Health Savings Accounts: a tax-sheltered way to pay for quackery

[HuckleB]

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/heath-savings-accounts-a-tax-sheltered-way-to-pay-for-quackery/

"If you want money to pay for pseudoscience, but your pesky health insurance company is getting in the way, a Health Savings Account might be just the solution. And if the Health Savings Act of 2016, sponsored by the Big Supplement’s own Senator Orrin Hatch, becomes law, your opportunities will be greatly expanded.

First, let’s take a look at Health Savings Accounts and explore how they can be used to pay for quackery. Then we’ll see how Hatch’s Senate Bill 2499 (and companion House Bill 4469) would essentially force taxpayers to fund consumer purchases of unproven and potentially unsafe dietary supplements and “The One Quackery To Rule Them All,” homeopathy. Finally, we’ll look at how all of this might affect the presidential race.

...

One of the sponsors of Sen. Bill 2499 is current presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio. Could it possibly prove an embarrassment to Sen. Rubio that he is supporting such obvious corporate welfare? Or alternative medicine? As to the latter, it is unlikely. Bernie Sanders is a longtime proponent of naturopathy and Hillary Clinton is in the thrall of Functional Medicine guru Dr. Mark Hyman, but no one seems to think a thing about it. On the other hand, Ben Carson did get a drubbing over his shilling for a supplement company, but I imagine he was going to flame out anyway. And Donald Trump’s anti-vaccination nonsense was duly criticized, although he doesn’t seem to have suffered any ill effects from it (or anything he says, for that matter). Rand Paul and Chris Christie also pandered to the anti-vaccination movement, but they’re out of the running now.

Back in the day, Congress investigated quackery as a social ill. Today, Congress pushes tax deductions for its purchase. And presidential candidates freely support medical pseudoscience. What a shame."


---------------------------------------------------------


Once again, science gets ignored by our politicians.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. HSAs also get used for traditional, science based medicine.

[HuckleB]

2. Yes, they do.

[RockaFowler]

3. I use them all the time

It's great to put some money away pre-tax for items like the Optometrist or even the Dentist!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. You and many others. Which is why the baby-with-the-bathwater tone of the article seems

a bit too much.

[HuckleB]

5. Perhaps you should read the entire article before judging it. -eom-

[karynnj]

22. true, but in conjunction with insurance, not in lieu of it

Rubio follows in the path of other conservatives who suggest these accounts be used in additional to catastrophic health care unstable that pays only after a very large amount has already been paid. This is far different than any Democrat's plan.

[awoke_in_2003]

12. And I put $2k in at the beginning of every year...

my wife has medical issues. This year, most of that $2k is going to be spent in knee rehab visits ($50 a pop). It is nice to spread that out over 24 pay checks. It sucks that therapy is so damn expensive. I have a decent health plan, I don't know how some people that don't have such handle it.

[HuckleB]

13. Bankruptcy.

Still, it would be better and, probably cheaper for everyone, if these things were covered. Convoluting the system with all these parts just seems like we're hiding from the biggest problem.

[awoke_in_2003]

14. Yep, I agree...

health care is too damn expensive in this country.

[HuckleB]

15. I stop by to have lunch with the accounts payable person assigned to me at the clinic.

She, and every one of her cohorts, says single payer is the only way to go. These folks spend all day long dealing with insurance company nonsense. They would lose their jobs under single payer, but they get it.

[Liberal_in_LA]

25. Yes. Glasses, dentist bills

[Rex]

6. Yeah well when this country is no longer a plutocracy I will worry about that.

Bigger things tend to worry me more, like offshore tax shelters for the criminally rich. HSA have a legit purpose.

[HuckleB]

7. Yeah, let's keep letting things get worse.

No, thanks.

[Rex]

8. Who is letting things get worse? You and I or the people in charge. Get real here.

Your worry about quackery is noble, but there are larger problems imo like corporations owning Congress and the SCOTUS.

[haele]

9. Well, for the past five years, employer insurance has paid for all sorts of non-standard treatments.

Including therapy supporting "wellness" programs that include supplements and dietary regimes - like Medi-fast, Atkins or South Beach clones (all with their particular supplements); chiropractors, acupuncture, meditation therapy, and home gyms (talk about a scam there!).
Why should HSAs be any different? If the approved doctors in network prescribe a particular "Vegan Immune-booster Testosterone Supplement" because that's what they believe that's the proper placebo for the over-weight, over-worked, over-stressed and running on empty mid-level employee on the plan as opposed to the actual cure to that poor schmoe who's facing destitution if s/he doesn't keep working tasking that used to require three employees, then so be it.
While providing a secure work environment, a reasonable paid vacation benefit with sick days would be better for the employee in the long run, our society is all about making as much money as possible and putting responsibility for work-place and environmental wellness at the simplest, lowest possible factor - the employee.

Corporations and Shareholders would rather all employee get pushed a pill that profit can be made off of, than throwing away a percentage of potential dividends by allowing the employee to be healthier and more productive through the work environment as provided by the employer.

Yes, an HSA is a scam. If proper health care was really a right and available as it is in other countries, Americans who aren't functioning within a low maintenance "normal" range of health wouldn't need to worry about bankruptcy because they can't afford supplemental health insurance or an HSA that a chronic condition or medical emergency might require.

(On Edit) Don't get me wrong. I love my HSA - I have a disabled spouse, and two other dependents, and this "account" has saved me over $2K a year through taxes - and allows me not to balance paying a medical bill or the lot rental or utilities. I know there'll always be money for critical prescriptions and doctor's visits. And it gets a better return than a savings account. But still, I'd rather not have to depend on it, and there are other things I would like to spend the $8K a year I put in it (we average $6500 in out of pocket medical, vision, pharmacy, and dental a year...so it's very important to have the roll-over to pay for the coverage "reset" at the beginning of the next year).

Haele

[HuckleB]

11. Employees are not treated well in this country, no doubt.

Still, the allowance for quack treatments doesn't make that better, as it is, and this new bill will only make that factor worse.

[shraby]

10. For most people, they can't put enough in a health savings account to pay for anything

besides a couple trips to the doctor and the meds they would need to take.
Heaven help them if they actually need to go to the hospital..

[Egnever]

16. So what?

I am not getting the controversy here.

It is your money if you choose to spend it on a quack why is that a problem?

[HuckleB]

17. So you didn't read the link.

Got it.

[Egnever]

18. I read it

I wasn't convinced.

Sounded like a bunch of BS to me.

[HuckleB]

19. You didn't read it.

We both know it. Why pretend? There's no point.

[Egnever]

20. LOL

That all ya got?

[HuckleB]

21. I have reality, and honesty.

You have neither, in this case. I'm good.

[Major Nikon]

23. The whole idea behind tax breaks is to encourage things that benefit society

While tax breaks are handed out like candy, it's important to remember that one person's tax break simply increases the tax burden on everyone else. So make no mistake, for all intents and purposes, tax breaks are no different that subsidizing an activity. The reality is that our government provides these back door subsidies to all sorts of things that are a detriment, rather than a burden to society. This often takes the form of all sorts of pseudoscience like climate change denial and religion that promotes disinformation and ignorance.

The standard for any tax break should be proof of a net benefit to society that goes beyond the value of the benefit they receive, and those standards should be reevaluated periodically to insure compliance.

[HuckleB]

24. +1,000 ... 000

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

26. What utter bullshit

One, HSA's cannot be used to pay for non medical expenses, so this article is a lie. Second, as a severe sufferer of scoliotic back pain, I'm sure in hell not going to let you take my right away to see an acupuncturist or chiropractor.

[Major Nikon]

29. Is paying someone to pray for you a medical expense?

Because it's covered by HSA. Personally I'm thinking not, but YMMV.

Furthermore nobody is trying to take anyone's "right" to indulge in whatever manner of quackery their heart desires. At issue is whether other taxpayers should have to shoulder the tax burden for it.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

30. That is nowhere in your link.

What are you talking about?

[Major Nikon]

31. It's listed quite clearly on the link I provided

For further reading see...

A Christian Science practitioner is an individual who prays for others according to the teachings of Christian Science.[1] Treatment is non-medical, rather it is based on the Bible and the Christian Science textbook, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (1875) by Mary Baker Eddy (1821–1910), who "discovered" Christian Science in 1866 and founded the Christian Science church in 1879. According to the church, Christian Science practitioners address physical conditions, as well as relationship or financial difficulties[2] and any other problem or crisis. Practitioners are either "listed" or "unlisted," a designation that refers to a form of international accreditation maintained by The Mother Church, in Boston, Massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_practitioner

It should also be noted that so-called "Christian Science", despite the name, is pretty much as far from actual science as you can get and if it doesn't fall under the heading of quackery, I'm not sure what else could possibly qualify.

So I ask again, is paying someone to pray for you a medical expense?

If the answer is no, and I'm pretty sure it is, then your assertion of fact, "HSA's cannot be used to pay for non medical expenses", is in fact a non-fact.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

34. Still not cited. I see nowhere in your link Christian Science being covered

Perhaps you can copy paste from your original link?

(I'm referring to your link, not the OP link - which is also unsubstantiated.)

[Major Nikon]

35. Control-F is your friend

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

36. That's nice, still not there

I'm now saying this conclusively.

[Major Nikon]

37. You also said conclusively, "HSA's cannot be used to pay for non medical expenses"

So now you've asked me to cut and paste the very item from the list I had already not only cut and pasted, but also provided the wiki link so you could read all about it.

At this point I can't help thinking you're either being obtuse or you aren't. I'm not sure which is worse.

At any rate if an alphabetical ordered list is really that difficult and Control-F wasn't enough of a bread crumb, hopefully you can count down to #17.

Or you could go here

Or you could go here

Or you could go here

Now if you want to keep holding on to your assertion that ""HSA's cannot be used to pay for non medical expenses", by all means be my guest.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

39. They cannot be. I've never backtracked. What you are saying is very outrageous.

In fact, if you read my initial post, I am frustrated that you all think acupuncturists and chiropractors are considered to be non medical expenses. The only point of contention is your assertion and the article's assertion that Christian Science prayer is covered.

On edit: What you're implying is outrageous and potentially bigoted. If you are saying that Christian Science medical professionals should not be paid by HSAs, that is no different than Donald Trump saying Muslims should be banned from the US or Sharia law should be banned.

[Major Nikon]

40. So asserting that praying for someone isn't medical treatment is outrageous bigotry

I hope you realize you are funny as hell.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

46. Christ, nowhere does it say praying is a medical expense

Chriopractic and acupuncture are, and rightfully so.

Christian Science or any other religious body has every right to persuade its members to join the medical profession and be properly licensed by the state. Patients have every right by the 1st amendment to seek licensed medical professionals of their same religion.

I don't see why this so hard to understand or accept.

[progressoid]

49. There are no licensed medical professionals in the Church of Christ, Scientist.

Christian Science practitioners are certified by the Church of Christ, Scientist, to charge a fee for Christian Science prayer. There were 1,249 practitioners worldwide in 2015;[312] in the United States in 2010 they charged $25–$50 for an e-mail, telephone or face-to-face consultation.[313]

Their training is a two-week, 12-lesson course called primary class, based on the Recapitulation chapter of Science and Health

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

50. And those are not covered

A licensed psychologist, for example, who is a Church of Scoence member would be covered, just like a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or atheist psychologist.

[progressoid]

58. Actually, "Various U.S. federal, state, and private health insurance plans provide for the reimburse

Various U.S. federal, state, and private health insurance plans provide for the reimbursement of Christian Science nursing care and practitioner treatment. The U.S. Federal Office has been working to increase the availability of insurance options that cover these types of care.

Medicare and Christian Science nursing facilities
Seventeen Christian Science nursing facilities across the United States are Medicare providers. (Find out more from the Commission for Accreditation of Christian Science Nursing Organizations/Facilities, Inc.)

HSAs
Check out our article on health savings accounts (HSAs) for more information.
Other insurance plans covering Christian Science care

By clicking on the links below, you can find a sampling of insurance plans we have on record that accommodate Christian Science care. http://christianscience.com/member-resources/for-churches/committee-on-publication/us-federal-office/health-care-reform/insurance

[Major Nikon]

65. Nonsense

IRS Publication 502 proves you are dead wrong, which I have already previously provided to you.

If you want to keep denying an assertion that has been utterly destroyed, be my guest. It speaks volumes about the value of them, or rather the lack thereof.

[WillowTree]

78. On page #7 of that very IRS pulblication.......

"You can include in medical expenses fees you pay to Christian Science practitioners for medical care."

And the only "care" that these practitioners provide is prayer.

[Major Nikon]

84. Not only that, these quacks claim their "treatment" is more effective...

if a person forgoes actual medical care.

Whenever you hear about a child dying because their parents decided to hire religious quacks to pray for them, rather than saving their life with effective medical care, think Christian Science.

Ian Lundman, age 11, died of diabetes in 1989 in suburban Minneapolis. His father had left Christian Science, but did not have custody. The boy lost weight and became lethargic. A school official noticed a fruity odor on Ian’s breath, a classic diabetes symptom, but did not recognize it as such nor did she know his mother and stepfather had religious beliefs against medical care.

They retained a Christian Science practitioner for spiritual treatment of Ian’s illness. The practitioner billed them $446 for his prayers over two days.

An unlicensed Christian Science nurse sat by Ian’s bedside for the last five hours of his life as he lay in a diabetic coma. She knew that he did not respond to anyone. She observed his vomiting, labored breathing, excessive urination, facial spasms, and clenched teeth. Nevertheless, her concept of care was to give him drops of water through a straw and to tie a sandwich bag and washcloth around his scrotum. She did not call for medical help or ask his mother to obtain it.

http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=132

[WillowTree]

92. Please don't misunderstand me here.

I 'm no fan of Christian Science "treatment". Personally have no use for it whatsoever. I watched my beloved Grandmother die in a Christian Science sanatorium and it broke my heart.

Still, it was what she believed in. And the care there and the services of the practitioner surely cost far less than a week's treatment of a stroke would have cost in a hospital. And, while I know this view isn't popular here on DU (or lots of other places), I do support the right of people to follow their religious beliefs so long as those beliefs don't involve harming others.

So, IMO, paying for the services of their practitioners (and sanatoriums, I suppose, for that matter) out of the funds in an HSA, which is the insured's own money, shouldn't be an issue, either.

Some (but certainly not all) health insurance plans have covered the services of Christian Science practitioners for many years. And insurers have actually been mandated by various state departments of insurance to cover most of the other practitioners mentioned in this thread, chiropractors, naturopaths and homeopaths etc, for years, as well.

[HuckleB]

93. Read the article in the OP, and get back to us.

[WillowTree]

94. I did. Every word. I'll still stand by my own opinions.

[HuckleB]

98. I'm not buying it.

Your response doesn't follow from the content of the piece.

[WillowTree]

99. In what way?

Please be specific.

[WillowTree]

100. So.........You seem to be comfortable implying that I'm being disingenuous, but.....

.........when asked to explain, you clam up .

Interesting.

[HuckleB]

101. I was off line.

Thanks for confirming that you didn't bother to read the article.

[WillowTree]

104. Ah, but I did.

The mere fact that someone else comes away with a somewhat different opinion than you do doesn't make them a liar and I'm not the first person on this thread that you've called one.

Very small minded on your part.

[Major Nikon]

95. I'm all for people spending their money on whatever quackery they want

There will never be a shortage of charlatans willing to scam people out of their money.

I have a couple of exceptions.

1) When someone makes that decision for someone else like a child or other dependent

and

2) When someone asks me to increase my financial burden for quackery.

I fully understand that various insurance plans, including publicly financed ones, include provisions for various quackery. I'm not in favor of that either.

[WillowTree]

96. How does someone paying their own money.......

.......out of an HSA for something that you believe to be quackery "increase [your] financial burden"?

[Major Nikon]

97. One person's tax benefit is a tax burden on everyone else

Unless there's validity to the right-wing myth that tax cuts pay for themselves (and I'm pretty sure there isn't), it can't work any other way.

[Major Nikon]

52. No, you said that

I should hope you could at least understand what you have written yourself.

"HSA's cannot be used to pay for non medical expenses"

I twice asked you a very simple question which you have twice refused to answer. Very telling that.

So I'll repeat the question again and give you another opportunity to avoid it.

Is paying someone to pray for you a medical expense?

Christian Science practitioners are not licensed by any state. If you think they are simply doctors who happen to pray for their patients, you haven't the slightest clue what the term means, and it's not as if I haven't already directed you to the
wiki page so you could better educate yourself on the subject. If that weren't enough, I suggest you go here:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cs2.html

Or you can read about the innocent victims of this form of quackery.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

54. I disagree and don't accept with what you're asserting

Your links point to a religious institution advising their members to pursue the medical field. You post a separate link about prayer which has nothing to do with a medical expense.

Just posting link spam does not substantiate your claim.

[Major Nikon]

56. I could really care less if you accept it or not

I'm just pointing out the value of your assertions.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

57. And I'm pointing out the value of yours

[Major Nikon]

62. Sure, and pointing out Christian Science is quackery is just like the Donald hating on the Muslims

That was a real jewel.

[cleanhippie]

61. This one has taken denialism to a whole other level!

Facts be damned, he believes what he believes and there's no stopping him.

[Major Nikon]

63. You just need faith

[cleanhippie]

64. Or willful ignorance

[Major Nikon]

66. Those two things go together like drunk and disorderly

[cleanhippie]

60. On DU it's not uncommon to see someone choose willfull ignorance when facts disagree with them

but you have taken denial to a whole new level.

Well done, sir!

[Major Nikon]

71. Some even elevate the practice to performance art

[cleanhippie]

76. it's a performance, alright. Art, not so much.

[HuckleB]

33. Prove your assertions with the same level of evidence provided ...

In the article.

This should be interesting.

[Major Nikon]

43. Don't wait up

So-called "commonsense" can't seem to answer the simple question, "is paying someone to pray for you a medical expense?". If that weren't funny enough, if you believe the answer is no, you are a bigot just like Donald Trump.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

47. I gave you an entire thread that debunked what you were saying

Specifically rebutting your claim about HSAs covering praying. I took your allegations seriously, read through your links, and googled on my own about the matter, until I realized your outrageous logic behind saying that "praying" is a covered HSA expense.

[Major Nikon]

59. Yeah, you claimed Christian Science quacks were actually licensed by the state

Great job of debunking you have going on there.

[ghostsinthemachine]

27. K&R (NT)

[AxionExcel]

28. Why people ignore corporate "science"

Meet the ‘rented white coats’ who defend toxic chemicals

"Science and opinion have become increasingly conflated, in large part because of corporate influence. As we explain in “Science for Sale,” an investigative series by the Center for Public Integrity and co-published with Vice.com, industry-backed research has exploded — often with the aim of obscuring the truth — as government-funded science dwindles...

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/08/19223/meet-rented-white-coats-who-defend-toxic-chemicals

[HuckleB]

32. Nice conspiracy derp.

It has nothing to do with the OP, and yet you posted it. Hmmmm.

[AxionExcel]

45. It's tragic how some people cling to their "beliefs"

You would be shocked to know that there are entities on the internet who post stuff pretty much every day somewhere in the net to bolster the corporate-industrial-pharmaceutical medical complex by trashing alternative healing approaches. These entities apparently "believe" they must destroy any competition by labeling aternatives as quackery and conspiracy. Pretty damn low, eh?

Shocking, I know. But you can rest easy knowing that their are keenly intelligent people who see right through these trollish attacks and are willing -- as a public service -- to point out that volumes of corporate science are little more than bought-and-paid for propaganda.

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3771146.html

[Major Nikon]

67. Sure, anyone who calls Christian "Science" quackery MUST be a pawn of big pharma

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

51. Being against big pharma is not conspiracy theory

[Major Nikon]

68. Perhaps not, but it's a great start

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theory

[AxionExcel]

72. Thank you for the dose of common sense

[HuckleB]

106. So buy into all forms of anti-science quackery?

[HughBeaumont]

38. HSAs: More admission of the American health system's disgraceful failure.

You get sick, Humana raids what you worked hard for. And it still isn't going to be enough.

None dare call it a scam . . . .

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

53. This a valid criticism of the HSA model, not what the OP is talking about

Though you can still have HSAs mandated to be funded by employers (as the Affordable Care Act does currently) and it still work well.

I do agree that citizens should not have to fund an HSA on their own to get healthcare.

[WillowTree]

85. Perhaps I'm missing something here.......

.......but in the HSA model, how does "Humana (or Cigna or Aetna etc etc) [raid] what you worked hard for" when the insured gets sick? How does that work?

[LannyDeVaney]

41. There are a couple of really easy, good uses for FSA ...

1. If your child needs braces. Most orthodontists charge a flat rate for braces, with a monthly payment divided equally. Very easy to know how much needs to be set aside in a FSA. I've done this for both my kids.

2. Some folks don't understand how these work, but they are a great way to save a bit on deductibles. Say you have a high deductible health care plan. Set aside that much in your FSA. For example, if you set aside $2000 in your FSA, you have access to that amount IMMEDIATELY, on January 1, even though the deduction from your paycheck will be spread out over the year. You don't have to have the balance in your FSA to use it - just the total allocation. This is a big advantage for folks with high deductibles.

EDIT: And I just realized I completely missed the point of the OP. Sorry.

[latebloomer]

42. This piece is based on the incorrect assumption

that all alternative medicine is a scam. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support that that many types of alternative medicine are quite effective.. To label it all as "quackery" is ignorant.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

48. +1 the same people who say alternative medicine is a quack

defend the big pharma industry

[Major Nikon]

73. People who twist themselves into pretzels to defend alternative medicine...

while simultaneously promoting big pharma conspiracy theories, are also typically those who promote anti-vax hysteria, AIDS-denialism, global warming denialism, and other assorted nutbaggery.

So I'm not sure you want to go there.

For further reading see...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mike_Adams

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mercola

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

80. Are you a RationalWiki poster?

Figures.

[HuckleB]

82. Honesty and logic. I guess you find those things appalling.

Lame.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

88. I find RationalWiki lame

That's it

[HuckleB]

90. It doesn't like your fantasies, so no one is surprised.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

103. RationalWiki is fantasy

To those who don't know, what started as a wiki forum to talk about another wiki run by one wingnut, and apparently edited now by only two wingnuts, seems to think that any criticism of the Federal Reserve is conspiracy theory while at the same time supporting Occupy Wall Street. Talk about schizophrenic. They also seem to have an unhealthy obsession with bashing chiropractic, almost as if they're bought off by the AMA.

[Major Nikon]

105. Well the source here "seems to think" Christian Science Practitioners are licensed by the state

So I'm not sure why anyone would give your opinion on RationalWiki much merit. So rather than posting unsupported opinions, why don't you try providing some relevant examples.

While you're working on that, you might have a look at a DC who admits "A Lot of Chiropractic Is a Sham". When some chiropractors claim to be able to cure everything from cancer to bedwetting provided you continue to see them for a never ending series of spinal adjustments, it's just not that hard to see where the quackery comes in. Since you "seem" to be a one trick pony with your conspiracy theories that everyone who disagrees with you MUST be working for some mysterious cabal aimed at destroying mankind, I fully expect you to just claim he's been "bought off by the AMA".

[Major Nikon]

91. I hear that from time to time

...from fans of Mercola and NaturalNews.

Just sayin'

[HuckleB]

79. Nice logical fallacy you got there.

Wow! That's one embarrassing response you offered.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

81. The lack of understanding of HSA regulations is embarrassing

[HuckleB]

83. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that reality.

:hi/

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

86. You all think religious services are covered, which is hogwash

Wow this thread is exhausting.

[HuckleB]

89. And you go to making things up.

Weak sauce.

[progressoid]

55. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine.

Hat tip to Tim Minchin @3:00

[Major Nikon]

69. If that were true, it wouldn't be called alternate medicine

[Archae]

44. The quacks are adding on to this...

With their "Right to try" bills, would allow desperately sick people to try any and every sort of quackery in the hope it might help.

Sure thing. Someone dying of cancer, they have the "right" to have all their money scammed from them too.

Laetrile, anyone?

[Yo_Mama]

70. HSAs are mostly used for traditional medicine, and are needed now more than ever.

You know those high-deductible insurance plans? The ones you get on Healthcare Marketplace? People need money to pay for what the insurance doesn't.

This post struck me as just weird.

[Major Nikon]

74. "mostly" being the key word

The problem comes in when the public is being forced to subsidize obvious quackery.

[Yo_Mama]

75. In general, if you can get a physician to sign a letter of medical necessity it is not quackery.

There really isn't that much bullshit covered - the natural incentive to the person is NOT to spend their money on useless treatments.

There are masses of non-quack treatments and medicines which are not covered by insurance, as well as the increasing co-pays and deductibles.

For example, non-generic prescriptions will often not be covered or have little coverage even when the individual is allergic to generics, or the generics don't work.

Many prescription medicines are approved for certain uses (label). But the medications are commonly prescribed by doctors for other conditions, and now insurance companies often refuse to cover that cost.

I'll give you an example:
- Sildenafil (Viagra) can be used quite effectively in many people to treat PAD (Peripheral Arterial Dysfunction) and claudication. It seems to work especially well for leg-cramps limiting activity (claudication). Not only does it remit the symptoms, but because it helps blood flow it seems to help the body grow new blood vessels:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17585066

I haven't been able to get any insurance companies to cover it. So I work with a female patient who needs it, and she has to pay for it out of pocket. This is not quackery. In many cases there is an underlying genetic defect:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19770400

Any attempt to eliminate the "quackery" is going to eliminate more solidly-based medical treatment than quackery.

[Major Nikon]

77. I have no doubt that you are correct

HSA's were intended to bridge the gap between covered and non-covered medically related treatments. I have no doubt they are generally used for legitimate treatments.

However, coverage is already selective. I can't use my HSA to pay for a gym membership even though exercise has proven health benefits. I can use my HSA to pay for someone to pray for me even though this is quackery by any reasonable definition. I can't use my HSA to pay for homeopathy, specifically because it's quackery. So there already is an attempt to eliminate quackery. The only question is which ones don't make the cut and that most certainly is a subject of public policy debate, especially when there is a concerted effort to include more forms of quackery. If it were simply a matter of getting a doctor to sign off on it, then we should be able to write off the cost of a fishing boat so long as a doctor agrees it's a health benefit. There has to be some sort of regulatory limitation.

[dilby]

87. They can also pay for deductibles.

It's what I use mine for and also use it for stuff insurance won't cover like my dental and glasses.