No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I also know that with FSA accounts that over the counter meds can be re-imbursed with a prescription. Plus supplements used for a specific disorder and not for general well being can also be re-imbursed with a prescription/letter of medical necessity.

 

From the FSA site:

Beginning January 1, 2011, currently eligible over-the-counter (OTC) products that are medicines or drugs (e.g., acne treatments, allergy and cold medicines, antacids, etc.) will not be eligible for reimbursement from your Health Care FSA – unless, you have a prescription for that item written by your physician.

 

The only exception is insulin – which will not require a prescription from January 1, 2011 forward. Other currently eligible OTC items that are not medicines or drugs, such as bandages and nasal strips, will not require a prescription.

 

Plus according to this site acupuncture and alternative medicine are covered with letters of medical necessity.

Edited June 3, 2011 by priscilla

[akmommy]

Not going to get into the debate here, but someone asked what about seeds for growing food? You can and all along have been able to buy seeds and plants that are food producing on food stamps.

 

Yep, and here you can even use some for fishing or hunting equipment. I'm not exactly sure how one goes about doing it. I think you have to apply for a special voucher and only certain things are covered. Also if you have something showing that you are receiving public assistance or are low income you can get a subsistence fishing and hunting licence for 5 dollars. Many families here still depend on dip netting and getting a moose to feed their families through the winter.

[ezrabean2005]

Okay, why didn't they pay off their house when things were good? Why did they get such an expensive house? Why didn't they buy a smaller, less expensive house for cash instead of getting a mortgage? Those are all choices they made. I'm not making a judgment on them, just looking and cause and effect.

 

I am truly not trying to pick on you at all. But my point is that I used to believe just as you did. But I discovered that this was a naive way of seeing life. It very rarely is that direct for many people. Some things, absolutely. But most things, no. That's where luck comes in.

 

:001_smile: Hopefully, you "hear" my tone. I don't mean to offend.

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

Want a soda? (Totally kidding!) :lol:

[Meriwether]

Why is this even a question? So, applauding the fact that someone chooses not to access government services and instead make their own way is now seen as wrong or abnormal? Wow. I think that says a lot about where we're headed as a nation.

 

ETA: As far as digging yourself out of a hole, we did the same. People do it all the time without the assistance of the government. I guess the difference between us is that I'm not sitting around bemoaning the fact that it could've been so much easier with assistance. I'm proud of us for having done it on our own.

 

:iagree:I find it interesting that people seem to think that all people who haven't been on assistance have been "lucky" or are rich. Sometimes people just choose not to use assistance even if they qualify for it. When I was growing up, my mom cleaned houses for 5-8 dollars an hour. My dad, as one of his three jobs, did carpentry work. He charged $12 an hour when the going rate was over $20. Why? Sometimes because the people he did work for were elderly or single moms. Mostly because he lived in an economically depressed area (more than half of the people in their county are on welfare). Most of the money Dad earned (less than 20,000 a year) went to paying off the mortgage on the farm. One year the income on the farm was $7.00. That is the year my brother decided he was never going to farm. We paid the bills and bought groceries with the 5,000 Mom earned cleaning houses. We always gave beef to the pastor and garden vegetables to people who needed them. One year Dad lost about half of his income because he (voluntarily) spent that year building the church.

 

I am very fortunate that Dh has a good job, but if he didn't it wouldn't be the end of the world.

 

I don't begrudge food stamps to those that need them, but being poor in America is often a state of mind.

[twoforjoy]

Right, the government makes up the difference, whether through welfare or requiring companies to pay a "living wage". But it all goes back to choices made at the beginning of an adult's life. you=universal you in the following questions. Do you start a family before having the means to support that family? Do you insist on a standard of living that you cannot afford? Why not live at home until you can afford to rent or own a house? This is what I'm saying we should teach our children. Fiscal responsibility begins as soon as our children begin wanting "things". Personal responsibility should be taught across the board. Don't have s*x unless you are ready and able to support a family. Don't spend money you don't have or make commitments that you can't, right now, afford to pay for.

 

I think your theory that poor economic circumstances means poor choices is a very, very flawed one.

 

I'm going to leave aside the issue of how many people who HAVE done things "right" by your standards are still struggling. I'm going to leave aside the fact that many young people who have finished college and have good work records can't afford ANY standard of living, because if they are lucky enough to find a job at all, it doesn't pay anywhere close to what they'd need to be financially independent.

 

The jobs that are being created in our economy are low-paying service jobs. There is obviously a need and demand for this kind of labor, so I'm not going to sit back and "tsk-tsk" somebody for making choices in life that result in them having a career in retail or working as an orderly in a nursing home. We not only need that work, but right now it's pretty much the only work that's being created, and so many overqualified people are taking those jobs out of desperation. But, even if they weren't, we do need somebody to do these things for us, yes? We need people to care for our elderly, to work at the stores and restaurants where we get the cheap food and goods we demand, and to provide the other services that sector of the economy provides for us.

 

But, we do not insist that the people working those jobs get paid a living wage. We need and demand their labor, but allow them to be paid so little that, even working 80 hours a week, they'd have difficulty providing for a family. And then we turn around and complain when people need the help of food stamps or housing assistance to make ends meet. What we're paying in taxes to help the poor is a fraction of either what we'd be paying if those workers were provided with a living wage (and their employers kept making the profits they're making) or of what their employers would lose in profit if they provided those workers with a living wage.

 

I think many of us have been fooled into taking "personality responsibility" (or, even worse, fooled into believing others have failed to do so) for problems that are systematic rather than personal. I heard an older person complaining in a diner the other day about a girl he saw on TV, who was in debt. She is a college graduate, and her first job pays $18K/year. She is in debt because she has been spending approximately $30K/year. His take on it was that she was simply selfish and irresponsible and wanted right now what her grandparents had after years of work. That's nothing but nonsense. In reality, $30K/year is about what it takes just to get by in many parts of the country; you can't even get by as a single person on $18K/year, especially if you have student loan debt to pay back. The cost of living has risen dramatically since the late 70s/early 80s while wages have stagnated for all but the very, very wealthiest. If she was spending $80K/year, I might agree with him, but his assessment is nothing more than the kind of anti-young-people, anti-poor-people, uncritical brainwashing that we are fed day after day by the corporate media.

 

Now, if you think we should have young people living at home, delaying marriage, and putting off childbearing until they are in their early-to-mid-30s (at which point they might be making enough money to get by), I guess that's fine. But, previous generations in the recent past have not had to do that; they were able to get entry-level jobs that paid decent wages. The problem is NOT young people (or any people) spending too much; the problem is people being paid too little and the cost of necessities (housing, medical care, and education in particular) rising dramatically. And unless we are willing to address that on a systematic, large-scale level, we're going to resort to chalking it up to individual bad choices, and nothing will change.

[twoforjoy]

When I was growing up, my mom cleaned houses for 5-8 dollars an hour. My dad, as one of his three jobs, did carpentry work. He charged $12 an hour when the going rate was over $20.

 

And you realize that, today, when the cost of living as risen quite a bit, minimum wage is $7.20/hour? Many people are working for that right now.

 

When the ONLY jobs available in your area are minimum-wage service jobs, you CANNOT work your way out of poverty; you just can't. You can put in a 60-hour work week and still not make enough to be financially independent. You can have two people in your home both working those full-time jobs and still not have enough to provide your family with the basics. This is the reality we are living in.

Edited June 3, 2011 by twoforjoy

[lakotajm]

I never said that either. Seriously, :chillpill:. Read the words I'm actually posting in the context they are posted instead of just trying to fight and be contrary.

 

ETA: It is my understanding that all Canadian media is government owned. Now it wouldn't behoove them to paint a pretty picture of capitalism, would it? No wonder Wehomeschool is confused about capitalism.

 

I was actually being serious in asking a serious question-tone is hard to convey, I suppose. I must have misunderstood you.

Lakota

[lakotajm]

There is a ton that should be non-food items. But there are other things that SHOULD be covered - like soap, shampoo, etc. What about SEEDS for growing food?

 

I also think supporting local would be great. What if the stores bought produce from local places? And I think Farmer Markets should be covered by food stamps - but I thought they were? I've seen little signs, so maybe that's only a state by state basis?

Seeds and plants are covered. In some places, farmers' markets.

[sassyscrapperinid]

I am a Christian. God has given me the earth and it's contents to care for. I am only 1 person and I can only affect my immediate surroundings. Saying that I will only give up my stuff to help someone if God tells me to is a cop out no matter what your religion is, IMO. If you truly beleive that those with more should give all excess to feed those with less then you are obligated to give your more.

 

 

:iagree:I have to agree with you there.

[Meriwether]

And you realize that, today, when the cost of living as risen quite a bit, minimum wage is $7.20/hour? Many people are working for that right now.

 

When the ONLY jobs available in your area are minimum-wage service jobs, you CANNOT work your way out of poverty; you just can't. You can put in a 60-hour work week and still not make enough to be financially independent. You can have two people in your home both working those full-time jobs and still not have enough to provide your family with the basics. This is the reality we are living in.

 

 

And you realize that my parents bought a farm, livestock, and farm equipment while earning that much money? You did catch that we lived off the 5,000 that Mom earned cleaning houses part time? My dad took an evening class to learn carpentry skills. He built our house himself paying cash as he went (we lived in an unfinished basement part of that time and had 2x4 steps for years until Mom designed an afghan with pictures from our town and sold them so that we could afford a staircase). Mom has a very nice hardwood floor in her kitchen and entryway. Many people remark on it. Mom and Dad were allowed to pull it out of a house that was getting torn down. Us kids had to clean up the pieces. Mom and Dad refinished them. I had a great childhood with parents that loved me, but we lived on less than the amounts you are mentioning. Things cost in either money or sweat equity. If you have less of one it is going to take more of the other. Sometimes a lot more. But discount it if you want, since it doesn't fit your worldview.

[Cheryl in NM]

Again, I would read check the link about the law that I provided. Here is some of what it says:

 

The Affordable Care Act does not include an employer mandate. In 2014, as a matter of fairness, the Affordable Care Act requires large employers to pay a shared responsibility fee only if they don’t provide affordable coverage and taxpayers are supporting the cost of health insurance for their workers through premium tax credits for middle to low income families.

 

The law specifically exempts all firms that have fewer than 50 employees – 96 percent of all firms in the United States or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms – from any employer responsibility requirements. These 5.8 million firms employ nearly 34 million workers. More than 96 percent of firms with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance to their workers. Less than 0.2 percent of all firms (about 10,000 out of 6 million) may face employer responsibility requirements. Many firms that do not currently offer coverage will be more likely to do so because of lower premiums and wider choices in the Exchange.

For more information, please visit http://www.healthreform.gov/about/answers.html.

 

This is typical government double speak propoganda. How you possibly say that the mandate doesn't exist, but say it's required in the same sentence? Government double speak, that's how. Businesses with as few as 1 FT employee that don't pay the insurance will be subject to excise tax if that employee takes the subsidy because they can't afford the government mandated health insurance. The actual law is as I stated. I'm only devoting a small portion of my day to this thread and thus don't have time to go back and find my sources. I know, that means nothing to you. I work in the tax business, am a financial professional and am stating the truth. You will not find any posts on this board where I lie or mis-lead people. I stand on my integrity, honesty and reputation.

 

 

I also know that with FSA accounts that over the counter meds can be re-imbursed with a prescription. Plus supplements used for a specific disorder and not for general well being can also be re-imbursed with a prescription/letter of medical necessity.

 

From the FSA site:

Beginning January 1, 2011, currently eligible over-the-counter (OTC) products that are medicines or drugs (e.g., acne treatments, allergy and cold medicines, antacids, etc.) will not be eligible for reimbursement from your Health Care FSA – unless, you have a prescription for that item written by your physician.

 

The only exception is insulin – which will not require a prescription from January 1, 2011 forward. Other currently eligible OTC items that are not medicines or drugs, such as bandages and nasal strips, will not require a prescription.

 

Plus according to this site acupuncture and alternative medicine are covered with letters of medical necessity.

 

And how much does it cost you to go to the doctor to get that prescription for that $10 OTC? Just because acupuncture, which has been covered for a number of years now, and some alternative medicines are covered doesn't mean that all alternative medicines will still be covered. As of 1/1/11 I was not covered for some of my alt. trmts that were covered last year.

 

ETA: Did you happen to notice that at the top of source it says the website is no longer updated and the information in your source is not dated?

[stansclan89]

I think your theory that poor economic circumstances means poor choices is a very, very flawed one.

 

I'm going to leave aside the issue of how many people who HAVE done things "right" by your standards are still struggling. I'm going to leave aside the fact that many young people who have finished college and have good work records can't afford ANY standard of living, because if they are lucky enough to find a job at all, it doesn't pay anywhere close to what they'd need to be financially independent.

 

The jobs that are being created in our economy are low-paying service jobs. There is obviously a need and demand for this kind of labor, so I'm not going to sit back and "tsk-tsk" somebody for making choices in life that result in them having a career in retail or working as an orderly in a nursing home. We not only need that work, but right now it's pretty much the only work that's being created, and so many overqualified people are taking those jobs out of desperation. But, even if they weren't, we do need somebody to do these things for us, yes? We need people to care for our elderly, to work at the stores and restaurants where we get the cheap food and goods we demand, and to provide the other services that sector of the economy provides for us.

 

But, we do not insist that the people working those jobs get paid a living wage. We need and demand their labor, but allow them to be paid so little that, even working 80 hours a week, they'd have difficulty providing for a family. And then we turn around and complain when people need the help of food stamps or housing assistance to make ends meet. What we're paying in taxes to help the poor is a fraction of either what we'd be paying if those workers were provided with a living wage (and their employers kept making the profits they're making) or of what their employers would lose in profit if they provided those workers with a living wage.

 

I think many of us have been fooled into taking "personality responsibility" (or, even worse, fooled into believing others have failed to do so) for problems that are systematic rather than personal. I heard an older person complaining in a diner the other day about a girl he saw on TV, who was in debt. She is a college graduate, and her first job pays $18K/year. She is in debt because she has been spending approximately $30K/year. His take on it was that she was simply selfish and irresponsible and wanted right now what her grandparents had after years of work. That's nothing but nonsense. In reality, $30K/year is about what it takes just to get by in many parts of the country; you can't even get by as a single person on $18K/year, especially if you have student loan debt to pay back. The cost of living has risen dramatically since the late 70s/early 80s while wages have stagnated for all but the very, very wealthiest. If she was spending $80K/year, I might agree with him, but his assessment is nothing more than the kind of anti-young-people, anti-poor-people, uncritical brainwashing that we are fed day after day by the corporate media.

 

Now, if you think we should have young people living at home, delaying marriage, and putting off childbearing until they are in their early-to-mid-30s (at which point they might be making enough money to get by), I guess that's fine. But, previous generations in the recent past have not had to do that; they were able to get entry-level jobs that paid decent wages. The problem is NOT young people (or any people) spending too much; the problem is people being paid too little and the cost of necessities (housing, medical care, and education in particular) rising dramatically. And unless we are willing to address that on a systematic, large-scale level, we're going to resort to chalking it up to individual bad choices, and nothing will change.

 

:iagree:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

This is typical government double speak propoganda. How you possibly say that the mandate doesn't exist, but say it's required in the same sentence? Government double speak, that's how. Businesses with as few as 1 FT employee that don't pay the insurance will be subject to excise tax if that employee takes the subsidy because they can't afford the government mandated health insurance. The actual law is as I stated. I'm only devoting a small portion of my day to this thread and thus don't have time to go back and find my sources. I know, that means nothing to you. I work in the tax business, am a financial professional and am stating the truth. You will not find any posts on this board where I lie or mis-lead people. I stand on my integrity, honesty and reputation.

 

 

 

 

And how much does it cost you to go to the doctor to get that prescription for that $10 OTC? Just because acupuncture, which has been covered for a number of years now, and some alternative medicines are covered doesn't mean that all alternative medicines will still be covered. As of 1/1/11 I was not covered for some of my alt. trmts that were covered last year.

 

ETA: Did you happen to notice that at the top of source it says the website is no longer updated and the information in your source is not dated?

Again I would re-read what I posted and linked. The law exempts 96% of all businesses from any fees for not offering health care. Do you have any links to back up your claims? I linked directly to the government web site about this law.

 

As for propaganda and double speak, I find that sad that some are so distrusting of the government. There are lots of good people who work for the government at all levels just as there are in business.

 

Also, the costs of obtaining a doctor's visit for prescriptions for OTC drugs is re-imbursable as well.

Edited June 3, 2011 by priscilla

[Cheryl in NM]

Again I would re-read what I posted and linked. The law exempts 96% of all businesses from any fees for not offering health care.

 

Also, the costs of obtaining a doctor's visit for prescriptions for OTC drugs is re-imbursable as well.

 

I read your "source". Again, your source is not updated and the answers weren't dated anyway. Your source is not valid even if it does have ".gov" at the end.

 

You have to have the $100-$150 for the doctor's appt to ask for the reimbursement for the OTC. I don't know about you, but that's not very cost effective for me. It's cheaper to just pay for the OTC out of my pocket, which is what they are counting on.

 

The law does NOT exempt 96% of businesses. If that business has 1 FT employee who uses the subsidy because the business doesn't provide and pay for at least 60% of premium the business is subject to excise tax. That is the healthcare reform law.

 

ETA: I see the problem, you are quoting the Affordable Care Act of March 2010 and I'm talking about the Healthcare Reform Act of Dec. 2010. Again, your information is outdated.

[lakotajm]

Just wanted to point out that working isn't the solution to being poor, especially now, when nearly all of the new jobs being created are very low-paying service jobs. A study recently came out showing that, not only can you not get by on a full-time minimum-wage job (which should be a no-brainer for anybody to see, given that 40 hours a week of minimum-wage work only brings in $15,080/year before anything is taken out), but that even having two full-time minimum-wage workers in a home would not be enough, in many cases, to support a family given the cost of living.

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20110531/NEWS06/105310351/New-study-You-can-t-live-minimum-wage

 

So "just get a job and work hard!" doesn't cut it, sorry. When jobs that pay a real living or family wage are disappearing, and being replaced with low-paying or minimum-wage service jobs, that's not going to work for many people. I think you have to be speaking from a place of enormous privilege to imagine that.

 

If we want to benefit from the labor of poorly-paid service workers, and if companies want to profit off of the labor of these workers and keep their wages low, then we have no right at all to complain about "our" money going to make up the difference between what these workers are paid and what you actually need to get by.

 

Oh so well said.

 

Lakota

[Cheryl in NM]

This is the actual law currently on the books. Notice my source is the IRS.

 

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers with 50 or more full-time employees that do not offer affordable health coverage to their full-time employees may be required to make a shared responsibility payment. The law specifically exempts small firms that have fewer than 50 full-time employees. This provision takes effect in 2014.

[KristinaBreece]

This is the actual law currently on the books. Notice my source is the IRS.

 

But it says that businesses with less than 50 employees are exempt, effective 2014.

[Cheryl in NM]

But it says that businesses with less than 50 employees are exempt, effective 2014.

 

Yes, I noticed that as well. My training materials state:

Qualified employers who do not provide minimum health insurance coverage and have at least one FT employee certified as enrolled in a subsdized health plan is subject to excise tax.

 

The training material are confidential to employees only so I cannot link to the source of my quote. However I don't have time to track it all the way back to the IRS. My employer is a power house in the finance industry so I trust my training materials over my inferior research skills. ;)

 

I think whole health care reform discussion has proven how hard it is to utilize public resources to find the actual laws we are supposed to be following.

 

Must get back to work now. So sorry I can't continue researching right now.

[elegantlion]

Things cost in either money or sweat equity. If you have less of one it is going to take more of the other. Sometimes a lot more. But discount it if you want, since it doesn't fit your worldview.

 

My dh is a carpenter, we understand about sweat equity, but we still can't convince our electric or gas company to accept bartering as payments. :tongue_smilie:

 

Things just cost more, period. Our gas company charges a fee of 25.00 just to use their service each month (I'm in the midwest too). Add all the taxes and it's closer to 30.00. This is a new requirement in the last three years. In our previous state our gas bill was 9.00 per month during the summer. But there was no work there, period. That's why we left.

[Haiku]

You did catch that we lived off the 5,000 that Mom earned cleaning houses part time?

 

I'm wondering how old you are. Things cost astronomically more now. I'm in my late 30s. When I was young, my mom babysit an infant full-time and earned $50 a week. That was considered an good wage at that time. The year before I was born, my parents bought a 4-bedroom house on 2 1/2 acres of land, and their entire mortgage payment (including taxes and insurance) was $220 a month. At a time when minimum wage was $2.10, earning 5-8 dollars an hour cleaning houses was HUGE. My dh has told me that when his dad asked his mom's parents for permission to marry her, his big selling point for financially stability was, "I'm earning FIVE FIGURES [$10,000] now."

 

Unless you are EXTREMELY young, the amount of money you are talking about wasn't unheard of for raising a family a few decades ago. I mean geez, when I got my license gas was 89 cents a gallon!!

 

Tara

[cindergretta]

Tara, we must be close in age. I remember when you could fill a gas tank for under $10. :lol: My parents bought their first house (a 3 bdrm, 2b) for $29,000!!!! I don't think we could be 1/4 acre of land for a trailer for that now!! :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

Cheryl, note the qualifier "Qualified employers." That means those to whom the rule applies, in other words, those with greater than 50 employees.

[cindergretta]

I am reading that to mean if you are company with 55 full time employees, you don't offer minimal affordable plans, and at least ONE employee is on a subsidized plan, the company is subject to excise tax.

 

I don't see how that affects companies with fewer than 50 full time employees. They aren't "qualified."

[Sputterduck]

I'm wondering how old you are. Things cost astronomically more now. I'm in my late 30s. When I was young, my mom babysit an infant full-time and earned $50 a week. That was considered an good wage at that time. The year before I was born, my parents bought a 4-bedroom house on 2 1/2 acres of land, and their entire mortgage payment (including taxes and insurance) was $220 a month. At a time when minimum wage was $2.10, earning 5-8 dollars an hour cleaning houses was HUGE. My dh has told me that when his dad asked his mom's parents for permission to marry her, his big selling point for financially stability was, "I'm earning FIVE FIGURES [$10,000] now."

 

Unless you are EXTREMELY young, the amount of money you are talking about wasn't unheard of for raising a family a few decades ago. I mean geez, when I got my license gas was 89 cents a gallon!!

 

Tara

 

I'm lamenting getting a year older today and your post made me feel extremely young. lol You are now my favorite poster. :tongue_smilie:

[Meriwether]

My dh is a carpenter, we understand about sweat equity, but we still can't convince our electric or gas company to accept bartering as payments. :tongue_smilie:

 

Things just cost more, period. Our gas company charges a fee of 25.00 just to use their service each month (I'm in the midwest too). Add all the taxes and it's closer to 30.00. This is a new requirement in the last three years. In our previous state our gas bill was 9.00 per month during the summer. But there was no work there, period. That's why we left.

 

 

I said earlier but perhaps should have said again in each post that I don't begrudge the people using food stamps. I do get bothered when people act indignant at even the idea that many people could get by with less than they have. In my first post, I said I didn't care what people bought with FS if they could budget it in with their allotment. But it isn't an honest conversation if people want to say they should be able to do ________, but don't want to hear about people who choose to live without ___________ because they can't afford it on their own. Comparison is the death of contentment. I live in a decent house with a lovely yard. Until my sister moved last week (in with my parents, by choice, but that is a whole 'nother thread), she lived in a lovely 400,000 dollar home with a really nice kitchen. In my badly laidout kitchen, the refrigerator freezes the food in some areas, the big burner on my stovetop doesn't work, I have to turn the oven on with a screwdriver and I can't fit a cookie sheet into it, and my dishwasher (the only decent appliance) broke two weeks ago. If I only compared my kitchen with my sister's, it would be depressing. But not everyone has a nice, modern kitchen. Saying I deserve good appliances just isn't - I don't know - correct? I'm sure many people put up with worse kitchens than mine. No one, I hope, wants people to go hungry. But many people do without other things to buy their own food. I don't think it is bad for people to know how other people live - on all sides of the issue.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

This is the actual law currently on the books. Notice my source is the IRS.

 

Yes, and apparently 96% of our businesses have less than 50 employees so the law does not apply to them:001_smile:.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Yes, I noticed that as well. My training materials state:

 

 

The training material are confidential to employees only so I cannot link to the source of my quote. However I don't have time to track it all the way back to the IRS. My employer is a power house in the finance industry so I trust my training materials over my inferior research skills. ;)

 

I think whole health care reform discussion has proven how hard it is to utilize public resources to find the actual laws we are supposed to be following.

 

Must get back to work now. So sorry I can't continue researching right now.

 

IMHO I would think that the link I provided from the government dedicated to the healthcare reform law is the most accurate source of info:). This site is meant to specifically provide info about the healthcare law.

[Scarlett]

Comparison is the death of contentment.

 

Love this quote. My dss10 was so cute the other day when he called our house 'fancy'. I was all :001_huh: because of course I compare it to the house I moved out of a year ago which was more than twice this one. The house was twice as big, twice as nice and the yard was four times as big!

 

A year ago I was grateful for this house. Grateful that even though I was about to turn 45 and was newly divorced that I was going to be able to live in a decent house and continue homeschooling my son at least a few more years. Then I got married and more people moved in and I began to feel that little bit of discontent creep in. My dss's comment brought me back to reality.

 

My mom also cleaned houses and babysat and whatever while she raised us and then as she put herself through school WITH assistance. We were fine in those years though....she accumulated only $2500 in student loans (which were eventually forgiven because she taught in a poverty school) and owed no one anything else. She was so excited about her first teaching job...so imagine her surprise when she and my brother nearly starved that first year! :tongue_smilie: She made enough to not qualify for assistance but not enough to really live on. And trust me there was ZERO luxuries going on with them.

 

Things do cost even more now though. I notice a HUGE difference from just a year or two ago. Gasoline, water, food......things are crazy. My WATER bill is $100 a month! I've analyzed it to death and dh has checked for leaks....seems to be all ok and I guess water is just expensive. When I was a kid I can CLEARLY remember our water bill being $12 a month!

 

Oh and Mrs. Mungo thanks for the links. Very informative.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Yes, I noticed that as well. My training materials state:

 

 

The training material are confidential to employees only so I cannot link to the source of my quote. However I don't have time to track it all the way back to the IRS. My employer is a power house in the finance industry so I trust my training materials over my inferior research skills. ;)

 

I think whole health care reform discussion has proven how hard it is to utilize public resources to find the actual laws we are supposed to be following.

 

Must get back to work now. So sorry I can't continue researching right now.

 

Your training materials are not from the horse's mouth so to speak. The web site I linked to is from the horse's mouth:D

[Meriwether]

I'm wondering how old you are. Things cost astronomically more now. I'm in my late 30s. When I was young, my mom babysit an infant full-time and earned $50 a week. That was considered an good wage at that time. The year before I was born, my parents bought a 4-bedroom house on 2 1/2 acres of land, and their entire mortgage payment (including taxes and insurance) was $220 a month. At a time when minimum wage was $2.10, earning 5-8 dollars an hour cleaning houses was HUGE. My dh has told me that when his dad asked his mom's parents for permission to marry her, his big selling point for financially stability was, "I'm earning FIVE FIGURES [$10,000] now."

 

Unless you are EXTREMELY young, the amount of money you are talking about wasn't unheard of for raising a family a few decades ago. I mean geez, when I got my license gas was 89 cents a gallon!!

 

Tara

 

I know where you are coming from so I'm going to take your question with a grain of salt because 10 years or so makes a difference.

 

I'm not extremely young, but I am younger than you. I looked it up. The minimum wage when Mom was working for 5 dollars an hour was about 4.25. She eventually started charging more (incrementally over 15 years). She made 8 dollars per hour at some houses while I was in college and after. She never increased her rates at some houses because she cleaned for elderly people on fixed incomes. She cleaned part time because she also took care of the home and worked on the farm. 5,000 a year was a good year, income wise, for her. The 15,000 to 20,000 Dad grossed in a good year came from working 3 jobs working from 6:30 in the morning until 6:30 to 9:30 in the evenings in the winter and from 6:30-7:00 in the morning until dark in the summer six days a week. And from the 15,000 to 20,000 he grosses, Dad had to buy shots for the cows, baling wire, seed, fertilizer, gas for equipment, equipment, fencing material, material to build barns, etc. Did you catch the part where he netted $7 for the farm one year? All of us worked hard that year. I never did the math, but I doubt the $7 dollars would have paid us kids more than 1 or 2 pennies an hour.

 

I'm not complaining; I had a great childhood. But we really didn't have money.

[Joanne]

I think your theory that poor economic circumstances means poor choices is a very, very flawed one.

 

I'm going to leave aside the issue of how many people who HAVE done things "right" by your standards are still struggling. I'm going to leave aside the fact that many young people who have finished college and have good work records can't afford ANY standard of living, because if they are lucky enough to find a job at all, it doesn't pay anywhere close to what they'd need to be financially independent.

 

The jobs that are being created in our economy are low-paying service jobs. There is obviously a need and demand for this kind of labor, so I'm not going to sit back and "tsk-tsk" somebody for making choices in life that result in them having a career in retail or working as an orderly in a nursing home. We not only need that work, but right now it's pretty much the only work that's being created, and so many overqualified people are taking those jobs out of desperation. But, even if they weren't, we do need somebody to do these things for us, yes? We need people to care for our elderly, to work at the stores and restaurants where we get the cheap food and goods we demand, and to provide the other services that sector of the economy provides for us.

 

But, we do not insist that the people working those jobs get paid a living wage. We need and demand their labor, but allow them to be paid so little that, even working 80 hours a week, they'd have difficulty providing for a family. And then we turn around and complain when people need the help of food stamps or housing assistance to make ends meet. What we're paying in taxes to help the poor is a fraction of either what we'd be paying if those workers were provided with a living wage (and their employers kept making the profits they're making) or of what their employers would lose in profit if they provided those workers with a living wage.

 

I think many of us have been fooled into taking "personality responsibility" (or, even worse, fooled into believing others have failed to do so) for problems that are systematic rather than personal. I heard an older person complaining in a diner the other day about a girl he saw on TV, who was in debt. She is a college graduate, and her first job pays $18K/year. She is in debt because she has been spending approximately $30K/year. His take on it was that she was simply selfish and irresponsible and wanted right now what her grandparents had after years of work. That's nothing but nonsense. In reality, $30K/year is about what it takes just to get by in many parts of the country; you can't even get by as a single person on $18K/year, especially if you have student loan debt to pay back. The cost of living has risen dramatically since the late 70s/early 80s while wages have stagnated for all but the very, very wealthiest. If she was spending $80K/year, I might agree with him, but his assessment is nothing more than the kind of anti-young-people, anti-poor-people, uncritical brainwashing that we are fed day after day by the corporate media.

 

Now, if you think we should have young people living at home, delaying marriage, and putting off childbearing until they are in their early-to-mid-30s (at which point they might be making enough money to get by), I guess that's fine. But, previous generations in the recent past have not had to do that; they were able to get entry-level jobs that paid decent wages. The problem is NOT young people (or any people) spending too much; the problem is people being paid too little and the cost of necessities (housing, medical care, and education in particular) rising dramatically. And unless we are willing to address that on a systematic, large-scale level, we're going to resort to chalking it up to individual bad choices, and nothing will change.

 

:iagree: Thank you.

 

:auto: <<<<< me driving away in my 4 year old van, which replaced the 11 year old one. We are a one vehicle family right now; a reality that does not work in suburban Houston when you live in Richmond, and work in Katy and Houston.

[Cheryl in NM]

Cheryl, note the qualifier "Qualified employers." That means those to whom the rule applies, in other words, those with greater than 50 employees.

 

Note the rest of the sentence "Qualified employers with at least 1 FT employee..."

[Cheryl in NM]

IMHO I would think that the link I provided from the government dedicated to the healthcare reform law is the most accurate source of info:). This site is meant to specifically provide info about the healthcare law.

 

Except your link says at the top that it is no longer being updated and none of the answers given on the FAQ web page you listed were dated as to when they were answered. My IRS link was in direct violation to your posted link which said that there is no excise tax on employers who don't provide health insurance. I am actually reading your posts and your links. If you wish to debate the issue please show enough respect to do the same.

[cindergretta]

Note the rest of the sentence "Qualified employers with at least 1 FT employee..."

 

Qualified (meaning having over 50 FT employees) with at least 1 FT employee *using subsidized health care* (or whatever the wording was) are subject to excise tax.

 

The company still has to qualify by having 50 FT employees AND not providing minimal affordable coverage AND have 1 FT employee using gov't healthcare.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Except your link says at the top that it is no longer being updated and none of the answers given on the FAQ web page you listed were dated as to when they were answered. My IRS link was in direct violation to your posted link which said that there is no excise tax on employers who don't provide health insurance. I am actually reading your posts and your links. If you wish to debate the issue please show enough respect to do the same.

 

I am reading your posts:) My link does not say that it is no longer being updated. It is part of the official governemnt web site on health care reform.

 

Here is the link I posted:

http://www.healthcare.gov/foryou/small/top5/index.html

 

 

 

Here is the home page of the same web site:

http://www.healthcare.gov/index.html

 

I did see that someone posted an archived health care info web site but that was not me and honestly the info looks the same on both web sites.

 

Plus, if I have tax questions I go to the IRS web site. If I have credit questions I go to the FTV government web site. If I have environmental questions, I go to the EPA web site.

Edited June 3, 2011 by priscilla

[Cheryl in NM]

Qualified (meaning having over 50 FT employees) with at least 1 FT employee *using subsidized health care* (or whatever the wording was) are subject to excise tax.

 

The company still has to qualify by having 50 FT employees AND not providing minimal affordable coverage AND have 1 FT employee using gov't healthcare.

 

See, I and the rest of the employees of my firm, interpret this law the way I've presented it here. The wording is not clear, apparently. I see, now, how you interpret it.

[Mrs Mungo]

Note the rest of the sentence "Qualified employers with at least 1 FT employee..."

 

No, Cheryl, you are reading it wrong.

 

"Qualified employers who do not provide minimum health insurance coverage and have at least one FT employee certified as enrolled in a subsdized health plan is subject to excise tax."

 

Qualified employers, qualified=those with 50 or greater employees

 

who have at least one FT employee enrolled in a subsidized health plan...=if the government is subsidizing at least one of those 50 or greater employees.

[Cheryl in NM]

Again, I would read check the link about the law that I provided. Here is some of what it says:

 

The Affordable Care Act does not include an employer mandate. In 2014, as a matter of fairness, the Affordable Care Act requires large employers to pay a shared responsibility fee only if they don’t provide affordable coverage and taxpayers are supporting the cost of health insurance for their workers through premium tax credits for middle to low income families.

 

The law specifically exempts all firms that have fewer than 50 employees – 96 percent of all firms in the United States or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms – from any employer responsibility requirements. These 5.8 million firms employ nearly 34 million workers. More than 96 percent of firms with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance to their workers. Less than 0.2 percent of all firms (about 10,000 out of 6 million) may face employer responsibility requirements. Many firms that do not currently offer coverage will be more likely to do so because of lower premiums and wider choices in the Exchange.

For more information, please visit http://www.healthreform.gov/about/answers.html.

 

I am reading your posts:) My link does not say that it is no longer being updated. It is part of the official governemnt web site on health care reform.

 

Here is the link I posted:

http://www.healthcare.gov/foryou/small/top5/index.html

 

 

 

Here is the home page of the same web site:

http://www.healthcare.gov/index.html

 

I did see that someone posted an archived health care info web site but that was not me and honestly the info looks the same on both web sites.

 

Plus, if I have tax questions I go to the IRS web site. If I have credit questions I go to the FTV government web site. If I have environmental questions, I go to the EPA web site.

 

The link above in the first post I quoted, which you linked, says it is an archive. That is the link I've been replying to, since that is the one you were quoting. It is in direct violation of the information given in the IRS link that I posted. So much for getting your information from the source.

 

My employer gets their information from the source. We wouldn't be able to continue being a financial powerhouse if we didn't follow IRS laws.

 

ETA: Funny, when I search the IRS website for info regarding health care reform it gives me info actually at IRS.gov.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Cheryl in NM

[Cheryl in NM]

No, Cheryl, you are reading it wrong.

 

"Qualified employers who do not provide minimum health insurance coverage and have at least one FT employee certified as enrolled in a subsdized health plan is subject to excise tax."

 

Qualified employers, qualified=those with 50 or greater employees

 

who have at least one FT employee enrolled in a subsidized health plan...=if the government is subsidizing at least one of those 50 or greater employees.

 

Well, then so is everyone else in my firm and our clients will get a huge surprise in 2014.

[cindergretta]

How is it a direct *violation*? :confused:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

IMHO I would consider researching this more since some of the things you say are inaccurate.

 

There is no employer mandate for healthcare.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/increasing_choice_and_saving_money_for_small_businesses.html

 

Also government run healthcare does not make you qualify for services. My father had open heart surgery on medicare. He is obese and he smoke in his life. No problem and medicare saved his life. I have taken care of many, many people on medicare who have not taken care of themselves for whatever reason and they are not denied care as is right. I have only ever heard of some restrictions on transplants since they are scarce resources.

 

I also want to say we are not Russia.

 

Finally, healthcare reform will invigorate businesses IMHO. I want to see healthcare reform taken a step further and see medicare for all Americans:D What a blessing that will be:)

 

Here is my original post on this. The second link in my other post was embedded in the info I copied and pasted and yes the embedded link is archived. My original link is not outdated though.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

This is the actual law currently on the books. Notice my source is the IRS.

 

The quote from your link does not contradict what I have posted at all.

[Mrs Mungo]

See, I and the rest of the employees of my firm, interpret this law the way I've presented it here. The wording is not clear, apparently. I see, now, how you interpret it.

 

It's not about how we interpret it. The way we are explaining it? Is how the government interprets it as explained in many faqs available to the public (as already linked).

CNN interprets is that way

 

Starting in 2014, businesses with more than 50 employees will be required to either offer healthcare coverage or pay a penalty of $750 a year per full-time worker.

So does Inc.

Companies with fewer than 50 workers won't face penalties if they don't offer insurance.

eta: Are you sure your firm isn't talking about something else? For example, small businesses will be able to participate in health care exchanges in order to offer insurance to their employees. This is a benefit to small businesses and their employees. It will make it easier for small businesses to get group insurance. Edited June 3, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[elegantlion]

I said earlier but perhaps should have said again in each post that I don't begrudge the people using food stamps. I do get bothered when people act indignant at even the idea that many people could get by with less than they have. In my first post, I said I didn't care what people bought with FS if they could budget it in with their allotment. But it isn't an honest conversation if people want to say they should be able to do ________, but don't want to hear about people who choose to live without ___________ because they can't afford it on their own. Comparison is the death of contentment. I

 

That's the thing. You have NO IDEA what some posters have given up, or never had in the first place. Many here didn't grow up with supportive families. Even those that did may not have learned budgeting and household skills from their families.

 

My dh's industry currently supports about $12-15/hour as a wage. If he works full-time, we do okay. That wage has decreased over the years. His ability and experience is way beyond that wage. However, he has to bid jobs that he can get. If he bids at what his experience his worth, he doesn't get the job because there are other hungry carpenters willing to do it for less. Thank God for family members that need work and are willing to pay a decent wage, even if he has to drive across the state to get there.

 

Our food stamp allotment increased by previous grocery budget by over 50%. If it were dh and I we might not have even applied. We'd have eaten ramen noodles and peanut butter and drank water. Check the age of my child, food stamps has allowed him the ability to have good nutrition at one of the most important growth periods in his life. This is my first experience with a teenage boy appetite. I'm glad I don't have to tell him there is nothing but peanut butter left in the pantry.

[Cheryl in NM]

How is it a direct *violation*? :confused:

 

Her website said that there was no government mandate to provide health insurance, the IRS link said, no only is there a government mandate, there is a penalty for not providing health insurance.

 

ETA: I think your question is about the word violation and not the contradiction in information? I should have said contradiction.

[QueenCat]

This is *not true*, this is one of those rumors that people keep repeating.

 

I'm not sure exactly which rumors you've listened to, but here are some common misconceptions:

 

members of Congress receive full retirement after one term

 

Congress does not pay into Social Security

 

Congress is exempt from the health care bill

 

 

 

:iagree: It is sad how many people believe these misconceptions and pass them on as truth. Drives me crazy. Thank you for providing the accurate links.

[Cheryl in NM]

The quote from your link does not contradict what I have posted at all.

 

Try actually reading it. The quote in my link says that the employers must provide health insurance and are penalized if they don't. YOUR quote says that there is no mandate and no penalty. It's like we aren't even reading the same articles. :confused:

[Mynyel]

This is just a general sweeping statement not directed (really) at anyone. But for all those who think that we (who are on food stamps) shouldn't be able to purchase a certain food item, I invite you to come to my house, meet me, talk to me(and my family) and then tell me, to my face, eye-to-eye, what I can and can't buy for food.

 

Food stamps is a public assistance program. Granted it comes from tax dollars that we (even us that get food stamps) have no choice (under penalty of law) but to pay. However it is something akin to someone asking you if they can have X amount of money for help and then you get to tell them how they can spend it. It doesn't work that way. I have asked my parents if I could borrow (have :)) some money for this or that and they never told me how to spend it. I have given friends $5 or $10 before and not said OK but you can't buy this item with it.

 

It is easy when we are posting here in the forums to say things. We are somewhat removed from situations. But when you have to do something in person it changes the whole perspective.

[Cheryl in NM]

It's not about how we interpret it. The way we are explaining it? Is how the government interprets it as explained in many faqs available to the public (as already linked).

CNN interprets is that way

 

So does Inc.

eta: Are you sure your firm isn't talking about something else? For example, small businesses will be able to participate in health care exchanges in order to offer insurance to their employees. This is a benefit to small businesses and their employees. It will make it easier for small businesses to get group insurance.

 

Sorry, CNN is NOT the IRS. I'll check with my firm. We haven't had extensive, in-depth training yet because we're hoping it will get re-pealed by then. It has been presented to us as I have presented it to you.

 

PP has been saying that there is NO government mandate to provide health insurance to employees for any business and there is no fine (which is actually "$2000 divided by 12" per employee in violation per month).

 

I've been arguing all day that there IS in fact a government mandate to take effect 2014 and there WILL be penalties for non-compliance. I've been called a liar, even after I provided a link to the IRS to back up my claim!

 

Umm, hello? a little confused here. :confused:

[Mrs Mungo]

Try actually reading it. The quote in my link says that the employers must provide health insurance and are penalized if they don't. YOUR quote says that there is no mandate and no penalty. It's like we aren't even reading the same articles. :confused:

 

From your link:

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers with 50 or more full-time employees that do not offer affordable health coverage to their full-time employees may be required to make a shared responsibility payment. The law specifically exempts small firms that have fewer than 50 full-time employees. This provision takes effect in 2014.

This is the opposite of what you are saying about small businesses.

 

Now, the other bit? That's a semantic issue.

 

-If you are a small business (fewer than 50 employees), you will not pay a penalty if they receive government subsidized insurance instead of you helping them. If you do help them get insurance, then you get a tax credit.

 

-If you have 50 or more employees and you choose to let the government subsidize their insurance instead of you helping them, then you pay a share of that.

 

eta: It isn't being called a penalty in the bill or the link you gave. That's why I'm saying it's a semantic issue.

 

I didn't see anyone call you a liar, people told you that you were misunderstanding.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Mrs Mungo