User talk:Jamescagney

Health savings accounts
You claimed that you were an expert, so what is your expertise?

You are deleting anything you disagree with in violation of Wikipedia rules. If you continue to do this I'm going to complain to the Admins and you may be suspended. Nbauman 12:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My expertise is with section 223 regulations that govern Health Savings Accounts. My background for the last twenty years is with tax regulations and economic consulting as it relates to these regulations. Specifically, section 223, 482 and 6666.2. I provided expert witness testimony in tax defense cases for Fortune 10 companies and recently on HSA health plans for state senate committees.

I got involved in HSAs 6 months before they became law and provided feedback to the US Treasury as they were shaping the final regulations. I speak to the US Treasury as least 4x per week over the last three years to discuss advanced questions that are not clear in the regulations. Because the regs are so new, it is very difficult to accurately answer many questions. Based on answering thousands of questions and speaking with the US Treasury's HSA expert for the last three years, I do not know (nor does the IRS) anyone that is more involved in HSA regulations and analysis.

More importantly, I have developed an advanced financial model that compares traditional health plans to HSA health plans. I can adjust 25 different variables (age, of the person or family, income, medical expenses, medication, co-pay, deductible etc). Based on this model, I know for a fact when HSA health plans can help or hurt an individual! Of course, any model has limitations - The real proof of my expertise and conclusions is confirmed by my data that comes from working with over 2000 individuals over the last three years.

The problem with almost all articles or studies written on HSA plans has little to do with fact but on one's political party or by those who want Universal Health care in the USA. I have read the studies and formulas the authors have used in the studies. In fact, i have spoken directly with most of the authors quoted on the Wiki page. When the conclusions of the author are written before the actual study is complete, you can guess that the study was setup to prove an organizations view point, intended conclusions.

For example, any study that claims HSAs are only for the young, healthy and or wealthy has about as much value as yesterday's newspaper. This statement is a flat out lie and a clear indication the author knows nothing about how a health plan works with one's medical expenses. THE GAO study contains a disclaimer that states the sample size was so small, no conclusions can determined (they interviewed 47 people!) It is very easy to design a study to make HSAs look like the worst idea since invading Iraq.

My main issue with the content on the WIKI page is that most of the information is not fact but based on the misinformation being promoted by individuals and groups that want universal healthcare. None of these so-called healthcare experts sell health insurance or even work directly with companies or individuals who buy insurance.

VICTOR FUCHS

Still, if an individual with an HSA has one too many doctor’s visits and spends all the funds in his account, he must pay for any additional expenses out-of-pocket until his deductible is met. (Each account is paired with a high-deductible insurance policy for catastrophic expenses.) This is one element that troubles Fuchs and others who believe HSAs favor wealthier individuals. “The size of the deductible that a high-income person can afford is very different than what a low-income person can handle,” said Fuchs, the Henry J. Kaiser Jr. Professor, Emeritus.

In fact, many experts would agree that HSAs are skewed toward healthy, high-income individuals.

Indeed, a well-off 35-year-old who visits the doctor once or twice a year, for instance, stands to gain a nice-sized savings account from this set-up. The same can’t be said of a 59-year-old, low-income individual with hypertension and emphysema.

Fuchs, who is a strong proponent of the use of vouchers to provide universal health-care coverage in the United States, hopes the rhetoric over HSAs won’t drown out discussion about health-care solutions that address this problem.

RESPONSE -


 * If that's true then you're violating the Wikipedia prohibition against original research WP:OR. You're not allowed to write articles based on your own conclusions drawn from your own expertise. You're definitely not allowed to delete other viewpoints that you disagree with because of your own expert conclusion that they're wrong.


 * WP:OR "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"


 * The way to get around that is to find reliable sources on the Internet and quote them. But you can't give your own unattributed opinions.


 * If you have legislative testimony or peer-reviewed articles on the Internet, I would tend to accept that (although there are WP restrictions on citing yourself). Nbauman 01:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE So, if someone comes out with a study that says the German Death Camps didn't exist - and as an expert on death camps, I know they did, i can not delete those claims and or references to those studies?


 * As an "expert" -- no. All you can do is summarize and link to reliable sources. (Lots of people think they're experts. If those were the rules, then an "expert" on the German death camps could claim that they never existed, and delete all the claims that they did. The effect of these rules is to give all significant sides of the argument.)


 * You should read WP:OR and WP:POLICY. If you don't know what the rules are, everything you do will be reverted. Nbauman 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)