It’s either the law of unintended consequences, or purposeful, but ObamaCare has provisions that harm families that are paying for the care of their disabled children. For example, Steve at America’s Watchtower, shows how ObamaCare harms these families by limiting Flexible Savings Accounts, which allows workers to set aside pre-tax income in order to pay for medical expenses.
This change in the law will not affect most Americans as most Americans donate less than $2.500 a year to these plans, but there is one group of people who routinely donate much more money to FSAs than the average American and that group is the parents of children with Down Syndrome.
Most people don’t, but the one group that does put a lot of money into their FSAs is parents of kids with Down Syndrome, and parents of kids with physical disabilities,” Ellis said.
“Currently, if parents send their kids to a special school, the tuition is considered a qualified medical expense that can run through your FSA. If you have a kid who needs a durable piece of medical equipment that’s not covered by insurance, you can run that through your FSA,” Ellis said. “If FSAs had any limits before Obamacare, those were determined by the employer. The IRS had nothing to do with it.
“Obamacare creates a new $2,500 cap for FSAs,” Ellis continued. “That’s not going to affect most people, who just put in enough to pay for eyeglasses or dental work. But the one group that is being restricted is parents of special-needs children
A big chunk of the tuition parents paid for special-needs schools used to be on a pre-tax basis. Now, they’re paying on an after-tax basis
I have used FSA’s before, and they come in very handy. However, Democrats hate them for two reasons.
1. It’s pre-tax, and since Democrats think all income belongs to them, they view it as people “cheating the system.”
2. It’s money that people control themselves, so the government does not. People acting with their own resources are not dependent on the government.
As Steve points out, people will find ways to care for their children, but it will be far more difficult. And, it will take funds away from other expenditures, which will actually hurt the economy. They extra money confiscated by the government will be wasted, and have little to no lasting impact on anything.
And, if it hurts disabled children, it’s a small price to pay for a little cash, and increased dependency. Frankly, regressives want to abort these disabled children outright anyway, as they will have a “life not worth living.”
Where have we heard that before? And, perhaps making it much harder to provide their care might encourage that?