Author Topic: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby  (Read 5232 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #105 on: October 22, 2014, 11:04:56 AM »
It's not "good" but it is definitely better than what we had, and most of the reasons it isn't better than what it is lie on the right-hand side of the aisle.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #106 on: October 22, 2014, 11:10:55 AM »
It's not "good" but it is definitely better than what we had, and most of the reasons it isn't better than what it is lie on the right-hand side of the aisle.
I agree, but the point remains that it's "not good" and that makes it subject to criticism.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #107 on: October 22, 2014, 12:45:33 PM »
I would much rather have incremental positive changes than wait forever for an impossible perfect solution.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #108 on: October 22, 2014, 01:34:35 PM »
The alternative is to allow the FSA to be applied to the OTC medication, where I can pay about 65% of x, and not out of pocket (though it is my money, I never actually see it). 

No offense, but I still dont see the problem.

You already took the time to see the doctor to get the legitimate asthma prescription for your daughter.  If an allergy medication like Zyrtec was appropriate, why did you not just get the prescription from the doctor at the same time, buy the Zyrtec OTC, and send in the receipt and prescription to your FSA to get reimbursed for the Zyrtec you bought at OTC price?

FYI, you CAN get reimbursed for OTC meds you buy, at OTC prices, as long as you have a script.
It took 1 minute to locate that info on the IRS website.

1. How are the rules changing for reimbursing the cost of over-the-counter medicines and drugs from health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs) and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs)?
A. Section 9003 of the Affordable Care Act established a new uniform standard for medical expenses. Effective Jan. 1, 2011, distributions from health FSAs and HRAs will be allowed to reimburse the cost of over-the-counter medicines or drugs only if they are purchased with a prescription. This new rule does not apply to reimbursements for the cost of insulin, which will continue to be permitted, even if purchased without a prescription.


4. How do I prove that I have purchased an over-the-counter medicine or drug with a prescription so that I can get reimbursed from my employer's health FSA or an HRA?
A. If your employer’s health FSA or HRA reimburses these expenses, you would provide the prescription (or a copy of the prescription or another item showing that a prescription for the item has been issued) and the customer receipt (or similar third-party documentation showing the date of the sale and the amount of the charge). For example, documentation could consist of a customer receipt issued by a pharmacy that reflects the date of sale and the amount of the charge, along with a copy of the prescription; or it could consist of a customer receipt that identifies the name of the purchaser (or the name of the person for whom the prescription applies), the date and amount of the purchase and an Rx number.


So you would not have created any issues with "higher costs to the system."
If your FSA wont reimburse an drug you bought OTC with a script, then that is on your employer and insurance...not the ACA.

Problem solved.  You're welcome :)

I have ZERO issues with tax free FSA funds not covering people who are buying OTC meds without a prescription.
If you need Zyrtec, Nyquil, wart remover, or nail fungus cream, just buy it out of pocket.
If you want insurance to pay for it and/or use your FSA, then get a script.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 01:47:01 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #109 on: October 23, 2014, 09:06:19 AM »
It's not "good" but it is definitely better than what we had, and most of the reasons it isn't better than what it is lie on the right-hand side of the aisle.

That's not fair.   Not fair at all.  THE LEFT cut the deal with the pharmaceuticals, not the Right (in my opinion, THE biggest mistake of the entire operation).   THE LEFT insisted that insurers couldn't underwrite the population they are insuring (thus getting to lower risk and better rates), not the Right.  THE LEFT changed the FSA/IRS rules to disincentivize wellness, not the Right.   THE LEFT...

Look, the best you can say in this debacle is that no one's hands are clean.  BOTH sides have their ideologues, both sides have their crackpots, and both sides have their decent people trying to do the right thing (just not enough of them). 

It's better than what we had for some people, and not others.   And since coverage hasn't radically improved (there are still almost 40 million people uninsured) I would tend to say that perhaps it at best cancels out?

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #110 on: October 23, 2014, 09:46:09 AM »
I'm sorry, but I don't even see a public option in the ACA. The left barely got anything it wanted. All those compromises you say that the left brokered, were brokered after the "left" compromised to the right.

What I don't get, is why you ignore that exact same though in the previous sentence, when you complain about the ACA for not being an over-night silver bullet to the problem.
To be fair, I don't think he complained that it wasn't a silver bullet. He complained that it was being sold as such when it clearly couldn't be. I think you're the second person to run with that. Anyhoo, carry on.

Second person to run with what? I don't think I've ever once said the ACA is the best solution, or that it would solve things overnight.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #111 on: October 23, 2014, 10:50:08 AM »
I would much rather have incremental positive changes than wait forever for an impossible perfect solution.

If that was the choice, I would agree with you.  "Perfect" is the enemy of the "good".   But some, and if I was being stubborn I'd say many, of the things I'm talking about aren't anywhere near "perfect".    They are practical, reasonable, and would benefit many. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #112 on: October 23, 2014, 11:02:16 AM »
The alternative is to allow the FSA to be applied to the OTC medication, where I can pay about 65% of x, and not out of pocket (though it is my money, I never actually see it). 

No offense, but I still dont see the problem.

You already took the time to see the doctor to get the legitimate asthma prescription for your daughter.  If an allergy medication like Zyrtec was appropriate, why did you not just get the prescription from the doctor at the same time, buy the Zyrtec OTC, and send in the receipt and prescription to your FSA to get reimbursed for the Zyrtec you bought at OTC price?

FYI, you CAN get reimbursed for OTC meds you buy, at OTC prices, as long as you have a script.
It took 1 minute to locate that info on the IRS website.

1. How are the rules changing for reimbursing the cost of over-the-counter medicines and drugs from health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs) and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs)?
A. Section 9003 of the Affordable Care Act established a new uniform standard for medical expenses. Effective Jan. 1, 2011, distributions from health FSAs and HRAs will be allowed to reimburse the cost of over-the-counter medicines or drugs only if they are purchased with a prescription. This new rule does not apply to reimbursements for the cost of insulin, which will continue to be permitted, even if purchased without a prescription.


4. How do I prove that I have purchased an over-the-counter medicine or drug with a prescription so that I can get reimbursed from my employer's health FSA or an HRA?
A. If your employer’s health FSA or HRA reimburses these expenses, you would provide the prescription (or a copy of the prescription or another item showing that a prescription for the item has been issued) and the customer receipt (or similar third-party documentation showing the date of the sale and the amount of the charge). For example, documentation could consist of a customer receipt issued by a pharmacy that reflects the date of sale and the amount of the charge, along with a copy of the prescription; or it could consist of a customer receipt that identifies the name of the purchaser (or the name of the person for whom the prescription applies), the date and amount of the purchase and an Rx number.


So you would not have created any issues with "higher costs to the system."
If your FSA wont reimburse an drug you bought OTC with a script, then that is on your employer and insurance...not the ACA.

Problem solved.  You're welcome :)

I have ZERO issues with tax free FSA funds not covering people who are buying OTC meds without a prescription.
If you need Zyrtec, Nyquil, wart remover, or nail fungus cream, just buy it out of pocket.
If you want insurance to pay for it and/or use your FSA, then get a script.

Doctor's are free?  My time is free (to get the prescription every time I need it or need it refilled)?   The admin cost of the added steps to the process are free?  They are not.   

Problem not solved, forest lost for the trees.  I don't need you to solve my immediate "problem".   I've been working around it for four years now (my ex wife works for a major healthcare insurer; I'm well aware of the IRS regulations).   It is STILL adding cost to the system.  I can't help it if you can't or won't see it.  The more you argue with me, the more my big problem is how you are so willing to spend other people's money, and so willing to pass value judgements on what might be preventative, or what might lead to lower healthcare costs overall.  It's not your call. 

Even if the added cost is a percentage, even as low as 10%, you're still talking about 10's of billions of dollars of waste.   Why should those that are contributing be burdened with that on top of already contributing more than what might be already be their fair share of the actual costs?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 11:23:18 AM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #113 on: October 23, 2014, 11:26:43 AM »
I'm sorry, but I don't even see a public option in the ACA. The left barely got anything it wanted. All those compromises you say that the left brokered, were brokered after the "left" compromised to the right.

Haha, that's funny.  The left got the ACA to start with.   I would hardly call that "barely anything it wanted".   

Quote
Second person to run with what? I don't think I've ever once said the ACA is the best solution, or that it would solve things overnight.

Second person to misunderstand what I meant with the silver bullet comment. El Barto has it right:  it was sold by some - no, not you - as a solution to the problem.  It is at best a bandaid to some of the problems (and a cause of many more).

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #114 on: October 23, 2014, 11:34:24 AM »
My problem with you is how you bitch about how the system isnt perfectly lean and without waste.  All or nothing.
Not only is your ideal system not possible, it doesnt make sense, and will cause huge problems itself.

No doctors arent free, but are needed so people wont medicate their children with OTC crap that might do more harm than good.
No admins arent free, but they keep people from buying fertility monitors with company funded tax free FSA funds so they can sell them on ebay.
The system isnt perfect, but you want a lean and waste free for all.  I wonder how much abuse THAT system would have to endure.

Your problem is you say you are looking at the forest, but you only want to address they system from your narrow experiences (FSA and OTC meds), which to me are intellectually dishonest from the start.  I already told you that your FSA issue is not an issue at all and showed you why.  You should drop the FSA thing as it is taking away from your larger point.

 :facepalm:
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #115 on: October 23, 2014, 11:45:45 AM »
My problem with you is how you bitch about how the system isnt perfectly lean and without waste.  All or nothing.
Not only is your ideal system not possible, it doesnt make sense, and will cause huge problems itself.

No doctors arent free, but are needed so people wont medicate their children with OTC crap that might do more harm than good.
No admins arent free, but they keep people from buying fertility monitors with company funded tax free FSA funds so they can sell them on ebay.
The system isnt perfect, but you want a lean and waste free free for all.  I wonder how much abuse THAT system would have to endure.

Your problem is you say you are looking at the forest, but you only want to address they system from your narrow experiences, which to me are intellectually dishonest from the start.

 :facepalm:

Take a deep breath, okay?  Relax.   

Addressing the system from a position of "wellness for all" is hardly "my narrow experience", the "ideal", or "impossible".    Asking that we take opportunities to reduce costs where they readily present themselves is hardly "my narrow experience", the "ideal", or "impossible".  There are plenty of companies who have taken on the concept of "wellness" on their own, despite the roadblocks put up by government and their bandaids, and have shown incredible success in increasing worker health, lowering over-all costs, and allowing the funds to go where they are truly needed.  This is all documented, and all proven.  The FSA problem is solved by changing basically one sentence in the implementing regulations.   It was changed once, it can be changed again.   Yes you've "told me it isn't an issue" (how kind of you) but I don't agree that a multi-billion dollar problem is "not an issue", sorry.  Nothing personal.

Asking our government to be better - not "best", not "perfect", not "ideal" - is not something I am going to apologize for.  If you don't like my use of the anecdotal to show larger patterns, well, I can't help that.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #116 on: October 23, 2014, 11:50:45 AM »
There is nothing wrong with the FSA program.  It is only a problem for people who think they can self diagnose. 
Well good news for you....you absolutely can self diagnose and buy meds OTC.  Out of Pocket.   I see no reason to give you a tax break for doing it.
I agree completely with the restrictions of the FSA as it gives proper medical oversight with the diagnosis.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #117 on: October 23, 2014, 12:32:36 PM »
There is nothing wrong with the FSA program.  It is only a problem for people who think they can self diagnose. 
Well good news for you....you absolutely can self diagnose and buy meds OTC.  Out of Pocket.   I see no reason to give you a tax break for doing it.
I agree completely with the restrictions of the FSA as it gives proper medical oversight with the diagnosis.

And I disagree completely with the very narrow, punitive position of penalizing EVERYONE proactively (even when they have proper medical oversight) because one person somewhere MAY make a decision one time that isn't 100% unassailable.   The problem you are seeking to solve happens every single day regardless, and isn't materially minimized with your draconian solution.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #118 on: October 23, 2014, 12:44:20 PM »
There is nothing wrong with the FSA program.  It is only a problem for people who think they can self diagnose. 
Well good news for you....you absolutely can self diagnose and buy meds OTC.  Out of Pocket.   I see no reason to give you a tax break for doing it.
I agree completely with the restrictions of the FSA as it gives proper medical oversight with the diagnosis.

And I disagree completely with the very narrow, punitive position of penalizing EVERYONE proactively (even when they have proper medical oversight) because one person somewhere MAY make a decision one time that isn't 100% unassailable.   The problem you are seeking to solve happens every single day regardless, and isn't materially minimized with your draconian solution.


How are people getting penalized?  You are getting a GIFT of money via the tax break.  If you want that GIFT provided by the tax payers, then follow the conditions.
You still have the opportunity to buy the meds OTC out of pocket with ZERO penalty.

Sorry, I dont see the issue.  What I am starting to see is that you are thinking of the tax free gift with conditions as more of a right.

And I am not trying to solve anything...you are....I am OK with the FSA as is.  I know those things (fraud, self diagnosis) happen every day, and will continue to happen....I just dont want to give my tax money to pay for it.


« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 12:58:40 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #119 on: October 24, 2014, 11:08:00 AM »
How are people getting penalized?  You are getting a GIFT of money via the tax break.  If you want that GIFT provided by the tax payers, then follow the conditions.
You still have the opportunity to buy the meds OTC out of pocket with ZERO penalty.

Sorry, I dont see the issue.  What I am starting to see is that you are thinking of the tax free gift with conditions as more of a right.

Ah, see, now we're where the rubber meets the road.   

The "tax break" is not a gift, it is not a right, it is not an entitlement.  It is an incentive that any US citizen (who's company offers such a plan) can avail themselves in return for not burdening the system with undue process, costs, and procedure.  Much like any citizen that owns a house can take a benefit from mortgage interest. 
 
And here's the irony:  Out of pocket expenses are deductible at the end of the year, so the people you are looking to punish in your smug vindictiveness, are likely STILL getting the tax benefit at the end of the year, but the system has to absorb all the additional costs along the way, paid for by YOUR tax dollars.

So really, you aren't penalizing those evil devious a-holes that are guilty of that insidious crime of being aware of where the money comes from and where it goes, and wanting to minimize waste.  You're paying anyway.  And more than you would if you let the system work the way it was intended.  You're arguing against a system that benefits you as much as it benefits someone with an FSA.

But again, this is not about FSAs; it is about allowing those that ARE paying in to maximize the efficiency of their money.


Quote
And I am not trying to solve anything...you are....I am OK with the FSA as is.  I know those things (fraud, self diagnosis) happen every day, and will continue to happen....I just dont want to give my tax money to pay for it.

BUT YOU ARE ALREADY.  YOU JUST DON'T KNOW IT.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #120 on: October 24, 2014, 11:20:55 AM »
How are people getting penalized?  You are getting a GIFT of money via the tax break.  If you want that GIFT provided by the tax payers, then follow the conditions.
You still have the opportunity to buy the meds OTC out of pocket with ZERO penalty.

Sorry, I dont see the issue.  What I am starting to see is that you are thinking of the tax free gift with conditions as more of a right.

Ah, see, now we're where the rubber meets the road.   

The "tax break" is not a gift, it is not a right, it is not an entitlement.  It is an incentive that any US citizen (who's company offers such a plan) can avail themselves in return for not burdening the system with undue process, costs, and procedure.  Much like any citizen that owns a house can take a benefit from mortgage interest. 
 
And here's the irony:  Out of pocket expenses are deductible at the end of the year, so the people you are looking to punish in your smug vindictiveness, are likely STILL getting the tax benefit at the end of the year, but the system has to absorb all the additional costs along the way, paid for by YOUR tax dollars.

So really, you aren't penalizing those evil devious a-holes that are guilty of that insidious crime of being aware of where the money comes from and where it goes, and wanting to minimize waste.  You're paying anyway.  And more than you would if you let the system work the way it was intended.  You're arguing against a system that benefits you as much as it benefits someone with an FSA.

But again, this is not about FSAs; it is about allowing those that ARE paying in to maximize the efficiency of their money.


Quote
And I am not trying to solve anything...you are....I am OK with the FSA as is.  I know those things (fraud, self diagnosis) happen every day, and will continue to happen....I just dont want to give my tax money to pay for it.

BUT YOU ARE ALREADY.  YOU JUST DON'T KNOW IT.

You use examples that prove MY point, not yours.

-The REAL irony is that NOT all your out of pocket medical expenses are deductible.  Only expenses that exceed 10% of your AGI.  LOL.
Thats a lot of Zyrtec you would have to buy!  So, um, no you dont get that back at the end of the year and there will be no added costs.

-More Irony.....Yes the tax break on the FSA in an incentive...but just like your mortgage example, there are RULES you have to follow in order to take advantage of it.  If you dont, you dont get the incentive.  You dont get the write off on a private mortgage, you have to get one at a financial institution and jump through the hoops and pay fees.  Just like the OTC meds.  Which brings me back to my point.  The most efficient, leanest, waste free way to get your OTC neds, without using other peoples money is buy it yourself.

-Oh I know I give my tax money them (fraud, self diagnosis).  Never said I didnt.  I just want the system to try, and sometimes it succeeds....like with your Zyrtec.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 11:39:20 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #121 on: October 24, 2014, 12:18:54 PM »
Out of pocket expenses are deductible at the end of the year, so the people you are looking to punish in your smug vindictiveness, are likely STILL getting the tax benefit at the end of the year, but the system has to absorb all the additional costs along the way, paid for by YOUR tax dollars.

If they were out of pocket expenses, how was the system burdened furthur? And if you can buy them out of pocket, and still get the tax break, then why on earth are you saying you're being punished by doing this? Buy them out of pocke, deduct them, and problem solved.




Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #122 on: October 24, 2014, 01:40:25 PM »
Out of pocket expenses are deductible at the end of the year, so the people you are looking to punish in your smug vindictiveness, are likely STILL getting the tax benefit at the end of the year, but the system has to absorb all the additional costs along the way, paid for by YOUR tax dollars.

If they were out of pocket expenses, how was the system burdened furthur? And if you can buy them out of pocket, and still get the tax break, then why on earth are you saying you're being punished by doing this? Buy them out of pocke, deduct them, and problem solved.

I think saying I am trying to punish people with smug vindictiveness is taking things a bit too far.  It really isnt needed.

And Sheavo, Stadler might be upset because I have informed him that his Zyrtec purchase is only tax deductible if it is after he has already spent 10% of his Adjusted Gross Income on out of pocket medical expenses....which is not common.  The FSA is the only way to get the tax break on the OTC zyrtec and I think that might be the real underlying issue here.  It isnt "cost to the system" or "Efficiency", etc, etc.  It is that he wont get the free taxpayer money to help pay his self diagnosed and self prescribed OTC meds. 

I still say that requiring a script for stuff like this is important.  Zyrtec can react with other meds, and the medicaions instructions state you should consult a doctor if you suffer from other medical conditions....like Asthma.  Not sure why Stadler did not just get a script whan he was getting the script for the kids asthma meds.   That would have added no costs, given him the tax break, AND most important of all, made sure the drug he is giving his child is safe.  I think the FSA worked perfectly in this case.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 01:55:24 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #123 on: October 25, 2014, 11:39:03 AM »


-Oh I know I give my tax money them (fraud, self diagnosis).  Never said I didnt.  I just want the system to try, and sometimes it succeeds....like with your Zyrtec.

So you're calling me a fraud (because it isn't "self-diagnosis")?  Wow, low dude, for someone who still has it wrong.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #124 on: October 25, 2014, 11:44:00 AM »
Out of pocket expenses are deductible at the end of the year, so the people you are looking to punish in your smug vindictiveness, are likely STILL getting the tax benefit at the end of the year, but the system has to absorb all the additional costs along the way, paid for by YOUR tax dollars.

If they were out of pocket expenses, how was the system burdened furthur? And if you can buy them out of pocket, and still get the tax break, then why on earth are you saying you're being punished by doing this? Buy them out of pocke, deduct them, and problem solved.

[BANGS HEAD ON DESK].

I give up.  All the costs are well-documented in the 100 or so posts previously (little hint:  I've been making the distinction all along between the "cost" that one pays individually - HEAVILY subsidized - and the "cost" borne by the system through all the cost impacts along the way, including increased burden on the oversight bodies - the IRS - and the taxpayers themselves).

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #125 on: October 25, 2014, 12:24:01 PM »


-Oh I know I give my tax money them (fraud, self diagnosis).  Never said I didnt.  I just want the system to try, and sometimes it succeeds....like with your Zyrtec.

So you're calling me a fraud (because it isn't "self-diagnosis")?  Wow, low dude, for someone who still has it wrong.

Huh?  I think you made it abundantly clear that you self diagnosed and self prescribed.
No doctor prescription = no doctor diagnosis and prescription.
If you got a doctors diagnosis and didnt get the prescription while you were there, thats on YOU.   So call him back up and he will write one for you.  Problem solved.

If I am missing something, please enlighten us.





Out of pocket expenses are deductible at the end of the year, so the people you are looking to punish in your smug vindictiveness, are likely STILL getting the tax benefit at the end of the year, but the system has to absorb all the additional costs along the way, paid for by YOUR tax dollars.

If they were out of pocket expenses, how was the system burdened furthur? And if you can buy them out of pocket, and still get the tax break, then why on earth are you saying you're being punished by doing this? Buy them out of pocke, deduct them, and problem solved.

[BANGS HEAD ON DESK].

I give up.  All the costs are well-documented in the 100 or so posts previously (little hint:  I've been making the distinction all along between the "cost" that one pays individually - HEAVILY subsidized - and the "cost" borne by the system through all the cost impacts along the way, including increased burden on the oversight bodies - the IRS - and the taxpayers themselves).

And we have been quite clear that you can avoid all of it by buying your OTC out of pocket.
Youre just pissed you dont get the taxpayer incentive anymore.  Thats the real issue here.
Pretty hypocritical to say you want the lowest cost to the system....except for the taxpayer incentive...yeah I want to keep that one!!!!
Well you dont get it without a prescription.  A prescription many think is necessary for protection.  Many think the cost to the system is worth it.
I agree and think you should "give up", because you are not going to change the minds of those you are arguing with here.
We think it works and is appropriate to require a prescription.  You dont.
We got it.  Move on.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 12:32:05 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #126 on: October 25, 2014, 01:00:05 PM »
[BANGS HEAD ON DESK].
I know what you mean.

Maybe at this point it is best to just "agree to disagree."  You two are getting nowhere other than more frustrated at each other than is good for anyone.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #127 on: October 25, 2014, 01:06:37 PM »
[BANGS HEAD ON DESK].
I know what you mean.

Maybe at this point it is best to just "agree to disagree."  You two are getting nowhere other than more frustrated at each other than is good for anyone.

I think that the FSA positions can be clearly articulated by this point.

Stadler thinks that you should not need a prescription to use the FSA for an OTC med.  Lower time and cost to the system and lower out of pocket cost to himself.

The opposing position is that the lowest cost to the system when buying an OTC med is to buy it out of pocket.  No time lost, doctor copay, prescription med price, AND no use of taxpayer funds via tax break.  We feel that the prescription required to use FSA and get tax break is good.  It helps prevent fraud and insures medical oversight, and is worth the cost to system.

Both points of view are valid, and it is clear that there will unlikely be a consensus on the FSA issue.

I agree..........."agree to disagree".
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 01:20:41 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #128 on: October 26, 2014, 06:23:01 PM »
Out of pocket expenses are deductible at the end of the year, so the people you are looking to punish in your smug vindictiveness, are likely STILL getting the tax benefit at the end of the year, but the system has to absorb all the additional costs along the way, paid for by YOUR tax dollars.

If they were out of pocket expenses, how was the system burdened furthur? And if you can buy them out of pocket, and still get the tax break, then why on earth are you saying you're being punished by doing this? Buy them out of pocke, deduct them, and problem solved.

[BANGS HEAD ON DESK].

I give up.  All the costs are well-documented in the 100 or so posts previously (little hint:  I've been making the distinction all along between the "cost" that one pays individually - HEAVILY subsidized - and the "cost" borne by the system through all the cost impacts along the way, including increased burden on the oversight bodies - the IRS - and the taxpayers themselves).

I fully understand what youre position is. I don't get how what you've put forward supports that position in any way.

You've been arguing that needing a prescription to use your FSA means more people visiting the doctor because then they can use their tax-free money. This is the incentive they face because it's less cost to them, even though the system overall faces more burden and it is costlier. I mean, given what you're telling me, I don't see why someone wouldn't just buy the cold or allergy medicine out of pocket, not see the doctor, and simply pay the difference in taxes. Sounds a lot more conveniant to me then taking time out of my day and going to see a doctor, if indeed it is such a minor issue that I don't think I should be seeing doctor for.

I get that. I think that's a reasonable objection - if it were true, or if the evidence supported this claim in the specific case being argued.

You then said that people who pay out of pocket - i.e don't use their FSA - can still get the expenses deducted (let's forget eric's point about having to buy a crapload of allergy medication) and that our "smug vindictiveness" to have these people see a doctor is silly because they get it anyways. I simply pointed out, that if they paid the cost out of pocket, they didn't see a doctor, and so they didn't burden the system per your argument. You were saying that this cost was still present. I also pointed out that if this were true, you could just pay for it out of pocket, and deduct it later, making your entire point about FSAs pointless.

As for the IRS, that'd be an argument for not having FSA's period. That'd also be a good argument against the ACA, which I agree with, because we tie subsidies to income (and estimated income at that) and the entire process because more convoluted. As opposed to "Hey, we just took 4% out of your paycheck. If you ever go see a doctor or need medical care, don't worry about it, you're covered." So if you want to talk about the added cost to the system, let's talk about bureaucracy and the entire insurance industry.



Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #129 on: October 27, 2014, 07:27:32 AM »
Huh?  I think you made it abundantly clear that you self diagnosed and self prescribed.
No doctor prescription = no doctor diagnosis and prescription.
If you got a doctors diagnosis and didnt get the prescription while you were there, thats on YOU.   So call him back up and he will write one for you.  Problem solved.

If I am missing something, please enlighten us.

Hahaha, if "you" (singular) missed something I have to enlighten "us" (plural)?    So you found one other person that agrees with you (someone that has proven time and again that they would argue that today is Monday simply because I said it) and now you feel you have "numbers"?   Please.   

I don't feel any need whatsoever to explain to you, but suffice to say it is NOT self-diagnosis.   A medical professional - who by the way, agrees with my assessment of the system - has unequivocally stated (and has offered to provide the prescription) that the course of treatment is best for her patient, but like me laments how the current scheme is unduly burdening the system.   Your arrogant, smug "problem solved" is almost insulting, because beside being based on an almost complete misstatement/misunderstanding of the facts, your "solution" adds tremendous waste and cost into the system and is ultimately not doing a damn thing for your alleged "problem".   

I agree and think you should "give up", because you are not going to change the minds of those you are arguing with here.
We think it works and is appropriate to require a prescription.  You dont.
We got it.  Move on.

Who's the "WE"?   You and Scheavo?   There are plenty of resources that are in FAVOR of my approach - including the doctor from whom I would get the prescription you consider gospel, and the interesting things is, my supporters UNDERSTAND HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS.   Don't be so smug, my friend; by all accounts the tide is changing in this election, and as inconsequential as you think this issue is, I can almost guarantee you it will be one of the first tihngs changed once we begin to tweak, correct, and streamline the ACA.   There will be tremendous pressure to drive cost and waste out of the system, and rightfully so.   

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #130 on: October 27, 2014, 07:36:46 AM »
It appears to me you are starting to take this too personally, are becoming defensive, and are even starting to name call.
I clearly said that your position is valid, but I, and others (the WE) disagree.
Hef suggested to agree to disagree.  Perhaps you should take his advice as this is becoming adversarial, and it is clear that little progress is being made.

Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #131 on: October 27, 2014, 07:38:10 AM »
[BANGS HEAD ON DESK].
I know what you mean.

Maybe at this point it is best to just "agree to disagree."  You two are getting nowhere other than more frustrated at each other than is good for anyone.

I would have a long time ago, but for the blatant misunderstanding of how this system works, and the flagrant arrogance of the opposing position despite being based on that misunderstanding.  This isn't something I concocted in my basement while Mom made dinner.  I have discussed this with doctors, with senior executives in the healthcare industry (officer level) and with at least one elected official (a representative of Pennsylvania).  Almost no one who really understands how the system works and why it works like it does disagrees, and even those that do disagree almost universally concede it is a matter of realpolitik.  It's a better "sell" to use primary tax impacts to fund the program (ACA) than rely on opaque secondary and tertiary cost reductions, for the same reason people don't care about costs when someone else is paying them.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #132 on: October 27, 2014, 07:46:51 AM »
It appears to me you are starting to take this too personally, are becoming defensive, and are even starting to name call.
I clearly said that your position is valid, but I, and others (the WE) disagree.
Hef suggested to agree to disagree.  Perhaps you should take his advice as this is becoming adversarial, and it is clear that little progress is being made.

It's not personal at all, and had it been simply a matter of "agree to disagree" I would've bailed a long time ago.  My responses now are singularly focused on correcting the misunderstandings on how the system works (for example, the "patient" does NOT prefund the FSA; my version of how the FSA should work does NOT use taxpayer funds in any way, and in fact reduces the tax burden).  And while I have no doubt you (or Scheavo) will ever pay anything more than lip service to the notion that my position is "valid", I feel an obligation to those reading this that perhaps want to know more to have the correct information when making their determinations.   

I'm quite content to have a different opinion than others; it happens fairly regularly and peaceably (ask el Barto).  What I don't have to accept is being told what I should do ("perhaps you should take his advice...") and allowing misinformation to be dispersed under the auspices of "agree to disagree".  We all have the right to our own opinion; we don't have the right to our own facts.   

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #133 on: October 27, 2014, 07:47:10 AM »
Stadler;
You are mixing up your opinion with fact.  It is clear we understand your position, we just dont agree with it.
Your opinion is not "right" and ours "wrong".  We simply disagree.
Perhaps it is time we move on before it gets ugly with worse name calling than you have already used (arrogant, smug, vindictive)
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #134 on: October 27, 2014, 07:51:48 AM »
It appears to me you are starting to take this too personally, are becoming defensive, and are even starting to name call.
I clearly said that your position is valid, but I, and others (the WE) disagree.
Hef suggested to agree to disagree.  Perhaps you should take his advice as this is becoming adversarial, and it is clear that little progress is being made.

It's not personal at all, and had it been simply a matter of "agree to disagree" I would've bailed a long time ago.  My responses now are singularly focused on correcting the misunderstandings on how the system works (for example, the "patient" does NOT prefund the FSA; my version of how the FSA should work does NOT use taxpayer funds in any way, and in fact reduces the tax burden).  And while I have no doubt you (or Scheavo) will ever pay anything more than lip service to the notion that my position is "valid", I feel an obligation to those reading this that perhaps want to know more to have the correct information when making their determinations.   

I'm quite content to have a different opinion than others; it happens fairly regularly and peaceably (ask el Barto).  What I don't have to accept is being told what I should do ("perhaps you should take his advice...") and allowing misinformation to be dispersed under the auspices of "agree to disagree".  We all have the right to our own opinion; we don't have the right to our own facts.

Sorry, but you are incorrect.  FSA is prepaid with pretax contributions from payroll.  Hence "prepaid" by the "patient".
You are able to use the full yearly amount from day one, but you must commit to that amount during open enrollment.

If you are co concerned about facts, then you should become more familiar with the subject matter (like when I corrected you about how you get the tax write off at the end of the year anyway....um no - the 10% AGI rule)

If your version of the FSA does not use taxpayer funds, then why have an FSA at all.  Just pay out of pocket.

And suggesting what you should do is not being told what to do.

« Last Edit: October 27, 2014, 08:01:06 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #135 on: October 27, 2014, 07:59:46 AM »
You've been arguing that needing a prescription to use your FSA means more people visiting the doctor because then they can use their tax-free money. This is the incentive they face because it's less cost to them, even though the system overall faces more burden and it is costlier. I mean, given what you're telling me, I don't see why someone wouldn't just buy the cold or allergy medicine out of pocket, not see the doctor, and simply pay the difference in taxes. Sounds a lot more conveniant to me then taking time out of my day and going to see a doctor, if indeed it is such a minor issue that I don't think I should be seeing doctor for.

It's all been said before.  It's all in the previous posts.

It's the difference between "good" and "great" and the fact that it costs almost nothing (in any sense of the word) to get to "great".  I see your argument being "we have good.  Why can't you settle for good", and my argument being "we have good, we can have great with no additional cost".   Why wouldn't you want the system to be better?  Why should I "pay the difference in taxes" if I don't have to?  Why should I accept "good" when we can ALL benefit from "great"?  (And doesn't require the judgement of whether an issue is "worth seeing a doctor for"). 

Quote
You then said that people who pay out of pocket - i.e don't use their FSA - can still get the expenses deducted (let's forget eric's point about having to buy a crapload of allergy medication) and that our "smug vindictiveness" to have these people see a doctor is silly because they get it anyways. I simply pointed out, that if they paid the cost out of pocket, they didn't see a doctor, and so they didn't burden the system per your argument. You were saying that this cost was still present. I also pointed out that if this were true, you could just pay for it out of pocket, and deduct it later, making your entire point about FSAs pointless.

Let me ask you this:  if you could do something - anything - in one step, would it be, on the whole, more or less efficient than doing the exact same thing in three steps?  Or five?   If you could do something and have it involve one person, would it be, on the whole, more or less efficient (and cost effective) than doing the exact same thing and having it involve, say five people?   

I think I've answered all your questions, but I still have one that hasn't been answered:  why this demand to be punitive?  Why this desire to keep inefficiencies in the system when they could so easily - and with no downside at all - be eliminated?  (There is no downside, because there is no additional cost, there is no prejudice against anyone else using the system, and there is no increase in either fraud or abuse, and even if there was any of these things, the presence or absence of the restriction isn't why).

Quote
As for the IRS, that'd be an argument for not having FSA's period. That'd also be a good argument against the ACA, which I agree with, because we tie subsidies to income (and estimated income at that) and the entire process because more convoluted. As opposed to "Hey, we just took 4% out of your paycheck. If you ever go see a doctor or need medical care, don't worry about it, you're covered." So if you want to talk about the added cost to the system, let's talk about bureaucracy and the entire insurance industry.

Oh, don't worry, I'd be in on that discussion in a heartbeat; and after we tackle the low-hanging fruit of point-of-sale efficiencies, that's where I'd go next (though, and I say this respectfully, believe it or not) I'm sure we would find differing areas of inefficiency.  But that's okay; there is a lot to work with, and while the FSA issue IS black and white, a lot of it admittedly isn't. 

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #136 on: October 27, 2014, 08:05:30 AM »
Stadler, it is clear we all want lower cost and more efficiency.  The difference in our positions is that we are not opposed to the added costs and steps to get the medical oversight of the prescription in order to use the FSA and get the tax deduction.

That position is neither right or wrong, it is simply the different opinion than yours.

If one wants no medical oversight, they dont get the tax break.  We are fine with that.  They pay OTC out of pocket and there is a clean, efficient, low cost transaction.

I am not sure why this simple explanation doesnt end the discussion.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #137 on: October 27, 2014, 08:18:59 AM »
Stadler, it is clear we all want lower cost and more efficiency.  The difference in our positions is that we are not opposed to the added costs and steps to get the medical oversight of the prescription in order to use the FSA and get the tax deduction.

That position is neither right or wrong, it is simply the different opinion than yours.

If one wants no medical oversight, they dont get the tax break.  We are fine with that.  They pay OTC out of pocket and there is a clean, efficient, low cost transaction.

I am not sure why this simple explanation doesnt end the discussion.

Because the tax break is not tied to the "medical oversight"; it was something that was removed to help make the ACA numbers work on paper.  It had nothing to do with "medical" anything.   The medical oversight is your construct, your rationalization, and isn't addressed by the issue of the tax break.   And regardless, it isn't about the "tax break" it is about incentivizing cost consciousness, and reinforcing the tie between those who are receiving the care and those who are funding the care.  It's only "clean, efficient, and low cost" because you are only looking at one small piece of a much bigger picture.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #138 on: October 27, 2014, 08:33:55 AM »
Stadler, it is clear we all want lower cost and more efficiency.  The difference in our positions is that we are not opposed to the added costs and steps to get the medical oversight of the prescription in order to use the FSA and get the tax deduction.

That position is neither right or wrong, it is simply the different opinion than yours.

If one wants no medical oversight, they dont get the tax break.  We are fine with that.  They pay OTC out of pocket and there is a clean, efficient, low cost transaction.

I am not sure why this simple explanation doesnt end the discussion.

Because the tax break is not tied to the "medical oversight"; it was something that was removed to help make the ACA numbers work on paper.  It had nothing to do with "medical" anything.   The medical oversight is your construct, your rationalization, and isn't addressed by the issue of the tax break.   And regardless, it isn't about the "tax break" it is about incentivizing cost consciousness, and reinforcing the tie between those who are receiving the care and those who are funding the care.  It's only "clean, efficient, and low cost" because you are only looking at one small piece of a much bigger picture.

OK.  For the perhaps 5th time.
We understand that you think the motives to require a prescription were financial and not medical in nature.
Got it.
We are not arguing WHY the requirement was put in place, which quite frankly you have shown zero evidence to support your assertion.
We merely agree with the required medical oversight that comes with a PRESCRIPTION and are OK with that being required to use the FSA to get tax incentives.
Thats it.  Its that Simple.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #139 on: October 27, 2014, 09:17:05 AM »
OK.  For the perhaps 5th time.

Only five?  You've made me repeat almost double that, so... you're getting off easy.  ;)

Quote
We understand that you think the motives to require a prescription were financial and not medical in nature.
Got it.
We are not arguing WHY the requirement was put in place, which quite frankly you have shown zero evidence to support your assertion.

Please be more scrupulous in your word choice.  It's not "I think the motives... were..."; it is well-documented, and I posted a link to one such source previously.  There are others.  This is not an opinion, it is a fact, and not subject to interpretation.

You ARE arguing why the requirement was put in place; it is the only knowledgeable and informed reason (even if it is false) that it COULD be put in place. 

Quote
We merely agree with the required medical oversight that comes with a PRESCRIPTION and are OK with that being required to use the FSA to get tax incentives.
Thats it.  Its that Simple.

It's not that simple, because that's not how it works.  We're not arguing ONLY against your position, i.e. your opinion that higher costs, more waste, and greater inefficiencies are acceptable and desireable.  That's your opinion, and believe it or not I respect your right to have it; we am also arguing that your position is based on inaccurate facts and a lack of understanding of how the process actually works.    Even WITH a prescription, we are forced (in some instances) to pay a higher amount and we cannot (in some instances) use the funds set aside for an FSA.  And that is not the only fact you have materially and fundamentally wrong.