Bye, Bye! On Jan 1: Flexible Spending Accounts will no longer be allowed to purchase over the counter medications.
All you "progressives" (what an oxymoron), enjoy! ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
formatting link
| 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Yep, OTC. I never take Tylenol... it puts me into shock :-( ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
What I wonder is whether or not your typical doctor will write you a prescription for your various OTC drugs just based on, e.g., a single-visit with $20 co-pay or whatever... or in the case of folks who are paying for the complete doctors visit, $100 if they're lucky!... vs. wanting to take a complete medical history, run some of their own tests, etc. -- all at a not-at-all-cheap price.
Indeed, I think that -- at least by dollars spent -- the largest chunk of HSAs has historically gone to OTC drugs, and this change is not at all in the consumer's best interest. It sounds more like the thing some prescription drug company lobbyists would have pushed for, knowing that if you're going to have to see a doctor for OTC drug prescriptions, even if something like Sudafed has traditionally worked reasonably well for you, you'll be quite likely to at least give some non-OTC drug a try due to figuring that, in general, non-OTC drugs are more powerful and therefore perhaps better than the OTC ones.
Of course you do. Mommy government wouldn't screw you, right?
It's a freaking revenue tax increase just like the tax penalty on withdrawals from HSAs for reasons other than the reimbursement of qualified medical expenses doubling to 20% and beginning January 1,
2013, employee contributions to health FSAs being limited to $2,500 per year Those are a 'lobbyist' too, no doubt.
'Free' healthcare has to be paid for, you know, and the cap alone is expected to raise $13 billion
Btw, there wouldn't be any reason to worry about 'lobbyists' if government were NOT in the BUSINESS because then there'd be no benefit to gain from 'lobbying'.
Power corrupts and the concentration of power in Washington is not only bankrupting the country but turning it into a cesspool of corruption because almost nothing can be done without "an act of Congress." And that takes 'lobbying'.
And so it was written that with the stroke of a pen the Lord Congress almighty and their right hand regulator giveth and taketh away all things.
In general, no, but the country is so dysfunctional today that even reasonable people will do things like, oh, say, vote on a bill despite not having read or received summaries of what's in all 2400 pages of it. Or even if they have, understanding that few bills are 100% agreeable and sometimes it's best to vote for those that are, say, "mostly" good.
Well, cutting back HSA benefits is a dishonest way to go about doing it.
The HSA bit here seems like something that should be easy for Republicans to fix, though -- with a very simple bill that just reverts HSAs to pre-Obamacare terms and nothing more, what Democrat would stand there and claim that, no, it's better if you can't save as much for yourself? Even the viable argument of, "I won't vote for it unless there's money to pay for the shortfall doing so will create" doesn't usually pass muster with the voters.
"In general" government routinely screws people and this administration has that as their proclaimed core principle called 'spread the wealth' and 'social justice': the process of deliberately picking groups to 'screw' for the purpose of bribing the others.
'The country' has become dysfunctional in direct proportion to the ever increasing power in Washington.
I dispute your premise. The 'reasonable people' didn't vote for it.
Why the hell do you think Pelosi wouldn't let anyone read it? "You have to pass it to find out what's in it."
Yes, it's dishonest as all hell and Pelosi is proud if it.
Those people don't care about principles, law, the Constitution, or process and Obama explicitly said so when the matter was brought up, proclaiming that 'the people', a proxy term for himself, don't care about 'the process'.
Are you KIDDING me? "For yourself?" Their whole PREMISE is that GOVERNMENT should 'do it for you' and to hell with "yourself."
The people who mandated you buy insurance whether you want it or not? The people who mandated what is to be covered in the insurance you're required to buy?
They're the ones you think give a flying fig about your 'costs' and doing things "for yourself?"
The Administration that just slipped in by fiat 'regulation' what Congress explicitly removed from the law? Those people?
They don't give a tinker's dam what the hell anyone else thinks, much less 'the people'.
for the shortfall doing
It's only 'viable' if you think government has unlimited powers to do whatever the hell it feels like and then send you the bill for it.
What do you mean "scheming?" It's "social justice."
Of course they know what they're doing. It's "social justice."
Yeah, it is. Except we used to be a Constitutional Republic.
It's none of his business who 'ought to be rich' but of course liberals love for the 'rich' to be 'rich', or else they'd have no one to pay for the bribes.
Not if they're smart and haven't stayed up too late. That was Clinton's excuse for blurting out he didn't support letting 'the people' keep the tax savings because "they might not spend it the right way."
Either Obama isn't smart or he stays up late all the time because he's put it to paper, print, speech and video. His 'constitutional lectures' explained the Constitution is seriously flawed because it's a document of only "negative rights," limiting what government can do, and doesn't require what government should "do for you."
Btw, it isn't a 'flaw'. It's the well reasoned and deliberate FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE of the thing.
Under the Constitution it wouldn't matter that "some do" because they are NOT granted the POWER.
So did Stalin and you see how well that worked out..
The King of England had the power for longer than that but things can 'change'. Or so we can have the 'audacity' to 'hope'.
The Constitution is a feedback control system. It was brilliant. That's why politicians don't understand it. It was a curb on the dark side of human nature. That's why politicians don't like it.
Besides, bread and circuses and perpetual motion schemes sell better in the short run. And you don't have to read them.
No changes, drugs are prescribed by a doctor and you need a card. But you can get most anything you want for $9. They wanted to give me a bottle of aspirin for $9 and I declined.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.