Article from TIME

[Guest MSMA]

If you haven't already seen this article - check it out. I don't know where this guy got his information but...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...-364364,00.html

Besides one blatantly wrong bit of info*, it is extremely negative and conveniently leaves out other info such as Risk-Shifting etc.

*

(I emailed him regarding the "cosmetic surgery" aspect - couldn't restrain myself... LOL!)

[Lisa Hand]

MSMA - Good for you. I strongly considered doing so as well. One of the biggest problems with this benefit can be mis-information and this "Time" article certainly did not help clarify anything.

Lisa

[GBurns]

The use of the term "cosmetic surgery" is not necessarily "blatantly wrong". It depends on what he meant. There is a lot of corrective surgery that is classified under the general term "cosmetic surgery". I would have asked him to explain what he meant before making statements.

In the context of this article, How would "Risk-Shifting etc" be applicable? and How could any article focused on the "use it or lose it" aspect be anything but negative?

[Lisa Hand]

I think the main point is that the article is, at best, extremely negative and an incomplete picture of a benefit we all know is very valuable, but does require good education and careful choices by the participants.

Additionally, (and giving the author the benefit of the doubt that he simply did not understand the difference and that the appropriate term for valid expenses is "corrective surgery") specifically stating "cosmetic surgery" was valid, is an incorrect statement. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the subject and appropriate research, which could have been easily remedied with a quick look at Pub 502 or for that matter an online resource like BenefitsLink. As to "risk shifting", detailing how the benefit is level funded, giving employees access to their entire annual allocation when they incur valid expenses, thus rewarding them for their planning, would also have contributed to a more balanced article. Which, GBurns correctly states, was obviously not the intent of the article and that is why the author deserved feed back.

The impression I got from the article was that the author was simply interested, for whatever reason, in presenting only the argument for eliminating the "use it or lose it" rule of 125, not in presenting a balanced account of an excellent employee benefit, which does require careful choices. With the new regulations defining HRAs (health reimbursement arrangements) and providing for an employee benefit which has the option to carry forward unused amounts, this agenda may lose steam. However, it does seem odd, given the numerous articles hailing consumer directed health choices and how encouraging employees to shop for their health care is the answer to all the cost concerns in that industry, that this article does not trust the same employees to make wise choices, if properly educated, on their Section 125 benefit.

[mroberts]

I just wrote the writer an email pretty much calling him a numskill with a copy to the editor of course.

[Guest Reywal]

Originally posted by mroberts

I just wrote the writer an email pretty much calling him a numskill with a copy to the editor of course.  

mroberts

Do you mean numskull??

You may want to make sure you use correct spelling and grammar when criticizing someone about what they wrote.

You seem so gleeful about coming down on someone who is trying to make a buck. Sure he should make sure the information is correct before it is published- but there is no need for you ( all criticizers) to be so mean- and to even copy his editor?? what.. trying to get him fired?

Don't take food out of this man's family's mouth people!!! I am sure he will be more careful going forward

[mroberts]

Ummmmmm, ok. First of all U and I are next to each other on the keyboard. My bad. Secondly, I didn't mention the word numskill in the email at all.

A magazine like Time should do a lot of analyzing before printing an article like this. It does a lot of harm since it is generally a credible publication that people believe in.

In my opinion, and this is what I'm typing, he's a numskull, bonehead, ......... whatever you want to call him.

[Lisa Hand]

We are not being mean. He is attacking this benefit and the professionals who provide it with his representations. If this is this man's profession, he should be doing more than repeating one US Representative's opinion (whose wife obviously put aside money without any plan to utilize it) and getting his facts correct. The keys to successful Section 125 Plans are proper education, good communications and responsible employees who do not put more aside than they are going to use. It is hard enough sometimes to even convince employees it is legal, without a media source as well known as Time publishing mis-information.

Finally, this article invited opinions because it was posted on Benefit Buzz. When posted for benefits professionals to read, responses pointing out it is poorly written and researched should be no surprize.

[BFree]

I assumed Reywal was joking. I mean, "don't take food out of this man's family's mouth" is s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g it a bit.

[Guest Reywal]

BFree

You, my husband and my two partners are the only people that understand me.

mroberts - how can you and I be next to each other on the keyboard when I am in New Jersey and you are in New York .

(oh I get it, that is because New Jersey and new York is beside each other)

… by the way, you spelled numskull wrong again- was it intentional this time?

[stephen]

Reywal, if you have a QWERTY keyboard you will notice the letter "U" is next to the letter "I"

[Guest Reywal]

stephen

I guess you don’t understand me either.

I know mroberts was referring to the computer keyboard.. I was making a joke by putting a twist on it because we live in adjoining states( like a pun) Hence the Smilies ??

...and I think mroberts made the typo the second time on purpose- sort of with a devil-may-care attitude , to show how insignificant the misspelling is , compared to the point being made or the issue being discussed.