Your Medical Plan $Changes/Increases for 2011?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]As it stands now – the future is HSA+HDHP for everyone. Some will get there earlier, some will get there later. But eventually that is where we all will be! That is all we can afford as a society.

I am not sure if following cost lowering alternatives were ever considered.

[1] Offer catastrophic only coverage at affordable rates through govt. for uninsured.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on covering every single illness to the uninsured on taxpayer dime.

[2] If you ever use a ER without paying for it – govt. will reimburse the hospital at medicare rate and records it with IRS as a debt to be collected from your SSN.[/quote]

Good points, enron, esp. #2. Emergency room bills at Medicare rate could be withheld from patients’ Federal tax refunds (even their huge earned income credits)! Even Medi-cal has a low co-pay and covers EVERYTHING including comprehensive dental services! Only the choice of providers is limited. Why do we as taxpayers OWE these services to this group when we can’t afford this level of service ourselves??

I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). I just don’t think it’s right to raise the premiums of a HDHP (which only has a limited 100% “preventative-care” benefit) to exorbitant levels on an individual policyholder who has never tapped into their post-$8,000 ded. hospital benefit. My ins. co. has been doing nothing but making a sizable profit off me for the last few years. I understand the “age-group” pricing but feel like my record alone should speak for MY current premium and not other insureds’ (or soon-to-be-insureds’) records.

I don’t deserve to pay for others’ health problems (whether intentionally or unintentionally caused) and I can ill afford it. It’s not fair to me and I think health premiums should be based solely upon the record of the individual policyholder, like other forms of insurance.

And yes, even if I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I would still have the same opinion.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.
[/quote]

If you haven’t had these sorts of YOY increases in the past you’re unique. I don’t even consider it huge. My premiums increased 311% over the last 9 years (for a policy year beginning 7/1/10). Three times over that period, premiums increased by more than 25% in a single year. My experience was only slightly higher than most because of my particular employee census. That you’ve never had those kinds of increases is almost shocking. Twenty percent a year has been pretty typical and any argument, on the part of the insurance companies is disengenuous at best, and outright lie at worst. The only significant part of the new law that will affect this policy year is insurance companies inability to cancel coverage, and mandatory of allowance of children up to age 26 (though there are certain extensions on the applicability of that part of the law.) And that’s a part of the law that insurance companies LOVE. There are no better customers than 22-26 year olds, they don’t get sick and they don’t go to the doctor.

The reason for the increase this year is the same as it has been over the last 15 years. To increase profits. Certainly the possiblity exists that increases were accelerated in anticipation of some price controls under the new law which won’t take effect for a few years.

United Health just came out with their earnings. Beat the street by a huge margin. Came in with an 80.9 loss ratio, which they brag about. At the same time, complaining that the new law requires at least an 80% loss ratio. (And their 80.9% was on ALL policies, the will be allowed as low as a 75% loss ratio on individual policies.)

Insurance companies make money when they can. I don’t suspect the new law will do much more than slightly slow the increases in premiums. And the insurance companies won’t make less under the new law, they’ll make more. Afterall, they wrote the law.(Who do you think insisted on mandatory coverage? That was not an idea borne in the halls of congress.) But we certainly weren’t promised any declines in premiums, before the law even takes effect. Anyone that was expecting that wasn’t paying attention.

(As an afterthought….did you move into a new age bracket? Comanies have different brackets, but if your age now ends in a 5, a 6, 0, or a 1, that may explain the increase. Particularly moving from the late 30’s through the early 60’s, the increases are stunning.)

[quote=bearishgurl]Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.[/quote]

That makes no sense. Why would any company intentionally shrink now, because of costs that may rise 3 years from now? I'm not disputing that you're seeing it, but I'm in contact with a few dozen businesses every month in that same size range, and not a single one has moved in that direction. Some of those currently under 50 employees are ecstatic with the new tax credits that will help them pay their employees insurance, beginning this year.

I'm not, by the way, in favor of that mandate. I think it's a huge mistake to link health care with employment, and this law strengthens that link. Insurance companies love it. De-linking is a part of the long term solution. With the undue influence of the insurance industry (and in a broader sense, the entire finance industry, of which insurance is a part) on both parties in congress, the likelihood of that happening any time soon is slight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.
[/quote]

If you haven’t had these sorts of YOY increases in the past you’re unique. I don’t even consider it huge. My premiums increased 311% over the last 9 years (for a policy year beginning 7/1/10). Three times over that period, premiums increased by more than 25% in a single year. My experience was only slightly higher than most because of my particular employee census. That you’ve never had those kinds of increases is almost shocking. Twenty percent a year has been pretty typical and any argument, on the part of the insurance companies is disengenuous at best, and outright lie at worst. The only significant part of the new law that will affect this policy year is insurance companies inability to cancel coverage, and mandatory of allowance of children up to age 26 (though there are certain extensions on the applicability of that part of the law.) And that’s a part of the law that insurance companies LOVE. There are no better customers than 22-26 year olds, they don’t get sick and they don’t go to the doctor.

The reason for the increase this year is the same as it has been over the last 15 years. To increase profits. Certainly the possiblity exists that increases were accelerated in anticipation of some price controls under the new law which won’t take effect for a few years.

United Health just came out with their earnings. Beat the street by a huge margin. Came in with an 80.9 loss ratio, which they brag about. At the same time, complaining that the new law requires at least an 80% loss ratio. (And their 80.9% was on ALL policies, the will be allowed as low as a 75% loss ratio on individual policies.)

Insurance companies make money when they can. I don’t suspect the new law will do much more than slightly slow the increases in premiums. And the insurance companies won’t make less under the new law, they’ll make more. Afterall, they wrote the law.(Who do you think insisted on mandatory coverage? That was not an idea borne in the halls of congress.) But we certainly weren’t promised any declines in premiums, before the law even takes effect. Anyone that was expecting that wasn’t paying attention.

(As an afterthought….did you move into a new age bracket? Comanies have different brackets, but if your age now ends in a 5, a 6, 0, or a 1, that may explain the increase. Particularly moving from the late 30’s through the early 60’s, the increases are stunning.)

[quote=bearishgurl]Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.[/quote]

That makes no sense. Why would any company intentionally shrink now, because of costs that may rise 3 years from now? I'm not disputing that you're seeing it, but I'm in contact with a few dozen businesses every month in that same size range, and not a single one has moved in that direction. Some of those currently under 50 employees are ecstatic with the new tax credits that will help them pay their employees insurance, beginning this year.

I'm not, by the way, in favor of that mandate. I think it's a huge mistake to link health care with employment, and this law strengthens that link. Insurance companies love it. De-linking is a part of the long term solution. With the undue influence of the insurance industry (and in a broader sense, the entire finance industry, of which insurance is a part) on both parties in congress, the likelihood of that happening any time soon is slight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.
[/quote]

If you haven’t had these sorts of YOY increases in the past you’re unique. I don’t even consider it huge. My premiums increased 311% over the last 9 years (for a policy year beginning 7/1/10). Three times over that period, premiums increased by more than 25% in a single year. My experience was only slightly higher than most because of my particular employee census. That you’ve never had those kinds of increases is almost shocking. Twenty percent a year has been pretty typical and any argument, on the part of the insurance companies is disengenuous at best, and outright lie at worst. The only significant part of the new law that will affect this policy year is insurance companies inability to cancel coverage, and mandatory of allowance of children up to age 26 (though there are certain extensions on the applicability of that part of the law.) And that’s a part of the law that insurance companies LOVE. There are no better customers than 22-26 year olds, they don’t get sick and they don’t go to the doctor.

The reason for the increase this year is the same as it has been over the last 15 years. To increase profits. Certainly the possiblity exists that increases were accelerated in anticipation of some price controls under the new law which won’t take effect for a few years.

United Health just came out with their earnings. Beat the street by a huge margin. Came in with an 80.9 loss ratio, which they brag about. At the same time, complaining that the new law requires at least an 80% loss ratio. (And their 80.9% was on ALL policies, the will be allowed as low as a 75% loss ratio on individual policies.)

Insurance companies make money when they can. I don’t suspect the new law will do much more than slightly slow the increases in premiums. And the insurance companies won’t make less under the new law, they’ll make more. Afterall, they wrote the law.(Who do you think insisted on mandatory coverage? That was not an idea borne in the halls of congress.) But we certainly weren’t promised any declines in premiums, before the law even takes effect. Anyone that was expecting that wasn’t paying attention.

(As an afterthought….did you move into a new age bracket? Comanies have different brackets, but if your age now ends in a 5, a 6, 0, or a 1, that may explain the increase. Particularly moving from the late 30’s through the early 60’s, the increases are stunning.)

[quote=bearishgurl]Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.[/quote]

That makes no sense. Why would any company intentionally shrink now, because of costs that may rise 3 years from now? I'm not disputing that you're seeing it, but I'm in contact with a few dozen businesses every month in that same size range, and not a single one has moved in that direction. Some of those currently under 50 employees are ecstatic with the new tax credits that will help them pay their employees insurance, beginning this year.

I'm not, by the way, in favor of that mandate. I think it's a huge mistake to link health care with employment, and this law strengthens that link. Insurance companies love it. De-linking is a part of the long term solution. With the undue influence of the insurance industry (and in a broader sense, the entire finance industry, of which insurance is a part) on both parties in congress, the likelihood of that happening any time soon is slight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.
[/quote]

If you haven’t had these sorts of YOY increases in the past you’re unique. I don’t even consider it huge. My premiums increased 311% over the last 9 years (for a policy year beginning 7/1/10). Three times over that period, premiums increased by more than 25% in a single year. My experience was only slightly higher than most because of my particular employee census. That you’ve never had those kinds of increases is almost shocking. Twenty percent a year has been pretty typical and any argument, on the part of the insurance companies is disengenuous at best, and outright lie at worst. The only significant part of the new law that will affect this policy year is insurance companies inability to cancel coverage, and mandatory of allowance of children up to age 26 (though there are certain extensions on the applicability of that part of the law.) And that’s a part of the law that insurance companies LOVE. There are no better customers than 22-26 year olds, they don’t get sick and they don’t go to the doctor.

The reason for the increase this year is the same as it has been over the last 15 years. To increase profits. Certainly the possiblity exists that increases were accelerated in anticipation of some price controls under the new law which won’t take effect for a few years.

United Health just came out with their earnings. Beat the street by a huge margin. Came in with an 80.9 loss ratio, which they brag about. At the same time, complaining that the new law requires at least an 80% loss ratio. (And their 80.9% was on ALL policies, the will be allowed as low as a 75% loss ratio on individual policies.)

Insurance companies make money when they can. I don’t suspect the new law will do much more than slightly slow the increases in premiums. And the insurance companies won’t make less under the new law, they’ll make more. Afterall, they wrote the law.(Who do you think insisted on mandatory coverage? That was not an idea borne in the halls of congress.) But we certainly weren’t promised any declines in premiums, before the law even takes effect. Anyone that was expecting that wasn’t paying attention.

(As an afterthought….did you move into a new age bracket? Comanies have different brackets, but if your age now ends in a 5, a 6, 0, or a 1, that may explain the increase. Particularly moving from the late 30’s through the early 60’s, the increases are stunning.)

[quote=bearishgurl]Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.[/quote]

That makes no sense. Why would any company intentionally shrink now, because of costs that may rise 3 years from now? I'm not disputing that you're seeing it, but I'm in contact with a few dozen businesses every month in that same size range, and not a single one has moved in that direction. Some of those currently under 50 employees are ecstatic with the new tax credits that will help them pay their employees insurance, beginning this year.

I'm not, by the way, in favor of that mandate. I think it's a huge mistake to link health care with employment, and this law strengthens that link. Insurance companies love it. De-linking is a part of the long term solution. With the undue influence of the insurance industry (and in a broader sense, the entire finance industry, of which insurance is a part) on both parties in congress, the likelihood of that happening any time soon is slight.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.
[/quote]

If you haven’t had these sorts of YOY increases in the past you’re unique. I don’t even consider it huge. My premiums increased 311% over the last 9 years (for a policy year beginning 7/1/10). Three times over that period, premiums increased by more than 25% in a single year. My experience was only slightly higher than most because of my particular employee census. That you’ve never had those kinds of increases is almost shocking. Twenty percent a year has been pretty typical and any argument, on the part of the insurance companies is disengenuous at best, and outright lie at worst. The only significant part of the new law that will affect this policy year is insurance companies inability to cancel coverage, and mandatory of allowance of children up to age 26 (though there are certain extensions on the applicability of that part of the law.) And that’s a part of the law that insurance companies LOVE. There are no better customers than 22-26 year olds, they don’t get sick and they don’t go to the doctor.

The reason for the increase this year is the same as it has been over the last 15 years. To increase profits. Certainly the possiblity exists that increases were accelerated in anticipation of some price controls under the new law which won’t take effect for a few years.

United Health just came out with their earnings. Beat the street by a huge margin. Came in with an 80.9 loss ratio, which they brag about. At the same time, complaining that the new law requires at least an 80% loss ratio. (And their 80.9% was on ALL policies, the will be allowed as low as a 75% loss ratio on individual policies.)

Insurance companies make money when they can. I don’t suspect the new law will do much more than slightly slow the increases in premiums. And the insurance companies won’t make less under the new law, they’ll make more. Afterall, they wrote the law.(Who do you think insisted on mandatory coverage? That was not an idea borne in the halls of congress.) But we certainly weren’t promised any declines in premiums, before the law even takes effect. Anyone that was expecting that wasn’t paying attention.

(As an afterthought….did you move into a new age bracket? Comanies have different brackets, but if your age now ends in a 5, a 6, 0, or a 1, that may explain the increase. Particularly moving from the late 30’s through the early 60’s, the increases are stunning.)

[quote=bearishgurl]Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.[/quote]

That makes no sense. Why would any company intentionally shrink now, because of costs that may rise 3 years from now? I'm not disputing that you're seeing it, but I'm in contact with a few dozen businesses every month in that same size range, and not a single one has moved in that direction. Some of those currently under 50 employees are ecstatic with the new tax credits that will help them pay their employees insurance, beginning this year.

I'm not, by the way, in favor of that mandate. I think it's a huge mistake to link health care with employment, and this law strengthens that link. Insurance companies love it. De-linking is a part of the long term solution. With the undue influence of the insurance industry (and in a broader sense, the entire finance industry, of which insurance is a part) on both parties in congress, the likelihood of that happening any time soon is slight.

[meadandale]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). I just don’t think it’s right to raise the premiums of a HDHP (which only has a limited 100% “preventative-care” benefit) to exorbitant levels on an individual policyholder who has never tapped into their post-$8,000 ded. hospital benefit. My ins. co. has been doing nothing but making a sizable profit off me for the last few years. I understand the “age-group” pricing but feel like my record alone should speak for MY current premium and not other insureds’ (or soon-to-be-insureds’) records.[/quote]

That’s a high deductible for a HDHP…and I don’t think that you have to have *wages* in order to contribute to an HSA. I’m self employed and although I pay myself a salary, my company pays my HSA contribution every month as part of my medical benefit. Both the premiums and the HSA contribution end up being medical benefits at the end of the year and are a line item deduction.

[meadandale]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). I just don’t think it’s right to raise the premiums of a HDHP (which only has a limited 100% “preventative-care” benefit) to exorbitant levels on an individual policyholder who has never tapped into their post-$8,000 ded. hospital benefit. My ins. co. has been doing nothing but making a sizable profit off me for the last few years. I understand the “age-group” pricing but feel like my record alone should speak for MY current premium and not other insureds’ (or soon-to-be-insureds’) records.[/quote]

That’s a high deductible for a HDHP…and I don’t think that you have to have *wages* in order to contribute to an HSA. I’m self employed and although I pay myself a salary, my company pays my HSA contribution every month as part of my medical benefit. Both the premiums and the HSA contribution end up being medical benefits at the end of the year and are a line item deduction.

[meadandale]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). I just don’t think it’s right to raise the premiums of a HDHP (which only has a limited 100% “preventative-care” benefit) to exorbitant levels on an individual policyholder who has never tapped into their post-$8,000 ded. hospital benefit. My ins. co. has been doing nothing but making a sizable profit off me for the last few years. I understand the “age-group” pricing but feel like my record alone should speak for MY current premium and not other insureds’ (or soon-to-be-insureds’) records.[/quote]

That’s a high deductible for a HDHP…and I don’t think that you have to have *wages* in order to contribute to an HSA. I’m self employed and although I pay myself a salary, my company pays my HSA contribution every month as part of my medical benefit. Both the premiums and the HSA contribution end up being medical benefits at the end of the year and are a line item deduction.

[meadandale]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). I just don’t think it’s right to raise the premiums of a HDHP (which only has a limited 100% “preventative-care” benefit) to exorbitant levels on an individual policyholder who has never tapped into their post-$8,000 ded. hospital benefit. My ins. co. has been doing nothing but making a sizable profit off me for the last few years. I understand the “age-group” pricing but feel like my record alone should speak for MY current premium and not other insureds’ (or soon-to-be-insureds’) records.[/quote]

That’s a high deductible for a HDHP…and I don’t think that you have to have *wages* in order to contribute to an HSA. I’m self employed and although I pay myself a salary, my company pays my HSA contribution every month as part of my medical benefit. Both the premiums and the HSA contribution end up being medical benefits at the end of the year and are a line item deduction.

[meadandale]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). I just don’t think it’s right to raise the premiums of a HDHP (which only has a limited 100% “preventative-care” benefit) to exorbitant levels on an individual policyholder who has never tapped into their post-$8,000 ded. hospital benefit. My ins. co. has been doing nothing but making a sizable profit off me for the last few years. I understand the “age-group” pricing but feel like my record alone should speak for MY current premium and not other insureds’ (or soon-to-be-insureds’) records.[/quote]

That’s a high deductible for a HDHP…and I don’t think that you have to have *wages* in order to contribute to an HSA. I’m self employed and although I pay myself a salary, my company pays my HSA contribution every month as part of my medical benefit. Both the premiums and the HSA contribution end up being medical benefits at the end of the year and are a line item deduction.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=meadandale][quote=bearishgurl]
I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). . .[/quote]

That’s a high deductible for a HDHP…and I don’t think that you have to have *wages* in order to contribute to an HSA. I’m self employed and although I pay myself a salary, my company pays my HSA contribution every month as part of my medical benefit. Both the premiums and the HSA contribution end up being medical benefits at the end of the year and are a line item deduction.[/quote]

Meadandale, my “deductible” is only $5,000. But my co-insurance portion is $8,000. Practically speaking, I pay very little co-insurance every year, because I just use the 100%-covered “preventative care” benefits. So the whole (or nearly the whole) $8,000 co-insurance would kick in if I landed in the hospital. Years ago (before I was on an indiv. plan), I was in the hospital for just 40 hours and my bill was nearly $11,000. My health plan at the time paid 75% of it, I got the rest written down some and made a deal with the hospital to pay the balance off in 6 mos. with 0% interest, which I did.

I know I can open an HSA on my own, but don’t want or need one as I’m in a very low tax bracket. My premiums alone now nearly equal 7.5% of my gross income BEFORE any co-pays or deductibles. Due to my recent premium hike, I will probably be able to take the medical deduction on my tax return and pay NO tax for 2011, even if I NEVER use ANY care next year!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=meadandale][quote=bearishgurl]
I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). . .[/quote]

That’s a high deductible for a HDHP…and I don’t think that you have to have *wages* in order to contribute to an HSA. I’m self employed and although I pay myself a salary, my company pays my HSA contribution every month as part of my medical benefit. Both the premiums and the HSA contribution end up being medical benefits at the end of the year and are a line item deduction.[/quote]

Meadandale, my “deductible” is only $5,000. But my co-insurance portion is $8,000. Practically speaking, I pay very little co-insurance every year, because I just use the 100%-covered “preventative care” benefits. So the whole (or nearly the whole) $8,000 co-insurance would kick in if I landed in the hospital. Years ago (before I was on an indiv. plan), I was in the hospital for just 40 hours and my bill was nearly $11,000. My health plan at the time paid 75% of it, I got the rest written down some and made a deal with the hospital to pay the balance off in 6 mos. with 0% interest, which I did.

I know I can open an HSA on my own, but don’t want or need one as I’m in a very low tax bracket. My premiums alone now nearly equal 7.5% of my gross income BEFORE any co-pays or deductibles. Due to my recent premium hike, I will probably be able to take the medical deduction on my tax return and pay NO tax for 2011, even if I NEVER use ANY care next year!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=meadandale][quote=bearishgurl]
I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). . .[/quote]

That’s a high deductible for a HDHP…and I don’t think that you have to have *wages* in order to contribute to an HSA. I’m self employed and although I pay myself a salary, my company pays my HSA contribution every month as part of my medical benefit. Both the premiums and the HSA contribution end up being medical benefits at the end of the year and are a line item deduction.[/quote]

Meadandale, my “deductible” is only $5,000. But my co-insurance portion is $8,000. Practically speaking, I pay very little co-insurance every year, because I just use the 100%-covered “preventative care” benefits. So the whole (or nearly the whole) $8,000 co-insurance would kick in if I landed in the hospital. Years ago (before I was on an indiv. plan), I was in the hospital for just 40 hours and my bill was nearly $11,000. My health plan at the time paid 75% of it, I got the rest written down some and made a deal with the hospital to pay the balance off in 6 mos. with 0% interest, which I did.

I know I can open an HSA on my own, but don’t want or need one as I’m in a very low tax bracket. My premiums alone now nearly equal 7.5% of my gross income BEFORE any co-pays or deductibles. Due to my recent premium hike, I will probably be able to take the medical deduction on my tax return and pay NO tax for 2011, even if I NEVER use ANY care next year!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=meadandale][quote=bearishgurl]
I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). . .[/quote]

That’s a high deductible for a HDHP…and I don’t think that you have to have *wages* in order to contribute to an HSA. I’m self employed and although I pay myself a salary, my company pays my HSA contribution every month as part of my medical benefit. Both the premiums and the HSA contribution end up being medical benefits at the end of the year and are a line item deduction.[/quote]

Meadandale, my “deductible” is only $5,000. But my co-insurance portion is $8,000. Practically speaking, I pay very little co-insurance every year, because I just use the 100%-covered “preventative care” benefits. So the whole (or nearly the whole) $8,000 co-insurance would kick in if I landed in the hospital. Years ago (before I was on an indiv. plan), I was in the hospital for just 40 hours and my bill was nearly $11,000. My health plan at the time paid 75% of it, I got the rest written down some and made a deal with the hospital to pay the balance off in 6 mos. with 0% interest, which I did.

I know I can open an HSA on my own, but don’t want or need one as I’m in a very low tax bracket. My premiums alone now nearly equal 7.5% of my gross income BEFORE any co-pays or deductibles. Due to my recent premium hike, I will probably be able to take the medical deduction on my tax return and pay NO tax for 2011, even if I NEVER use ANY care next year!

[Author]

Posts