Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Does anyone have a rational for requiring an HDHP to qualify for an HSA?
It would make better sense, from a consumer point of view, to be able to open an HSA account, and eventually obtain an HDHP or other qualifying health care related insurance product, before payment can be disbursed from that account.
If there is any public sector interference at all, it should only affect the consumer in how that health care capital fund is spent, and not impose a barrier on the accumulation of health care capital.
Why are there any restrictions on the type of health insurance a consumer can use their capital on? Ideally, any money (health capital) saved by the individual consumer should not have any restrictions on how the money is spent; if it is for health related purposes.
For example, if I want to purchase any type of health plan, using pretax dollars; I should be able to purchase the most cost effective plan for my current needs. I should not be limited to only specific plans, since market conditions can change over time.
Public policy could be used to reduce public and private sector costs and improve the infrastructure that can result in better standards of living for the participants of a given market (e.g. healthcare).
One welfare-state public policy could be to better enable consumer and market friendly financial tools in order to foster more activity in (add liquidity to) the market for health care..
I think a more appropriate use of public sector interference would be to use the scale economies made possible by its consumer base; to create or expand more public sector research and development capability in the pharmaceutical sector, in order to reduce the cost of basic research and development to the private sector.
A goal of this type of policy would be to help reduce time to market for the private sector and lower private sector costs in research and development. The private sector can benefit from economies of scale that result from using the product of existing public sector research and development institutions.
These types of public sector ventures can be used to manufacture forms of public goods; and, in the process reduce costs to both the prublic and private sectors.
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Whatever the public explanation, HSA's were proposed as part of an unstated effort to move healthy individuals out of group plans. Healthy people, in theory, would be enticed to do so by virtue of the fact that they were not likely to require medical services and thus could save the money that they would otherwise expend on high-cost health insurance coverage, while remaining covered for a major medical crisis or emergency. The goals of the proponents aren't served if the accounts become a broadly available way to save money on medical care.
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Thanks for your insight. I was under the impression, that it was about providing the individual consumer (via public policy), with better products, due to increased competition for health care dollars (as a form of providing for the general Welfare of the populace of the United States).
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Health care politics is almost exclusively about money. Bush's opposition to SCHIP expansion, accompanied by his effort to restrict the current program, is not about "free markets" as SCHIP relies on private insurers. It's not about balancing the budget, as even the proposed expansion of SCHIP funding would come from a budget cut to subsidies to insurers who compete with Medicare and not from a tax increase. What's it about? It's part of a fear that the first step in national health care will be to insure all children, and a comprehensive national plan will grow from that as people realize how beneficial that is.
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Quote:
Quoting
Mr. Knowitall
...
What's it about? It's part of a fear that the first step in national health care will be to insure all children, and a comprehensive national plan will grow from that as people realize how beneficial that is.
....
Bingo!
One of your best quotes yet....
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Quote:
Quoting
Mr. Knowitall
Health care politics is almost exclusively about money. Bush's opposition to SCHIP expansion, accompanied by his effort to restrict the current program, is not about "free markets" as SCHIP relies on private insurers. It's not about balancing the budget, as even the proposed expansion of SCHIP funding would come from a budget cut to subsidies to insurers who compete with Medicare and not from a tax increase. What's it about? It's part of a fear that the first step in national health care will be to insure all children, and a comprehensive national plan will grow from that as people realize how beneficial that is.
Are you implying that having better financial tools that may improve the standard of living (a form of providing for the general Welfare of the United States)of US market participants is less important than balancing the budget and providing for the common Offense instead of the specifically enumerated common Defense?
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
I am not answering for mrknowitall.
My opinion is the stakes are too high for politicians to even suggest we dismantle the corrupt greedy system the insurance cartels have manufactured for themselves and actually try to come up with an efficient way to provide basic health care for all persons- especially those persons who cannot afford to see a healthcare provider today.
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Quote:
Quoting
danielpalos
Are you implying that having better financial tools that may improve the standard of living (a form of providing for the general Welfare of the United States)of US market participants is less important than balancing the budget and providing for the common Offense instead of the specifically enumerated common Defense?
:confused: Er... Acid trip?
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Daniel,
This is the United States of American. The land of opportunity (opportunity=make alot of money). It is not about providing for the Common Welfare. You are misinterpreting some of the terminology.
Like Welfare state public policy. And an at-will unemployment? We go to work to pay our bills. We pay taxes because we don't want to pay the Queen. We try to get ahead and we don't want to pay for someone NOT to go to work. ;)
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Quote:
Quoting
deadlock
I am not answering for mrknowitall.
My opinion is the stakes are too high for politicians to even suggest we dismantle the corrupt greedy system the insurance cartels have manufactured for themselves and actually try to come up with an efficient way to provide basic health care for all persons- especially those persons who cannot afford to see a healthcare provider today.
How is increasing competition for health care capital a bad thing? It seems, to me, that all market participants will benefit from lowering barriers to that potential capital.
This option would have been much easier to implement, if we were running massive surpluses.
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Quote:
Quoting
Mr. Knowitall
:confused: Er... Acid trip?
Just asking.
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Quote:
Quoting
deadlock
Daniel,
This is the United States of American. The land of opportunity (opportunity=make alot of money). It is not about providing for the Common Welfare. You are misinterpreting some of the terminology.
Like Welfare state public policy. And an at-will unemployment? We go to work to pay our bills. We pay taxes because we don't want to pay the Queen. We try to get ahead and we don't want to pay for someone NOT to go to work. ;)
Which terminology am I misinterpreting when citing Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution?
"Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa699b23882.htm
An interesting article on what "general welfare" means.
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Quoted from the link posted above.
Quote:
To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
Madison may have been dealing with the internal politics of the time, and perhaps, less concerned with the general Welfare of the United States.
Quote:
The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress."
I noticed no mention of the specifically enumerated power to construct post roads (and by extension post canals; that may result in post freeways that reach every state in the Union), and post offices.
I also find Madison's concern for the powers of the judiciary to be somewhat disingenuous, since the judiciary is usually concerned with law and legalities, not the day to day administration of the executive or congressional branches of government. It seems, Madison may have been more concerned with the actual wording of the bill, as it did not seem to him, to embody the same care that went into the work at the constitution convention.
Quote:
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
I am of the opinion, that Madison felt more constrained by the bill than the actual provisions of the bill that would have resulted in providing for the general Welfare of commerce of the United States, and the market participants that would have benefited from that commerce.
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Quote DanielPalos:
Quote:
I am of the opinion, that Madison felt more constrained by the bill than the actual provisions of the bill that would have resulted in providing for the general Welfare of commerce of the United States, and the market participants that would have benefited from that commerce.
Do you mean you are of the opinion? do you mean you conclude after reading the entire article? or do you mean your cognition of the content in the above link leads you to believe Madison had some other reason- other than he clearly delineated in his letter, WHY he vetoed the Public Works Bill, that originated in Congress, in 1817?
I think it is very clear. What is not clear is why you don't seem to understand the Constitution. And every time I have asked you that you won't answer. You provide no information about why you have difficulty understanding what is being written in the forum or about the referernces given to you. You don't explain what your background is and how we might HELP you understand.
Obviously, we are interested and obviously we have painfully tried to help you and explain.
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Being patronizing is not more conducive to an open exchange of ideas and opinions, than simply trying to understand opposing viewpoints.
Yes, Madison explained it very well, why he was vetoing that bill.
It can be difficult to respond in a more cogent manner, if I am only receiving feedback via non sequiturs and other fallacies.
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Quote:
Quoting
danielpalos
Being patronizing is not more conducive to an open exchange of ideas and opinions, than simply trying to understand opposing viewpoints.
Yes, Madison explained it very well, why he was vetoing that bill.
It can be difficult to respond in a more cogent manner, if I am only receiving feedback via non sequiturs and other fallacies.
Me? Patronizing?
Def: Adj. 1. patronizing - (used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who treat others with condescension
arch, condescending, patronising
superior - of or characteristic of high rank or importance; "a superior ruler"
I don't think I am patronizing of you. I think I am attempting to figure out why you don't GET IT. You keep coming back with smug responses that are cut and paste of your arrogant use of theoretical terms that are hard to understand and certainly don't show any gratefulness to those who are trying to HELP YOU understand what you clearly don't understand.
I suggest that rather than making us suffer further, you write your paper and let your professor critique it.
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Quote:
Quoting
deadlock
Me? Patronizing?
Def: Adj. 1. patronizing - (used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who treat others with condescension
arch, condescending, patronising
superior - of or characteristic of high rank or importance; "a superior ruler"
I don't think I am patronizing of you. I think I am attempting to figure out why you don't GET IT. You keep coming back with smug responses that are cut and paste of your arrogant use of theoretical terms that are hard to understand and certainly don't show any gratefulness to those who are trying to HELP YOU understand what you clearly don't understand.
I suggest that rather than making us suffer further, you write your paper and let your professor critique it.
It would help your position more, if you didn't resort to fallacies when claiming you are not being condescending or patronizing.
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
Why do you disagree with my opinion of Madison's rationale for vetoing a bill that may have had more to do with political precedence, than providing for the general Welfare of the United States?
Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
And we're no longer discussing HSA's.