The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on October 31, 2012, 12:51:09 PM
-
Kookaburra (2,561 posts)
A FB friend posted something about the ACA
I have no idea how to counter her assertion, and I'm pretty sure she's wrong.
The good news is she's relatively reasonable (or at least I think so) and would likely listen if I could present a cogent argument. The problem is I don't understand the ACA any more than she does, but feel that it is better than what she says.
Anybody want to help me out? Here's her post:
"How "Obamacare" is directly hurting our household….We pay for our own health insurance for our family because I work part time and (husband) is self-employed. But, here it is: I contribute non-taxable $3000/year into a flexible spending account for medical expenses not covered by our insurance. Beginning in 2013, there will be a $2500/year cap, which is currently $12,000! So Obama says he won’t raise taxes? Maybe not, but here’s where he’s getting OUR money!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021677461
I know several people that use the FLEX accounts in amounts way over $4K, well they used to anyway.
Skidmore (27,818 posts)
1. A flex account is not a tax but a savings account and a cap is not a tax.
I used to have one at my former job and it had a cap plus any monies in it had to be expended by the end of the fiscal year. Some years I used it all and others I couldn't and it reverted to the employer. For a while you could buy OTCs out of it and then you couldn't. It was not taxed at anytime as apparently hers isn't. Twelve thousand seems like a pretty hefty flex account. Perhaps it is determined by family size. Don't know. Mine was never that high but appeared to be more than adequate to cover out of pocket expenses not covered by our insurance policy when submitted--copays, meds. and so forth.
When you lower the amount that is tax deferred for the FLEX account, you are raising a persons taxes.
sinkingfeeling (26,087 posts)
3. OK, she's correct that starting in Jan. there's a $2500 a year limit on FSAs. What I
think she's saying is they currently have $12K or 4 years' worth of non-taxed money in the account. That seems odd since most employers capped the amount that an employee could stash in a FSA and some don't allow roll-over into the next year. Does she think the government is going to take the excess? All she's losing is the ability to put another $500/year away tax free.
No. The limit was $12k/year, now it is $2500.
BlueMan Votes (87 posts)
4. the cap is on yearly contributions, not the total amount in the account.
if they already have 12K in the account, the cap on yearly contributions won't affect that at all.
Shut up! You have no clue how the accounts work.
SickOfTheOnePct (1,374 posts)
8. Because the law says she can?
I don't see anything wrong with FSAs - between myself and my kids, we use our full amount every year, and the bit of tax savings is nice.
Exactly. FLEX accounts allow people that don't itemize to get deductions for medical costs.
-
I read that thread, and they all came off like hysterical, jabbering idiots. They don't have the foggiest notion what the hell is in that bill. It could enstate Dick Cheney as King for Life on page 1,787, and they'd still slavishly support it. Mindless obamaroids.
-
I read that thread, and they all came off like hysterical, jabbering idiots. They don't have the foggiest notion what the hell is in that bill. It could enstate Dick Cheney as King for Life on page 1,787, and they'd still slavishly support it. Mindless obamaroids.
It does . . . :tongue: :whistling: :fuelfire:
-
obamacare is the biggest tax increase on the middle class in U.S history. When they start having $500+ taken out of their checks each month to pay their share of it, they will know ...
-
Well, they deny they're stupid too. So what do you expect?
I guess they missed the whole Supreme Court ruling allowing it as Constitutional only because it IS a tax.
-
Well, they deny they're stupid too. So what do you expect?
I guess they missed the whole Supreme Court ruling allowing it as Constitutional only because it IS a tax.
Yes, Justice Roberts said explicitly that the reason he is letting it stand is because it is a tax. That in turn makes it Constitutional. Either way, Roberts is a douche.
-
obamacare is the biggest tax increase on the middle class in U.S history. When they start having $500+ taken out of their checks each month to pay their share of it, they will know ...
But, but......it's supposed to be free.
Wait until they find out the only doctors they can find will be working in the black market.
-
20,000+ new IRS agents mandated. ZERO, none, nada, zilch new doctors, PAs, nurses, techs mandated.
Yes, it is a tax bill.
-
But, but......it's supposed to be free.
Wait until they find out the only doctors they can find will be working in the black market.
It isn't close to being free; unless you are a lazy welfare bum. At which point it will be the same as it is now.
20,000+ new IRS agents mandated. ZERO, none, nada, zilch new doctors, PAs, nurses, techs mandated.
Yes, it is a tax bill.
Not to mention that there are more doctors than one can count leaving the practice because of obamacare.
-
Y'all need to remember one thing about this. Roberts didn't say it could stay because it was a tax ... he reWROTE the damn thing to MAKE it a tax then said it could stay because it was a tax and not a penalty.
KC
-
Y'all need to remember one thing about this. Roberts didn't say it could stay because it was a tax ... he reWROTE the damn thing to MAKE it a tax then said it could stay because it was a tax and not a penalty.
KC
But but but he was setting it up so that 0bama would lose the election. He is a hero. Do I need to say that was sarcasm?
-
But but but he was setting it up so that 0bama would lose the election. He is a hero. Do I need to say that was sarcasm?
Not to me.
:-)
KC
-
The problem is I don't understand the ACA any more than she does
We'll need more government to explain it to you, comrade.
-
Yes, Justice Roberts said explicitly that the reason he is letting it stand is because it is a tax. That in turn makes it Constitutional. Either way, Roberts is a douche.
No kiddin'! Talk about a major disappointment!
-
Found another thread where DUmmies can't add 2+2.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021680071
AllyCat (7,045 posts)
Dependent eligibility verification from my employer
Employees who pay for insurance through our employer have been sent a letter saying we are required to submit documents (originals no less since Wisconsin does not allow copies) to prove that my family is actually my family. At MY EXPENSE, I have to supply birth certificates, marriage license, and 2011 tax returns to this outfit that also wants this stuff NOTARIZED. All this costs money.
Of course, the corporate line is they are helping us identify who are our dependents and who are not. The Consova website says they are helping companies save money. Of course, we know how this saves money for them. We don't get the documents back and are expected to pay for it or lose coverage for our family members. Basically, we are being accused of fraud until we prove ourselves innocent.
Isn't the information public record and they can get it themselves? I now have to take a couple hours and more money to the Courthouse to get all this stuff and submit it in less than 3 weeks or my kids and husband no longer have insurance coverage. Is this legal? They said it has something to do with ACA.
The company needs these forms to prove that you are covered by their insurance.
hedgehog (28,688 posts)
2. I don't know about ACA, but my husband's company pulled the same
stunt last year. It cost us $50 to get a copy of the marriage license!
We're in a two week sign up period in which we have to select our options for next year. The info we've been given is really cute. No one saw fit to tell us that we're being moved from the local plant's plan to the corporate headquarters plan. The plans are roughly the same, but one offers an HSA and FSA with a deductible and the other an FSA only with co-pays, so our selections have to change accordingly. We spent two hours last night figuring out what the differences are. Thank the US government for IRS documents on-line!
So - the company didn't have the means to tell us our plan is changing and what that means, but they did dedicate a page to warning us that a 40% tax on high cost "Cadillac" plans will kick in in 2018! As near as I can tell, high cost is not the same as high benefits, but the brochure isn't clear on that!
-
AllyCat (7,045 posts)
Dependent eligibility verification from my employer
Employees who pay for insurance through our employer have been sent a letter saying we are required to submit documents (originals no less since Wisconsin does not allow copies) to prove that my family is actually my family. At MY EXPENSE, I have to supply birth certificates, marriage license, and 2011 tax returns to this outfit that also wants this stuff NOTARIZED. All this costs money.
Of course, the corporate line is they are helping us identify who are our dependents and who are not. The Consova website says they are helping companies save money. Of course, we know how this saves money for them. We don't get the documents back and are expected to pay for it or lose coverage for our family members. Basically, we are being accused of fraud until we prove ourselves innocent.
Isn't the information public record and they can get it themselves? I now have to take a couple hours and more money to the Courthouse to get all this stuff and submit it in less than 3 weeks or my kids and husband no longer have insurance coverage. Is this legal? They said it has something to do with ACA.
I know EXACTLY why this is happening....I might have a little to do with healthcare and healthcare insurance.
Trust funds have found that once coverage was expanded to cover adult children (under Obamacare) they discovered a ton of fraud. Employees were adding step children, nieces, nephews, children of s/o's, etc that did not qualify for coverage and it was driving up the cost of claims..so they started to demand proof of eligibility....