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?