Who saves with health savings accounts?

President Bush has been branding critics of health savings accounts as elitists who don’t think poor people can make their own choices. Here’s Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne’s take on the matter:
“And, as Elisabeth Bumiller pointed out in the New York Times, a $5,000 contribution to an HSA would have saved a couple with two children and a combined income of $40,000 just $630 on their 2005 federal income taxes. (And that assumes the couple could have afforded to put away the whole five grand, which is unlikely.) But a comparable couple with an income of $120,000 would have saved $1,500.
“In other words, HSAs give the smallest benefits to those least able to afford health insurance. That is not exactly showing respect for those who are ‘not making a lot of money.’ The elitism here lies with those making the proposal, not with its critics.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley

12 Comments

  1. Sum1
    Posted February 20, 2006 at 5:04 am | Permalink

    The HSA my company offers as my health insurance, doesn’t cover the cost of my husbands prescriptions for one calendar year.

  2. Joe Williams
    Posted February 20, 2006 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    Hmm… Make more and save more! Math adds up to me. I see nothing wrong.

  3. Damoon
    Posted February 20, 2006 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    Agian, those who can least afford it are getting the screws put to them again. To hell with the little people, as long as CEO’s make their millons (or billons?), who cares?

  4. Marvin Reality
    Posted February 20, 2006 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Melissa, once again you cannot look for the positive and you have not done your homework.

    Many small business’s are purchasing the major medical insurance for their employees (which means they will have insurance for a major hospital or other medical bill) and many of the employer’s are actually putting money into the accounts for their employees.

    The small business cannot afford the regualar health insurance and this has given them an opportunity to help their employees who had no coverage before.

    It would be nice to have you see a glass half full instead of half empty all of the time.

    Spend a little more time researching. Anyone can spout off but a good reporter researches before commenting.

  5. Gittin' madder by the minute
    Posted February 20, 2006 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    Who is surprised that the Bushie GOP rich want to screw over the poor? They’re doing it everywhere else they can. Funny thing, though, as “What’s the Matter With Kansas” shows, the soon-to-be serfs just keep reelecting their soon-to-be masters.

  6. Posted February 20, 2006 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    I made the mistake of taking an HSA/HDHP this year at work. Now, I will have to endure constant pain for at least 9 months before I can afford to go to the doctor.It’s a shame the Republicans couldn’t have come up with a “bridge” plan to help with the gaps. I’m sure I’ll save money in the long run, but now…OWWWW!

  7. Jed
    Posted February 20, 2006 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Joe,”Hmm… Make more and save more! Math adds up to me. I see nothing wrong.”Does that mean you’ll be giving your employees raises, so they’ll have a little something left to save?

  8. KansasClassicLiberal
    Posted February 20, 2006 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Wouldn’t it be better if we moved away from the system where most people rely on their employers for healthcare?

    Then people could select the type of health insurance policies they want, and that they can afford themselves.

  9. Joe Williams
    Posted February 20, 2006 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Jed if I had employees I would take care of them. But I’m just an employee myself.

  10. Jed
    Posted February 20, 2006 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Classic,That would be nice, if there were decent, affordable individual policies available. Unfortunately, employers have the financial clout to negotiate better terms from insurance companies than an individual.I have been in positions in the past where I could not afford health insurance, and I know people now who are without any coverage. It’s not a good place to be, but if you earn $1000 an month, and the insurance is $400. the rent is $350, and utilities are $300, it doesn’t leave much for groceries!

  11. Jed
    Posted February 20, 2006 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Joe,Sorry, I was under the impression from earlier posts that you were a small business owner.So, did your employer give you enough of a raise so you could save enough to cover whatever hospitalizations your family might need? My wife’s bill was about half a million, and that was over 20 years ago. Be about twice that now.

  12. KansasClassicLiberal
    Posted February 21, 2006 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    I just ran through a few calculations, and Kiplinger’s TaxCut software for 2004 shows that a family with two children and $40,000 income, taking the standard deductions, pays $0 federal income tax. Paying no income tax means I think they can’t save anything on their taxes though tax-deductible expenses.