It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: kaylaluv
But that "transaction" may trigger the amounts to be "earned" income and become taxable.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: nenothtu
However, the analogy is imperfect - if he hands me cash, then no, he doesn't get to say what I spend it on. IF, however, he's paying bills directly to the provider, then of course he has to know what it's being spent on. Otherwise, he can't pay the bills at all, and I have to.
THIS is the case with most insurance plans - they don't just hand you cash and say "go wild with it" - they pay the medical bills.
The employer doesn't pay the medical bills. The employer pays the insurance company. The insurance company pays the medical bills.
But, you raise an interesting point. Maybe this is a way around this silly Supreme Court ruling. Make Hobby Lobby take the total amount they would pay the insurance company directly for the policy, and have them hand a proportionate amount of that total to each employee in their paycheck (as compensation). Then have each employee's portion of that cash immediately go into a pot that goes to the insurance company. As part of the terms of employment, the employee signs a release form, allowing that money to be taken back out of their paycheck and into the health insurance pot. For a brief second, that cash was handed over to the employee, thus rendering Hobby Lobby's decision on what it covers invalid. Hobby Lobby is off the hook with God, because they gave the money to the employee. Now legally (and morally), it's the employee's money that's going to the insurance company, not Hobby Lobby's money. Just might work!