Reply #75: I'm glad you asked that question

[Lasher]

The real intent here is to eliminate employer-provided healthcare. This and Social Security 'reform' are remaining major items on his rightwing extremist legislative wish list.

I believe he's been saying you get rewarded by choosing a plan that is less expensive. But he might be saying 'comprehensive'. Sounds about the same so what could be the difference?

Translation: You'll get a tax break if you pay for a cheap plan yourself. You will be punished with higher taxes if you are currently fortunate enough to have good medical benefits through your current or former employer. That's because these benefits are more valuable (expensive to employers) than he thinks you should have, so he proposes to treat these benefits as taxable income. This will force employees to opt for a high deductible, low premium plan.

He's also saying people should be making their own choices.

Translation: He wants you on your own, negotiating for healthcare with insurance companies, with your employer out of the picture.

Trust me, this is a shell game. The HSAs are little more than a smokescreen that happens to benefit bankers and Wall Street at our expense.

Check out my post upthread here. Arm yourself by hitting the provided link to salin's OP on the subject.