One of the fundamental problems with the current crop of health care "reform" (including the Wyden-Bennett "Healthy Americans Act") is that they do little or nothing to stem the cost of health care. This is something that's often overlooked as CongressCritters jockey for position (and headlines), and explicitly underscored by Rep Ryan at last week's Noh Theatre Production...er "Summit."
We've chronicled how consumer-centric (aka High Deductible, HSA-compliant) plans can actually reduce the cost of health care, while helping to rein in rising health insurance rates. In a Wall Street Journal article, Indiana Governor (and 2012 dark horse) Mitch Daniels reports on his own state's experience with these plans:
"When I was elected governor of Indiana five years ago, I asked that a consumer-directed health insurance option, or Health Savings Account (HSA), be added to the conventional plans then available to state employees ... What we ... have found is that individually owned and directed health-care coverage has a startlingly positive effect on costs for both employees and the state."
For one thing, there's been an immediate savings of some $8 million for employees who opted for the HSA (into which, by the way, the state plops almost $3000 per participating employee!); as Gov Daniels points out (and as we've noted here at IB), even folks with large claims see a net savings versus "phantom" plans.
Perhaps more importantly, because participants have "skin in the game," they're more likely to take better care of themselves, which is perhaps why "Indiana will save at least $20 million in 2010 because of our high HSA enrollment." The folks at Mercer Consulting (an independent health care and financial services research firm) confirm these tremendous savings, and the positive impact they've had on the cost of both health care and health insurance.
It's gratifying to see yet another example of how these lower cost, higher value health insurance plans may hold the key to solving at least part of the health care equation. Which leaves us wondering why ObamaCare© v?.0 seeks to do away with them.
As FoIB Brian D points out, there's a bigger issue here: if one indeed has a "right" to health care, then one has a corresponding responsibility to pay for it. What's happened with health care "reform" is that the first part of that equation has become a "right to have health care paid for by someone else." That's one of the primary appeals of products like HSA's: one is empowered both financially and morally to pay for one's own care.
Imagine that.
We've chronicled how consumer-centric (aka High Deductible, HSA-compliant) plans can actually reduce the cost of health care, while helping to rein in rising health insurance rates. In a Wall Street Journal article, Indiana Governor (and 2012 dark horse) Mitch Daniels reports on his own state's experience with these plans:
"When I was elected governor of Indiana five years ago, I asked that a consumer-directed health insurance option, or Health Savings Account (HSA), be added to the conventional plans then available to state employees ... What we ... have found is that individually owned and directed health-care coverage has a startlingly positive effect on costs for both employees and the state."
For one thing, there's been an immediate savings of some $8 million for employees who opted for the HSA (into which, by the way, the state plops almost $3000 per participating employee!); as Gov Daniels points out (and as we've noted here at IB), even folks with large claims see a net savings versus "phantom" plans.
Perhaps more importantly, because participants have "skin in the game," they're more likely to take better care of themselves, which is perhaps why "Indiana will save at least $20 million in 2010 because of our high HSA enrollment." The folks at Mercer Consulting (an independent health care and financial services research firm) confirm these tremendous savings, and the positive impact they've had on the cost of both health care and health insurance.
It's gratifying to see yet another example of how these lower cost, higher value health insurance plans may hold the key to solving at least part of the health care equation. Which leaves us wondering why ObamaCare© v?.0 seeks to do away with them.
As FoIB Brian D points out, there's a bigger issue here: if one indeed has a "right" to health care, then one has a corresponding responsibility to pay for it. What's happened with health care "reform" is that the first part of that equation has become a "right to have health care paid for by someone else." That's one of the primary appeals of products like HSA's: one is empowered both financially and morally to pay for one's own care.
Imagine that.