Talk:Health Savings Account

From Bogleheads

The citations here (and on the HDHP page) are from the IRS publication referenced at the end; should they be footnoted in the main text as well? Grabiner 01:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be, From recent experience, having tried to update some pages without finer tuned references has often proven to be difficult. Blbarnitz 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the intention of the Treasury Bond link, added by Grabiner? Currently, it's a broken link. LadyGeek 03:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a page which I believe may be created eventually, so I created the link as an invitation to create the page, and so that it will be there if the page is created. I would have done the same with TIPS, but there happens to be such a page already.Grabiner 04:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this already exists, redirected to Treasury bonds --LadyGeek 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I returned this to a wanted page. Since we are likely to have to use the forum as the medium for writing wiki pages from this point onward, this page is likely to be one of the first we try to have written by forum members.

On August 8, 2008 I made these comments on the wiki admins forum:

"After three months it is readily apparent that the forum membership has yet to adopt the wiki, or desired to participate in its ongoing creation and management. As a possible last attempt at exposing forum members to wiki content and encourage participation I suggest that we do the following.

1. Continue with the This Week on The Wiki series, although with the current dwindling contributor base it is becoming harder to regularly manufacture finished pages on a weekly basis.
2. As we create pages for development we should present them in a forum post for forum members to fill out. Grant access to the wiki as members respond, have them sign in, and direct them to produce the wiki page. The page should be sketched out in advance, to avoid the dreaded "white page" roadblock to page participation.

This is perhaps the only way we can stimulate the membership to revivify the wiki."

Alex replied:

"Back to the main issue of low participation. I will put a link to the wiki on the forum pages, which may help. But I really like the idea of having the pages "written" on the forum by posting the topic and the bones of a page on the Investing - Theory or Personal Finance forum (as appropriate). You saw how much feedback the Boglehead book authors got when they posted the chapter outline. It's just a much less daunting task to comment on something than take responsibility for an entire page. There's also the reality that the reward for a lot of our posters comes from the immediate feedback of others, something that is missing from the wiki format. And not only would the direct feedback provide info for fleshing out the page, I expect that some of the contributors would be lured into becoming direct wiki editors since they would have a feeling of ownership over the page and would feel more involved with the wiki in general. We could encourage this by providing a line or two about how to become a wiki editor at the bottom of every topic posted and we could even extend direct invitations to those who were the most helpful with their responses. I think we'd at least occasionally get a positive response to a PM that says something to the effect of, "Your response has become an important part of the _____ page on the wiki. We would like to add you to list of wiki editors so you can keep an eye on the page and make changes if needed." Or perhaps all of the page writing could be done on the forum. The wiki editors would then truly be editors, selecting and posting pages that need to be written or updated, editing the responses into a coherent whole and posting them back to the wiki."

I replied

"I thought I would bring up a number of points about trying to enlist the forum community to "write" wiki pages on the forum. We should start sprinkling an occasional "our" and a "your" when referring to the wiki before the forum readership (as in "our forum wiki " or "your wiki "). I have already asked Taylor and Mel if they would mind posting an encouraging word whenever we post a projected page on the forum for the forum members to write. They are happy to comply; all we have to do is pm them when we make such a post. I would suggest that we use something akin to the Socratic method in trying to guide the membership into writing a narrative page. Here is an example. Let us suppose we offer a new wiki page " Why Index" for the forum membership to write. We offer some light suggestive guidance such as :what are the advantages to indexing a portfolio? Any disadvantages? Papers backing up these arguments? Forum members are likely to respond with a list of reasons and perhaps a link or two. We of course would stress that we need a narrative. Hopefully, members will comply and attempt to begin a narrative text. This method of writing will prove a bit cumbersome, and with luck our member/writers will make a note of this (perhaps with a few commiserating comments from us about how how difficult this is becoming on the forum interface. Our unassuming guidance will have instilled a number of values

1. Establishing narrative writing as the core of the wiki;
2. Building up the notion of collaborative page development;
3. A dawning realization that the forum is not a very good medium for this type of effort. At some point in this process, we might offer to transfer the page over to the wiki and grant the forum writers wiki access to finish the job there. We should not format anything-- leave the page simply a platform for writing text. When forum members have "finished", we can then added format touches.

Perhaps this can be a way to clue in the forum membership on what fun collaboration can be."

Hardly anything has changed since we broached this idea. Perhaps this policy, combined with a relaxation of eventual open access to the wiki for all forum members, will provide a basis for transforming this into a true wiki. Blbarnitz 06:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone - I made some significant changes to this page today. Hopefully you all like it. I was thinking about how to best bring up HSA's through the main table of contents page. Should it be grouped into Retirement planning? IRA's? Personal Finance/Health Insurance? What do you think? I would like to put in Retirement Planning column on the main wiki page. -- Mikep

First, thanks very much for contributing. Concerning the name and date "stamp" for use on the talk page: you can do this by sticking four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your entry; or you can use the second from the last button on the tool menu to do the same thing. About grouping the HSA page; the pure "wiki" way of doing this is by placing it in reasonable categories; thus the page can easily fit in both the retirement planning and health insurance categories (the self automated part of the page is the alphabetized section at the bottom), as well as any others that might make sense. The category system is automated; all you have to do is assign it to a category and you are done. Forum members, however, most of whom are not familiar with a wiki, have continually voiced confusion about finding wiki pages. Thus, we created a host of tables of lists and templates to help them out. It is not essential that every page be listed on a manual table. In this instance, it would probably be best to list it in the Health plan section,so casual readers can find it; the category listings will place the page across suitable multiple categories. --Blbarnitz 01:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike - You made me do some research. My employer's health plan fit everything here except for one: the prescription drug costs did not count towards the deductible. Guess that means that it's not HDHP (they never said it was, but I was curious). From that perspective, I learned from it.

Some additional info about the time/date stamp icon. It fills in wiki syntax --~~~~. You can see it by using Show preview, no need to save the page first.

As for the main page content, click on the portal box header Table of contents, then edit the page. You should be able to find where to insert the link. Use Show preview to check your work. If you make a mistake, just use the "history" tab and undo the change.

A link to High deductible health plan is already in Category:Financial Planning. Remember that the power of the wiki is that you can put things in as many categories as you want. The important point is to be able to find the information. Up to you. --LadyGeek 01:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The note about what to do if your state taxes HSAs is a bit long for a footnote; should it be made a separate section? Grabiner 03:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your judgment grab; I have made a stab at including it in the page, and also reorganizing the sections somewhat; see it this new ordering makes sense --Blbarnitz 03:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have updated HSAs under Retirement Planning from the main table of contents. I was thinking that about the state tax as I was writing it. It only applies to 6 states I wasn't sure if it should go in the main section, main section is ok with me though. Thx, Mikep 04:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Barry - page looks good with state tax in separate section. A+++ Thx. Mikep 04:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I added some minor notes after reviewing. Forward reference to Notes section for state tax did not make sense after state tax was moved earlier. Also added note about no income restrictions and in states that tax HSA, possible to itemize the medical expenses as if they were paid from a taxable account. LadyGeek, yes prescriptions need to count toward HDHP deductible, it is in one of the links, do you think it should be on the page? Mikep 14:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think prescriptions should be on the High deductible health plan page, as it's specific to the HDHP itself and not the HSA. I added a request for an update in the Talk page. --LadyGeek 21:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved HSA from Retirement Planning to Financial Planning in the main table of contents. Added note to Talk:Table of contents. --LadyGeek 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The pdf links I posted were reports full of information, but published by an insurance broker so they have their marketing info in there. I wish there was a way to separate it since my intention is not to post advertising, but the info in the document is fairly comprehensive. Mikep 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)