4 ms·

> You have to admit, it's a fucked up system when your employer is basically paying you not to use your insurance. That's not what an HSA plan is. I'm not OP

> You have to admit, it's a fucked up system when your employer is basically paying you not to use your insurance. That's not what an HSA plan is. I'm not OP, but OP's situation is pretty common, and it's more equivalent to employers offering 401(k) matching. They deposit a certain amount of money each month into your HSA account, though by law, you can only have an HSA account if you're on a high-deductible plan. Generally, the only employers who offer this are the ones who have the money to offer very attractive benefits (ie, tech companies). This usually includes covering part or all of employees' premiums, so their employees usually don't pick the government-mandated HMO plan option (it ends up not being any cheaper for them to choose the more restrictive plan).

exelius 11y ago
HSAs in general are not a terrible idea; but they have created some scenarios (like OP's) that are pretty counter-intuitive. But HSAs are basically "small insurance" - if you max out your HSA on a high-deductible plan, you probably will never use your insurance. So you're paying for most normal medical expenses out of pocket, and your insurance plan is basically a backstop for if you get cancer, have an accident, etc. Overall though, health care should not be tied to your employment.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Overall though, health care should not be tied to your employment. Yes, I agree. > So you're paying for most normal medical expenses out of pocket, and your insurance plan is basically a backstop for if you get cancer, have an accident, etc. That's literally what insurance is supposed to be: a financial mechanism for smoothing risk. The actuarial price for insurance on routine events will be exactly the same as paying for those routine events directly. Economically and financially, "insurance" is explicitly not supposed to cover predictable, routine costs, because there is no risk associated with them. It is a really terrible and unfortunate misnomer that we call this "insurance", because it's not. You wouldn't expect your collision insurance to cover your annual DMV fees. If you want normal, routine medical expenses to be priced below cost, then you're talking about a subsidy. But a subsidy is not insurance. Insurance pools money from at-risk parties. A subsidy is a transfer of wealth. To be honest, it's perfectly fine to advocate that if that's what you really want, but it's misleading to call this "insurance", because it serves a completely different goal (wealth transfer vs. risk pooling).

exelius 11y ago

HSAs in general are not a terrible idea; but they have created some scenarios (like OP's) that are pretty counter-intuitive. But HSAs are basically "small insurance" - if you max out your HSA on a high-deductible plan, you probably will never use your insurance. So you're paying for most normal medical expenses out of pocket, and your insurance plan is basically a backstop for if you get cancer, have an accident, etc. Overall though, health care should not be tied to your employment.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> Overall though, health care should not be tied to your employment. Yes, I agree. > So you're paying for most normal medical expenses out of pocket, and your insurance plan is basically a backstop for if you get cancer, have an accident, etc. That's literally what insurance is supposed to be: a financial mechanism for smoothing risk. The actuarial price for insurance on routine events will be exactly the same as paying for those routine events directly. Economically and financially, "insurance" is explicitly not supposed to cover predictable, routine costs, because there is no risk associated with them. It is a really terrible and unfortunate misnomer that we call this "insurance", because it's not. You wouldn't expect your collision insurance to cover your annual DMV fees. If you want normal, routine medical expenses to be priced below cost, then you're talking about a subsidy. But a subsidy is not insurance. Insurance pools money from at-risk parties. A subsidy is a transfer of wealth. To be honest, it's perfectly fine to advocate that if that's what you really want, but it's misleading to call this "insurance", because it serves a completely different goal (wealth transfer vs. risk pooling).