Medical Savings Accounts (MSA)s under attack

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
It seems that the greed of politicians even includes your ability to pay for your medical treatments. After all, it is far more important that the money be placed in the government's coffers than you being able to actually pay for procedures which you deem necessary.

SOURCE

AP

- November 02, 2009
Flex Spending Accounts Hit in Health Bills

Health overhaul bills in Congress would cap at $2,500 an employee's allowable annual contribution to a health care flexible spending account

WASHINGTON -- Those tax-free spending accounts that you and your co-workers use to help pay for dental work, insurance copayments or over-the-counter drugs face a hit under the health overhaul bills in Congress -- unless a coalition that includes a powerful union, insurers and others can stop it.

Bills in the House and Senate would cap at $2,500 an employee's allowable annual contribution to a health care flexible spending account.

There is no federal cap on contributions now, though companies that offer the accounts -- more than 80 percent of companies employing 500 or more workers do -- typically impose their own limits, usually around $5,000.

Workers can use the accounts to save pretax income, which then can be used to reimburse a range of medical expenses, including dental and vision costs, prescription and over-the-counter medications and copays and deductibles -- again without being taxed.

Capping contributions to the accounts would raise more than $13 billion over 10 years to help pay for Democratic health care legislation because it would limit the amount of employees' income that is exempt from taxation.

But an unlikely bedfellows coalition that is characteristic of this health care debate -- where common interests can unite groups that might typically be at odds -- is mobilizing to try to stop the change.

A limited print ad campaign declaring "Flexible spending accounts work!" appeared this past week in Capitol Hill publications. It's paid for by a group called Save Flexible Spending Plans that is backed by insurers, companies that administer consumer spending accounts and other businesses with a financial stake in the outcome. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union endorsed the campaign and its logo appears on the ads.

"Our concern is that a cap of $2,500 is a definite tax on the middle class, particularly those with chronic illnesses," said Jody Dietel, executive director of Save Flexible Spending Plans and chief compliance officer at WageWorks, Inc. of San Mateo, Calif.

Advocates say the typical flexible spending account user makes $55,000 annually.

Although some lawmakers are sympathetic, the opposition appears unlikely to succeed in getting the flexible spending account cap out of Congress' health care bill. Unlike the initial Senate proposal, though, House members want to allow the cap to be adjusted so it would rise along with inflation. That would be a welcome improvement for advocates.

Aides to the Senate Finance Committee, which proposed the cap, defend it by saying it would help curb overuse of medical care. (Of course "free" medical care would have no such effect. - j) Money deposited in the tax-free accounts must be used within 2 1/2 months of the end of the plan year. That may create an incentive for people to spend all the money even if they don't have pressing needs. ("Need" as defined by politicians, of course. -j)

In addition, committee spokeswoman Erin Shields said the impact of the cap would be limited. Data compiled by the consulting firm Mercer shows that the average flexible spending arrangement contribution in 2008 was $1,385, much lower than the one contemplated by Congress.

Mercer said that 27 percent of all employers offered health care spending accounts in 2008 -- small businesses are much less likely to do so than large ones -- and that 37 percent of eligible workers signed up for the accounts.

"The provision, in addition to helping reduce the overutilization of care, (By whose estimate is that? What constitutes "overutilization"? It is the money which belongs to an American citizen and they should be the ones to decide how the money is "utilized". Of course "overutilization" will be non-existent when care is "free". -j) also affects only a limited number of people," Shields said.

Dietel said those averages are no comfort to people using the accounts to cover extreme costs of a chronic condition -- say a single dad whose child has a peanut allergy requiring special treatment.

"The reality is that an average is an average," Dietel said. "It's the only tool out there that allows an individual to tailor coverage to their own individual need."
Click to expand...
 
yeah, but golly jim, the flipside of this is that effectively i'm subsidizing people that make use of FSAs extensively because they pay less taxes than they should.

so, in some sense, fuck that kind of socialist bullshit, right?

why not just wipe the slate clean and lower everbody's taxes a teeny bit, across the board, and fergit about this special exemption nonsense?

(wow, mebbe how about just a flat tax?)
 
2minkey said:
yeah, but golly jim, the flipside of this is that effectively i'm subsidizing people that make use of FSAs extensively because they pay less taxes than they should.
Click to expand...

What subsidy? Less tax paid by anyone, is a good thing. You aren't paying taxes to give a tax cut. That's politican doublespeak.
 
Gonz said:
What subsidy? Less tax paid by anyone, is a good thing. You aren't paying taxes to give a tax cut. That's politican doublespeak.
Click to expand...

when somebody is paying less taxes than me at the same income level for any reason, well then that's effectively a subsidy. their medical issues are not my problem, right?
 
A subsidy would be you (or the taxpayers) paying them. Them not paying the gov't is not a subsidy.
 
Tort reform
(like the lawyers would let that happen)
De-regulation of the medical insurance industry
(just gimme affordable catastrophic coverage)
Medical savings accounts
(every dollar you spend on medical care is tax exempt)

Yup the situation would turn around overnight
but as old Maha Rushie stated:
"This is about stealing one-sixth of the U.S. private sector
and putting it under the control of federal government,''
 
Americans under attack, by their government!

I love how the socialists have the whole thing backwards.
They start by working from the premise that the people
are owned by the State. We are 180 degrees out from that.
Perhaps one day this country will return to the concept
that the government doesn’t own the people?

Nah what a silly crack pipe dream that is.
 
All you have to do is reread the thread to prove that nobody used the premise that the people are owned by the state.
 
All I have to do?
I'm going to form my opinion regarding commies
from a thread

try harder, convince me
 
Re: Americans under attack, by their government!

Winky said:
I love how the socialists have the whole thing backwards.
They start by working from the premise that the people
are owned by the State. We are 180 degrees out from that.
Perhaps one day this country will return to the concept
that the government doesn’t own the people?

Nah what a silly crack pipe dream that is.
Click to expand...
They don't have it backwards, its the programming they obey blindly.

Smaller government is the only reasonable answer.

obamaapprovalindexnovem.jpg
 
Oh my heavens I Love that numbah Go (down) Osama Go

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top