If the costs of medical treatment without insurance weren't such a barrier to receiving wellness care, I could agree with you. As well, when I didn't have insurance, the only care I could receive was from public health centers. I would have to often miss a whole day of work because they didn't take appointments. Private practitioners wouldn't even see me. Of course, this was over a decade ago so maybe it's changed?

 

As to my son's future, it isn't dependent on medicare reimbursement. And after the first round of new regulations were released, he was promoted and put on salary. Of course some of that is due to him proving his value by his work ethic and performance. He is routinely put in leadership roles in special projects related to compliance with those regulations. He is in a small organization, a specialty women's, hospital so they are already very streamlined, but through his reorganization of his department he has been able to identify bloat and eliminate it. And, he voted for Obama. He's no idiot. If he felt this was a threat, I have no doubt he'd have voted for Romney. He is a registered Republican.

 

My daughter, interestingly, just accepted a job at Humana. So both kids will be very vested in the future of AHCA.

 

What??!!

I know, I can't reconcile those two statements either.

I know, I can't reconcile those two statements either.

 

LOL!!

What??!!

 

Hey...All Tell knows my son...I challenge him to defy that statement.

Not sure why you would be upset about contributing toward an educated populace. As to adderal, I would think it is likely already covered in most prescription plans considering the number of children I know who have been issued a prescription.

 

Never expected anyone to educate me or my children. Always knew that was my responsibility. Have been planning for my children from the day they were born. Didn't do alot of things because of it. Never depended on a scholarship. They may get one they may not. Everyone needs to take responsibility for themselves.

 

As to the adderal, no it is not covered and yes it is $150/month.

Hey...All Tell knows my son...I challenge him to defy that statement.

 

RM's son is most definitely not and idiot. Misguided voter maybe :thumb: but not an idiot.

Fiscal cliff brings 401Ks into play.

 

This cliff is getting real scary.

 

Time article:

 

Fiscal Cliff: Why Congress Might Have to Mess with the 401(k) | TIME.com

 

The article quotes a report by Harvard that just came out that says the tax deduction factor does not affect behavior of participation. So the argument is why offer a tax break that 'costs' the government 100 Billion a year.

 

OK, so if you eliminated the deferred tax would you still charge the 10% penalty for early withdraw? Would you let it grow tax free until withdrawn? The 'tax deduction' and tax free growth is actually a windfall for the government during the withdraw period since more moneys are taxed but likely at a lower rate.

 

401K has been a key retirement vehicle for many of the late baby boomers and early X-Gen age people. This would be a serious back track if they go for this.

 

Again the target audience here is those making between $100 to 200K a year. That is where the most gain is for the government with this. And this this is where most changes will be targeted. Beware upper middle class.

 

 

 

 

To maintain this savings incentive the government “spends” $100 billion a year in the form of tax breaks to those who stash money in these kinds of accounts. Now, a new

study suggests this tax incentive does little to change saving behavior. Some lawmakers, no doubt, are wondering: Why keep an expensive tax incentive that does not incent?

 

Read more: Fiscal Cliff: Why Congress Might Have to Mess with the 401(k) | TIME.com

The tax incentive is not a factor in my 401k decision. It certainly helps but it is not a make/break.

Interesting article as everyone I know looks at the after tax cost when deciding how much to invest beyond any matching. If you're going to add up to 30% or more to the cost of saving I don't see how that doesn't affect the amount invested. Doesn't make sense.

The tax incentive is not a factor in my 401k decision. It certainly helps but it is not a make/break.

 

If there was no tax incentive, why would you do it? I wouldn't. There are too many restrictions on the account not to incentivize it.

If there was no tax incentive, why would you do it? I wouldn't. There are too many restrictions on the account not to incentivize it.

 

The company match is the number 1 reason most participate, then the tax deferral.

IMO they should leave 401k alone, but there are other deferred compensation plans that primarily benefit the highly compensated that should be fair game.

If there was no tax incentive, why would you do it? I wouldn't. There are too many restrictions on the account not to incentivize it.

 

No argument from me. I'm just saying there are other factors involved - company match being primary.

No argument from me. I'm just saying there are other factors involved - company match being primary.

 

Yep. We match for management personnel. Was a rumor that that perk was to be cut a couple of years ago. I would guess any company looking to cut cost will look at the match. It was lowered at one point.

The company I work for automatically enrolls all employees into our 401K upon hire date at 4%, with 4% match. If we decide not to participate, we have to notify Fidelity, the same applies if we want to reduce our contribution from 4%. It is 100% vested from the get go.