|
|
|
|
|
|
by notacoward
543 days ago
|
|
|
Much like "perfect attendance" rewards in schools, I don't think this approach is very fair to people with chronic illness. Their condition is not their fault. These expenditures aren't really discretionary. And yet, under such a plan, they'll still be spending on health care while their peers get $4000 bonuses. To a large extent this also applies to people with kids, or even to older people. All that "scrutinizing and controlling medical expenditure" is a great deal for the young and childless and fully able, at the expense of every other demographic. It's almost anti-insurance, in a way. Instead of insulating people against catastrophic expenses for things beyond their control (the basic purpose of any insurance and the thing the current system fails at) it would force even more people into medical bankruptcy. That doesn't sound like an excellent solution to me. Maybe some variant of it could work - I do like the part about eliminating the "use it or lose it" aspect of current HSAs - but as stated it sounds pretty unfair. "This will force a cultural change" has rarely worked out that way in practice. IMX it usually leads to a worse culture where all pretense of collaboration is abandoned in favor of chasing loopholes and bogus metrics, and more often than not that's intentional. |
|
|
Life is inherently unfair to some extend. Some people are born beautiful and others are born ugly. Some are born intelligent and others are born dumb. You can't equalize everything.