Talk:Health savings account/Archives/2016

Can someone clean this article up?

I don't have the time or knowledge to correct this article, but I'd like to encourage someone who knows what they are doing to do a wholesale revamping of it. It's very disjointed and difficult for someone outside to read. In particular, statements like: "In Indiana, those with HSAs are 98% satisfied." don't belong in the section on "benefits" - they may belong in the section on customer satisfaction, but having glanced at the original source, I think this statement looks like a specific subpopulation within Indiana, and someone who knows more than me should make the judgement about where it belongs. Further, the "Benefits" section is a muddle of "why it's good for society" and "why it's good for an individual" (similarly for criticisms). These should be separated so that an individual making a decision about whether it's good for him/her can get the relevant information. Joelmiller (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Health savings account/Archives/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class== I put start class but I think it should go up to B class because the article is well detailed. The article could be at least a Good Article class if more references were added throughout.EECavazos 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Mid priority because the topic is important within a country.EECavazos 20:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)