Individuals: $3,000

Families: $5,950

Allowable Additional Catch up Deposit for those 55 and older: $1,000

(Contributions can be made as late as April 15th for the preceding year.)

Max. HSA Out-of-Pocket Amount in 2009:

$11,600 family

$5,800 individual

Min. HSA Deductibles in 2009:

$1,150 Individual

$2,300 Family

Other than the result of the Zogby poll, the most significant finding is the increase in the number of undecided voters.  This indicates more than just Obama not being able to make the sale — it foreshadows Obama could be losing a sale already closed.

In a related development, the most significant analysis done thus far of the Obama - McCain Presidential election, in my view, is the piece in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, by Juan Williams.   Williams has done his polling homework, and has picked out the results he cites in his piece from sifting through many other polls.  As an African American, Williams brings a relevant and critical eye to the unfolding election contest.

The following are excerpts from William’s piece:

“The race issue is clearly not going away. And the key reason — to be blunt — is because there is no telling how many white voters are lying to pollsters when they say they plan to vote for a black man to be president. Still, it is possible to look elsewhere in the polling numbers to see where white voters acknowledge their racial feelings and get a truer measure of racism.

In a Wall Street Journal poll last month, 8% of white voters said outright that race is the most important factor when it comes to looking at these two candidates — a three percentage point increase since Mr. Obama claimed the Democratic nomination. An added 15% of white voters admit the candidates’ race is a factor for them. Race is even more important to black voters: 20% say it is the top factor influencing their view of the candidates, and another 14% admit it is among the key factors that will determine their vote. All this contributes to the idea that the presidential contest will boil down to black guy versus white guy.

Consider also a recent Washington Post poll. Thirty percent of all voters admitted to racial prejudice, and more than a half of white voters categorized Mr. Obama as “risky” (two-thirds judged Mr. McCain the “safe” choice). Yet about 90% of whites said they would be “comfortable” with a black president. And about a third of white voters acknowledged they would not be “entirely comfortable” with an African-American president. Why the contradictory responses? My guess is that some whites are not telling the truth about their racial attitudes.

A recent New York Times poll found that only 31% of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama. That compares to 83% of blacks with a favorable opinion. This is a huge, polarizing differential.

But polling can be tricky. In May, a Pew poll asked voters about Mr. Obama but did not give them the option of saying they are undecided. In that poll, whites split on the candidate, 45% saying they had a favorable opinion, 46% unfavorable. When white voters had the option of being undecided, as they did in the Times poll, 37% of whites said they had an unfavorable opinion of him, but 26% said they were undecided….

In the Democratic primaries there were states, especially in the South, where blacks made up nearly half of the electorate. But in the general election there are no states where blacks make up so large a percentage. Even in Southern states such as Georgia and North Carolina, where blacks made up about a quarter of the vote in the last presidential election, it will be an upset if Mr. Obama manages to win. Those states have a history of Republican dominance in presidential contests. Even an energized black vote is unlikely to make Mr. Obama a winner anywhere in the South, although some Democrats hold out hope for Virginia.

In 2004, John Kerry had a 46% favorable rating among white voters, barely better than Barack Obama’s. But Mr. Kerry lost. Mr. Obama needs to do better with whites. But the white voters’ view of him is still clearly unsettled.

Polls show white voters struggling to identify with him as a fellow American who, to quote Bill Clinton, is able to “feel your pain.” When the New York Times poll asked whether Mr. Obama cares about “the needs and problems of people like yourself,” 70% of whites answered “a lot” or “some.” But 28% of whites said Mr. Obama cared about them “not much” or “not at all.” Compare that with the 72% of black voters who said Mr. Obama cared about them “a lot.” The same Times poll had Mr. Obama leading Mr. McCain by six percentage points, 45-39, but trailing by nine points among white voters, 37-46.”

Finally, the kinda, sorta, maybe, anti-endorsement endorsement by former President Bill Clinton is historically important.  Using my own electoral impact translator Bill’s statement is really a message to the Hillary voters, the women over 40 (Fox News has them breaking for McCain by 3 or 4 points) and the white working class voters: don’t break your pick or your leg trying to vote for Obama, he is not really ready to be President.  Bill Clinton said: “You can argue that no one is ready to be President.” In other words, on the key point of weakness for Obama, experience and readiness, Bill refused to give Obama cover.  Hmmmmmmm.  This may or may not foreshadow what is in store for Obama if he does not, as is being widely reported, pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

In short, the Williams piece clearly illuminates the race problem for Obama.  The Clinton statement compounds the Obama experience and readiness problem, and reinforces the doubts among Hillary’s key constituents in the Democratic Party — women and working class whites.

In a social science experiment, a moment like this could be easily labeled the tipping point.

If on the other hand, you offer Americans real help to access health care services they need, cover them against big bills and serious health conditions, but let them have control over their own health care needs by helping them have the financing and resources to get the care, then you have a winner — people get help and they get it in a form that fits the American psyche.

This is why Indiana’s HSA program for the working Medicaid population is attracting huge numbers of applications, a little more than 10,000 a month since January of this year.

The plan has a health insurance policy with a $1,100 deductible, and then 100% coverage after that up to $300,000 in benefits.

Each plan participant has a debit card with access to $1,100 cash for spending on their health care needs.  They make their own choices and decisions.

The plan includes a minimum of $500 in preventive care services.  If the insured does not spend the $1,100 in the account that year, the money rolls over into their account for the next year if the insured has completed all of the preventive care services that have been identified by Medicaid as necessary for the age, sex and health status of the insured.

Herein is an example of a government financed HSA for the poor, that is popular, puts incentives around making sure the insureds actually get the preventive care prescribed, and that allows those being helped to have the dignity of making their own decisions about what is best for their health, when they consult their doctor.  This is the anti-nagging, anti-bureaucrat health plan.

It gives the insureds cash if they do the right thing.  It also is not a cultural affront to Americans, who just want and need some help.

Senator McCain’s win will cause shock and awe world-wide, and in the councils of the Democratic Party, but it will bring political balance to a precarious economic and political time in the United States.

McCain’s win will also cause a serious, bi-partisan approach to health care reform.   But before we get to that, let’s set the playing field: The fight over health care reform can be broken down, in general, into two camps:  the Democrats want to give control over your health care to a government run entity, for example, like Medicare.  The Republicans want to give you control of your health care by giving you cash to help you buy the care you want or you need.

Republicans say the Democratic plans will cause rationing and a loss of control by the individual, just like the HMOs tried to do, which caused a public back lash.  Americans, unlike Europeans, hate being told what to do by a corporate or government bureaucrat.

Democrats say the Republican plan will not give enough money to families.  (McCain wants every family to get $5,000 to purchase health insurance).  To the Democrats, the Republican plan is like lowering a ten foot rope into a fifteen foot hole.

So, how will this health care debate, post-McCain victory, turn out?  Don’t hold your breath, even if my prediction is wrong, and Obama wins, there are serious economic and political structural problems with any legislative attempts at health care reform.

Structural Problems with Achieving Health Care Reform

When voters are confused about the details or merits of competing plans, voters as a block generally default to the dominant cultural characteristics of America.  The most recent instruction on American’s cultural and political views on health care rationing and corporate or bureaucratic control to access to care Americans want, is the example of what happened to HMOs.  HMOs tried to ration and control.  They are in full retreat.  The HMOs and their philosphy were, as von Clauswitz would say, defeated “in detail” by the average American. This is why, when Democratic staffers on the Hill open up, they make reference to an Americanized version of government health care.

Furthermore, Americans do not like to innovate with their health care.  This tendency translates into a collective decision to simply not to change anything.

The Republicans are, in general, not inclined to conduct a massive health care reform because of the lack of political benefit they received from the Medicare Prescription Drug reform, and the Democrats have had two massive attempts at health care reform fail, the first being the Clinton Health Plan, and the second being the Patient Bill of Rights. It is also instructive to look at the California experience, where the Republicans and Democrats joined hands, labored mightily for state-wide health care reform, and in the end, no bill even emerged from Committee.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but health care reform’s political history is littered with failures and serious political consequences for those who have failed.  The Democratic party lost control of the U.S. House after the Clinton plan failed.

Then there is the most serious problem, the one that tied the shoe laces of reformers in California, cash.

This year, the combined spending on Medicaid (for the low income), Medicare (for the seniors) and the tax break for employer provided health insurance is close to, if not above, the one trillion dollar a year mark  — and the baby-boomers have not even begun to seriously hit the rolls of Medicare.

By 2017, Medicare will be adding 11 million seniors.  In nine years (in 2017) there will be 55 million seniors in Medicare.

The thing about reality is that it is hard to avoid.  Eventually, even the most ardent attempts at convincing the public that the King has a beautiful flowing gown fail, and eventually reality catches up with the wide-eyed desires of “change.” California wanted change.  They just could not afford the sort of change they wanted.  Reality hit hard.  The bill did not make it out of Committee.  The bi-partisan alliance failed.  The result is their will be no change in California in health care at the state level for some time.

Ninety some odd Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives want Medicare for All.  Notwithstanding the fact that the Republicans would rub their hands with glee at the prospect of the Democrats attempting to pass that legislation, the Democrats are going to have to try and meet the effective veto these House members will have on the Democratic House Leadership’s reform proposals.

It is very easy to see the House Democrats over-reaching politically, and going for what they really want the next time health care reform is readied for legislative action.  This is going to create serious tensions within the Democratic party between those who want something that will pass, and those who want to be pure.  Ninety members is a big number.  If even a third of them banded together to force their caucus to accept their version of health care reform, the Democrats would be tied up in knots for a very long time.  Why would the Medicare for All crowd want to delay any action?  By waiting, more and more Americans (i.e. baby boomers) will be in Medicare — government run health care.  Why not wait until those numbers grow substantially to push for Medicare for All?  Time makes their constituency grow.

Then, of course, there is the fact that $1 trillion of government spending attracts $1 trillion worth of special interests.  By the time every interest that could derail or materially alter any deal is satisfied, the end result may be worse than the current state of affairs.

Other than the:

1. inherent American cultural problems faced by any government control of health care
2. lack of most American’s desire to take risks or innovate with their health care
3. gun-shyness of both political parties when it comes to health care reform
4. $1 trillion worth of influence and power of the special interests arrayed around the $1 trillion in U.S. government health care spending
5. past legislative failures of Clinton’s plan, the Patient Bill of Rights and the California experience — and the political fallout for failure
6. tensions within the Democratic party between the 90 Medicare for All U.S. House cosponsors, and those Democrats who would rather do something else, and
7. the massive growth in the current health care spending by the U.S. government on Medicare, Medicaid and the employer provided tax break — leaving little new money to work with for any reform plan

health care reform’s future is, well, um, uncertain.  Each one of these seven points represent a high degree of difficulty for any reforms to overcome and be passed into law.  Taken together, there is an extremely high level of difficulty.  Add into the seven points above that changing the tax code is the most difficult of all types of legislative action to achieve, and the level of difficulty of health care reform just became the most difficult type of legislation to pass of any kind in the United States.

This is why the “believe in change” slogan rings hollow for many Americans — it is just like wishing the King did have clothes.

The latest Gallup poll, in the aftermath of the glowing media coverage of Senator Obama’s European World Tour, has McCain up 4 points among likely voters — that is, McCain has a 4 point lead among voters who are most likely to actually go to the polls and vote.

This represents a 10 point swing in McCain’s favor.  Gallup had him down 6 points among likely voters a month ago.  Women over 40 are responsible for three or four points of this lead. They are breaking to McCain over Obama by electorally significant margins.

In a time of economic, political and military uncertainty and tumult, Americans will, I predict, go with the safer choice of experience — Senator John McCain.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause)

“I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out.”

-+-

The word on the street in Washington, D.C. among Democratic Hill staff is that Obama is going to lay low on his advocacy for a single payer system, but as soon as he becomes President, it is the first thing he is going to tackle — passing single payer health care in the United States.

What fact?  This one:

“Since 1965, the S&P 500 index has gone up in price at an annualized rate of 17.6% on days when Congress is Out of Session, and at an annualized rate of 1.6% on In Session days.”

So, with complete disbelief in this fact, the SEC had it checked.

And, based on 43 years of market performance and more than 11,000 data points, the above statement is true.

The SEC then allowed The Congressional Effect Fund to be set up, which is in the market on days Congress is out of session, and out of the market on days Congress is in session.

What is causing this effect on the market?  Primarily, when Congress merely proposes new legislation or takes some limited action on some legislation, even it does not pass or become law, the market discounts the value of the companies in the industry that the law could, if it passed, impacts.

This sounds like a great fund to put your HSA investment funds in, and I am going to — since the inescapable conclusion, according to the founder of the fund, Eric Singer, is that “Congress destroys wealth.”

This fund is the way to protect your wealth from the highly negative effects of being in the market when Congress is in session.

You can contact the fund at 888.553.4233 or write the Congressional Effect Fund at c/o Matrix Capital Group, Inc. 630 Fitzwatertown Road, Willow Grove, PA 19090, or visit them on the web at www.congressionaleffect.com.