL medical costs? If you think about it, home owners insurance, auto insurance, flood insurance, are all based on dealing with unexpected catastrophic events. Maybe another model is needed for more predictable events, such as the savings model like HSAs.
Sure that is were the high deductable plans and HSA's come in. The challenge is the average American family has less than $1,000 in a savings account:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx
Have to get people's mindset to save instead Starbucks everyday, the newest iPhone, etc.
I'm not assuming it would be tied with a HIGH deductible plan. Also, hopefully this would reduce the overall cost of insurance because of fewer claims for stuff that is not catastrophic, and so the difference would go in the HSA. I would also expect Medicaid to be part insurance, part HSA. Companies already contribute into HSAs now.
Couple that with more price transparency since individuals are paying and seeing the costs.
Some do, some don't. We've had employers give an HSA deposit at the beginning of the year, but our current employer does not.
0 -
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »One question that should be answered, is an insurance based solution a good methodology for ALL medical costs? If you think about it, home owners insurance, auto insurance, flood insurance, are all based on dealing with unexpected catastrophic events. Maybe another model is needed for more predictable events, such as the savings model like HSAs.
Sure that is were the high deductable plans and HSA's come in. The challenge is the average American family has less than $1,000 in a savings account:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx
Have to get people's mindset to save instead Starbucks everyday, the newest iPhone, etc.
I could skip Starbucks every day for a year (in fact, I guess I did because I never go) and it wouldn't have covered the co-pay we had when my husband accidentally cut his hand last year. We're relatively fortunate with our high deductable plan because we don't use a lot of health care, but it doesn't take much to wipe an account completely out.
The Starbucks is just an example not to be taken literally. The problem with high deductable plans and HSAs it the savings rate in the US is already so low. Some people could increase their savings rate by reducing spending on luxury items like $5 a cup coffee. Some could not.
I'm sorry that I took your example too literally. My point is that skipping little luxuries like Starbucks isn't really the solution to health care costs. My husband and I already save much more than the average American family, including what is in our HSA and one (minor) medical event was still a pretty big expense for us. If it was something major like a significant illness or accident . . . Starbucks or skipping a new phone is going to be the answer.
I'm not saying people shouldn't save money. I think we should and live that value in my own life. But it seems like a savings account is much more useful when it comes to emergencies like car trouble than it is for medical needs. I make all my coffee at home, it isn't going to help me swing chemotherapy bills.
Don't most HSA accounts go hand in hand with high deductible insurance plans? (we've had several HSA/high deductible combos, including our current one). So after you get your HSA built up, that should cover the cost of the high deductible if someone runs into high medical costs. With your chemo example-the HSA account balance covers the cost of the deductible and then the insurance part kicks in and covers the big medical bills. The kicker is to get the HSA account built up asap and hope nothing big hits until you get that set aside.
We had our HSA built up pretty nicely until last year, when we had several thousand dollars of dental work happen. So at the time of our dd's accident a few weeks ago our HSA balance was around $400. That, along with new bi-weekly deposits (automatically deducted from dh's paycheck), will cover all the smaller dr. bills coming in but then we'll have to cover the bigger hospital bill oop. As a follow up to my previous posts-the $7,000ish bill has cleared claims and our oop expense will be $2,871. With that amount we've decided to just pay it right away from our regular savings, and not bother with their payment option. The bill breakdown didn't have any crazy surprises (no $50 gauze), and it did include the CT scan as well. My husband and I were actually surprised it wasn't more, considering everything it covered.
Yes, by the way the regulation is written you cannot have an HSA if you do not have what is classified as a high deductible plan.0 -
Here is an article relevant to this thread:
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/us-has-fattest-poor-people-world-why
What the above article doesn't mention is that the food (the author deems that they should be buying) isn't where these people are, because the areas are considered high crime / high risk and companies don't want to put their stores in a high crime area.
(Industry leaders who met with the DC Council said that they couldn't attract employees that wouldn't steal from them and managers would rather quit than work a night shift in a DC store). Furthermore real estate per square foot is expensive and why lease to a grocery store when you can clear out the poor people and put up a high dollar / high rise apartment, with a grocery store in the lobby?
With the gentrification of the Navy Yard district, "The Yards" ball field (Go Nats!) and multi-million dollar apartments, things began to improve in order to attract higher income residents. (It's the law of supply and demand). There is also the Eastern Market area that is within walking distance, but, the shops in there are more boutiques and cater to people who can pay more for their food.
The low-income apartments and houses were bull dozed and the elderly and poor were moved out to PG County in Maryland (to make room for the gentrification), beginning 2003. So, those people who want to shop at a grocery store still have to get in their cars and drive somewhere else around the beltway in Maryland or Virginia (or get someone to take them if they don't have a car). There are now some strip malls with anchor stores like Giant or Safeway, but they are not where these folks can get to easily from the "projects".
I hope you don't think bulldozing low income apartments in the city and moving the residents to the suburbs is a solution to any issue. It's just kicking the can down the road.
I live in a mid-size city. About 10 years ago a major city about 100 miles away took down some low income housing and my community received some of the residents. Guess what, their problems followed them.
A large group was put in some nice apartments that were converted to public housing. The apartments were 2 blocks away from a 10 yr old 50000 sq ft 24 hour grocery store. After the new residents moved in, there were reports of robberies in the parking lot after dark. A neighbor kid that worked there said the store went from having one of the lowest shrinkage (theft) rates in the district to one of the highest in a year. Random gunshots were heard in the neighborhood. Because of the issues the store started closing at 9 PM and they hired armed security guards. The issues continued and the store ultimately closed. It was reconfigured so it is now part dollar store, a payday loan place, plasma "donation" center and part is empty.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions