STOP! the ACA "replacement"

The big debate in Congress and the Senate right now is how to get rid of the ACA. However, instead of just repealing the entire bill (which is why the Repbulicrats were elected) they are going to "replace" it. Before everyone who has been hurt by this bill gets on the bandwagon to praise their efforts, you better stand up and take notice of what they are really doing.

First, a little history: This mess probably began with pressure from special interest groups because the government at that time (about a decade or so ago) forced insurance companies to stop having "maximum limits" on their policies. To most people, this sounds like a good deal, but very few patients reach those maximum limits even with serious diseases like cancer. In actuality, this move benefited few, but made insurance companies pretty hot, I am sure. They could not feasibly make money without increasing costs—and when they did that how were they supposed to attract healthy people to buy their policies? Thankfully, a "low-cost" option that benefited healthy people was created in 2004- the HSA.

These accounts were hybrids between traditional insurance (which costs insurers a lot of money when unhealthy people purchased it) and high deductible plans. Because they are cheaper than traditional insurance, they frequently appeal to low income individuals who can't afford regular insurance. The problem is that most of these low-income individuals use them like high-deductible insurance, in other words, they don't use them. They don't maintain a health savings account because they don't have the spare money to put into it. They simply pay for the insurance in case something catastrophic happens.

President Obama for whatever reason (perhaps campaign contributions) decided to further help insurance companies who not only lost maximum policy limits but also were no longer able to deny people for pre-existing conditions. I am not saying these people should not be covered. No, I personally think if a private insurance company deems a patient "uninsurable" and the government wants to be truly noble, it should create a special insurance policy for these people (who usually can't work either) that the government funds- oh wait, I think it is called "Medicaid." Otherwise the government should just say they are not going to help because what they have effectively done is taken something that is not even remotely a private businesses responsibility (health insurers) and forced them to deal with the problem without compensating them.

As we all know, special government insurance policies were not on the former President Obama's agenda. Instead, the ACA was a great government money-making scheme to help offset some enormous expenses it was incurring in other areas and a pat on the back to insurance companies. I am still not entirely convinced that both the Bush and Obama administrations were not actually working together on this. The ACA did not seek to truly help poor people by providing all of them with insurance. (It is estimated 200% of the "official poverty level" is the real poverty level. They could have simply updated the "official poverty level" to the real poverty level. This would have automatically given insurance to everyone in every state if they needed it because they were too poor to afford it, but it would have cost a fortune without increasing tax revenue.) Instead, the ACA required everyone to get health insurance (making a high-deductible HSA look more enticing) or pay a government tax. I firmly believe this was done to make insurance companies happy because as was already stated poor people may purchase a HSA designed policy, but they do not use them. People who had more money could choose what they wanted to purchase the HSA policy or traditional insurance (is there any wonder why this was called a "gold" plan on the marketplace).

And here is the interesting note: rich people like HSAs. Why? Because it is another tax free savings account. It can even be inherited by your spouse, and you or your spouse can withdraw all the money in the HSA tax-free after you reach 65 (and use it for whatever you like). Now, if you designate someone else as your beneficiary, that person will have to pay taxes on it as income. Still, HSAs are now a part of every estate planners portfolio of investments.

And this is where our current legislature sucks as much as our previous one did. By replacing parts of the ACA with an expanded HSA law, they are really still helping rich people and insurance companies. To make it even more sickening, the Government Accountability Office has been studying HSAs since 2004 when they were first inducted into legislature. These reports are available to anyone who wants them, but in 12 years of research done in a multitude of ways, they all say the same thing: HSAs are only beneficial to two populations—single healthy people and rich people who want a tax free savings account. The GAO found that in 2008, people had an average income of over $100,000 before they preferentially chose an HSA.

What can you do? Well you can write your Representative and Senator. But, American politics have long been in the pockets of businesses and special interest groups. We don't need term limits. We need informed voters voting out people who have been a part of the system too long.