• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

So the "health care" supporters explain this to me.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Right now people can put up to $5000 into an FSA. If they are doing this, it's because they are going to be paying at least that much or else the government takes it.

Considering that this is a way that people can prepare in advance for inevitable costs, how does reducing it to $2500 help someone who has that much they need to pay out?

I pay way more than 5k in unreimbursed expenses, however there is a 7.5% threshold before one can claim medical expenses. Pretty much this screws anyone in this situation.

How is that good for us?
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
the %7.5 is also increasing. It's a tax issue, in order to pay for this crap of a program. So when they say taxes are only increasing on those making over $200K and $250K married, they are once again lying.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
3
81
It's not good. You will pay more not even taking into account inevitable premium increases.

My advice is C corp and deduct all your HC expenses as fringe.
 

nealh

Diamond Member
Nov 21, 1999
7,078
0
0
Jeez. Look at this reform bill, it is a tax on the middle classs its just called this.
family of 4 at $44K will have to 6-7% of income and at $88k its 9-10%. Now there will be some help but it phases out at 88K. So tell me how someone at $44k want s to pay $2K+ on insurance if there choose not to now.

This reform is a boondoggle of crap. People are being mislead and lied too. They wil lbe very sad to see they may pay more than now. BTW, the IRS will be monitoring this...yeah.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,865
5
0
There are no tax increases on the middle class. What could you possibly be talking about?
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
Right now people can put up to $5000 into an FSA. If they are doing this, it's because they are going to be paying at least that much or else the government takes it.

Considering that this is a way that people can prepare in advance for inevitable costs, how does reducing it to $2500 help someone who has that much they need to pay out?

I pay way more than 5k in unreimbursed expenses, however there is a 7.5% threshold before one can claim medical expenses. Pretty much this screws anyone in this situation.

How is that good for us?
pretty straight forward to me... if you can afford all that extra money then you don't need the tax break... if you use an fsa you must be making over $250k or whatever the latest number for taxes going up is... and i don't think you can write off otc drugs anymore, either...
 
Last edited:

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,804
1,679
126
If I recall.. I did not hear one republican in congress suggest they repeal THEIR government supplied healthcare. Just yours.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
If I recall.. I did not hear one republican in congress suggest they repeal THEIR government supplied healthcare. Just yours.
They tried to, Democrats killed it in commitee last year.
They also tried to do this yesterday in mandating that federal employees get their insurance from the state exchanges, but Democrats killed it in reconcilation yesterday.

Obviously you don't pay much attention.
If the healthcare reform bill is such a good bill, everyone who supported it should drop their federal insurance coverage and participate in the state exchange.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
Right now people can put up to $5000 into an FSA. If they are doing this, it's because they are going to be paying at least that much or else the government takes it.

Considering that this is a way that people can prepare in advance for inevitable costs, how does reducing it to $2500 help someone who has that much they need to pay out?

I pay way more than 5k in unreimbursed expenses, however there is a 7.5% threshold before one can claim medical expenses. Pretty much this screws anyone in this situation.

How is that good for us?
You obviously have not been reading the justifications for the various sections of the bill. Guess I'll have to educate you yet again:

One of the major reason for the increase in health care costs is the demand for services. If people don't "feel" the cost of the services they're consuming, people use more them. So a key to reducing demand is to make people feel more of the cost. One way to do that is to have high deductibles and high co-pays. Another way is to reduce the maximum FSA amount, because it essentially makes the cost of services only about 2/3 of the real cost (since that's the tax savings). Which is why the $5000 maximum is being reduced to $2500.

Frankly, the best approach would be to require that all plans have $5000 deductibles, but that all expenses over that be 100% covered. For those households with low incomes (who "feel" even small costs), a sliding scale of subsidies would help out.

Naturally, all of these approaches will be unpopular, because people are clueless as to why health care costs are skyrocketing. A perfect example was last year's report that the current "standard" for who to give mammograms to, and how often, was not cost effective. Yet the recommendations were decried by all parties - not because they were wrong, but because they were unpopular.

We're held hostage to almost universal stupidity; is it any wonder why making real improvements to our health care system is so difficult?
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
Right now people can put up to $5000 into an FSA. If they are doing this, it's because they are going to be paying at least that much or else the government takes it.

Considering that this is a way that people can prepare in advance for inevitable costs, how does reducing it to $2500 help someone who has that much they need to pay out?

I pay way more than 5k in unreimbursed expenses, however there is a 7.5% threshold before one can claim medical expenses. Pretty much this screws anyone in this situation.

How is that good for us?
that $5000 is untaxed, it's something the Democrats have been fighting to dip into for a while now.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
pretty straight forward to me... if you can afford all that extra money then you don't need the tax break... if you use an fsa you must be making over $250k or whatever the latest number for taxes going up is... and i don't think you can write off otc drugs anymore, either...
LMAO, no the idea is you get a high deductible plan and use an FSA or HSA. Your employer can contribute to your F/HSA yearly as well. It cushons the blow of the deductible but lets you save a lot of money on the high-deductible plan.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
You obviously have not been reading the justifications for the various sections of the bill. Guess I'll have to educate you yet again:

One of the major reason for the increase in health care costs is the demand for services. If people don't "feel" the cost of the services they're consuming, people use more them. So a key to reducing demand is to make people feel more of the cost. One way to do that is to have high deductibles and high co-pays. Another way is to reduce the maximum FSA amount, because it essentially makes the cost of services only about 2/3 of the real cost (since that's the tax savings). Which is why the $5000 maximum is being reduced to $2500.

Frankly, the best approach would be to require that all plans have $5000 deductibles, but that all expenses over that be 100% covered. For those households with low incomes (who "feel" even small costs), a sliding scale of subsidies would help out.

Naturally, all of these approaches will be unpopular, because people are clueless as to why health care costs are skyrocketing. A perfect example was last year's report that the current "standard" for who to give mammograms to, and how often, was not cost effective. Yet the recommendations were decried by all parties - not because they were wrong, but because they were unpopular.

We're held hostage to almost universal stupidity; is it any wonder why making real improvements to our health care system is so difficult?
when it comes to the individual, everyone wants to live longer. Everyone wants mamograms every 6 months in case they fall into that 1% or whatever that get cancer at 40.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
You obviously have not been reading the justifications for the various sections of the bill. Guess I'll have to educate you yet again:

One of the major reason for the increase in health care costs is the demand for services. If people don't "feel" the cost of the services they're consuming, people use more them. So a key to reducing demand is to make people feel more of the cost. One way to do that is to have high deductibles and high co-pays. Another way is to reduce the maximum FSA amount, because it essentially makes the cost of services only about 2/3 of the real cost (since that's the tax savings). Which is why the $5000 maximum is being reduced to $2500.

Frankly, the best approach would be to require that all plans have $5000 deductibles, but that all expenses over that be 100% covered. For those households with low incomes (who "feel" even small costs), a sliding scale of subsidies would help out.

Naturally, all of these approaches will be unpopular, because people are clueless as to why health care costs are skyrocketing. A perfect example was last year's report that the current "standard" for who to give mammograms to, and how often, was not cost effective. Yet the recommendations were decried by all parties - not because they were wrong, but because they were unpopular.

We're held hostage to almost universal stupidity; is it any wonder why making real improvements to our health care system is so difficult?
I'm a diabetic and my son has chronic asthma. I'm supposed to use less insulin and he breathe less? We hear how this will lower costs and now one of the mechanisms is that those who have to spend a good deal (which is why people use an FSA to save money when they can. They know that it's going to be a lot of money) will have to pay more?

Let people have insurance and make sure health care costs even more so that those who have no alternative are forced to pay more? Nice.

Good job on the universal stupidity in legislation. I wonder if Obama will carry my letter around if I told him how much he's costing my family.

To the other poster, I don't make near 250K. That's a nice number to pull out of your ass and all, but sorry. Nope.
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
3
81
I thought you owned a pharmacy Hey?

A) you should be expensing all medical expenses though your corp
B) even if not, you get serious discount on drugs.

look out for numero uno this bill will not help producers
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
I thought you owned a pharmacy Hey?

A) you should be expensing all medical expenses though your corp
B) even if not, you get serious discount on drugs.

look out for numero uno this bill will not help producers

Hell, I wouldn't own a pharmacy for anything :D I'm a peon :)

We don't get any discounts, and our coverage is so-so. The point however is that it seems that Shira and his ilk look at those who need coverage as those who ought to suffer the most. Cancer treatments? Asthma? Chronic illnesses of any kind? Well stop that!

I'd love to.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
I'm a diabetic and my son has chronic asthma. I'm supposed to use less insulin and he breathe less? We hear how this will lower costs and now one of the mechanisms is that those who have to spend a good deal (which is why people use an FSA to save money when they can. They know that it's going to be a lot of money) will have to pay more?

Let people have insurance and make sure health care costs even more so that those who have no alternative are forced to pay more? Nice.

Good job on the universal stupidity in legislation. I wonder if Obama will carry my letter around if I told him how much he's costing my family.

To the other poster, I don't make near 250K. That's a nice number to pull out of your ass and all, but sorry. Nope.
I'm with you. Shira is apparently clueless on why someone would ever want to have more than $2500 in an FSA. I also have chronic issues that will always cost me more than $2500 per year, I make well below $250k/year, and yet now I get to pay more in taxes when the person I voted for (first mistake) told me I wouldn't have new taxes. Brilliant.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
You obviously have not been reading the justifications for the various sections of the bill. Guess I'll have to educate you yet again:

One of the major reason for the increase in health care costs is the demand for services. If people don't "feel" the cost of the services they're consuming, people use more them. So a key to reducing demand is to make people feel more of the cost. One way to do that is to have high deductibles and high co-pays. Another way is to reduce the maximum FSA amount, because it essentially makes the cost of services only about 2/3 of the real cost (since that's the tax savings). Which is why the $5000 maximum is being reduced to $2500.

Frankly, the best approach would be to require that all plans have $5000 deductibles, but that all expenses over that be 100% covered. For those households with low incomes (who "feel" even small costs), a sliding scale of subsidies would help out.

Naturally, all of these approaches will be unpopular, because people are clueless as to why health care costs are skyrocketing. A perfect example was last year's report that the current "standard" for who to give mammograms to, and how often, was not cost effective. Yet the recommendations were decried by all parties - not because they were wrong, but because they were unpopular.

We're held hostage to almost universal stupidity; is it any wonder why making real improvements to our health care system is so difficult?
Basically what you just described in RATIONING.
As far as your last statement, It's difficult because both sides of the isle stick their fingers in their ears and say LALALALALA I'm not listening to you.
Forcing participation won't lower health care costs it will increase it.
30 million more people are on insurance. That's 30 million MORE customers. That's 30 million more people that will pay through the nose to get better when sick.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY