Backdoor to socialized medicine?

[Jim Jones]

[quote=flu]Don’t say folks didn’t warn you…If you’re still in the workforce, good luck moving forward..It’s going to get a lot more competitive with a lot fewer people employed

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/businesses-react-to-rising-cost-of-obamacare-they%27re-cutting-benefits-450638.html?tickers=mdt,cat,vz,xlv,ixj,^dji,^gspc&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

Businesses React to Rising Cost of ObamaCare: They’re Cutting Benefits
Posted Mar 26, 2010 09:32am EDT by Henry Blodget in Healthcare Information, Recession
Related: mdt, cat, vz, xlv, ixj, ^dji, ^gspc

Remember the part in the ObamaCare pitch when they said if you like your current healthcare, it won’t change?

Turns out it might.

Companies are already announcing that their healthcare premium costs are going through the roof. Some are responding by firing people. Some are cutting benefits. And some are presumably eating it.

But costs they are rising.

A few examples from the WSJ:
— Caterpillar said it would cost the company at least $100 million more in the first year alone.
— Medical device maker Medtronic warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers.
— Verizon announced to employees that it will likely have to cut healthcare benefits to offset the new costs.

So, people who like your employer-provided health insurance, get ready to pay more or get less.[/quote]

Looks the like regulations brought about by the Sarbanes Oxley Act are going to put a lot of initial pressure on the legislation as big corporations begin to write down the increased costs immediately as they are required to under law.

I wonder if the big corporations will begin to dump retirees as a threat to the administration to alter the legislation or if that was part of the initial design by the Democrats; to shift as many people as possible onto the publicly subsidized roles.

IMHO this legislation was all about creating a system that once in place will be impossible for the opposition to alter as it will be a bedrock benefit for the population. I’ve lived in 3 different socialized countries and the conservatives cannot even utter the words “NHS” or “National Heath System” without loosing voters.

Businessweek.com has a good story on it:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/at-t-to-take-1-billion-charge-on-health-care-reform-update1-.html

[meadandale]

flu…it’s patently obvious, after hundreds of his posts, that brian wants a nanny state and nothing you, I or anyone else brings to the table in the debate is going to change his mind.

Some people never see the bus until it has run them over…

[meadandale]

flu…it’s patently obvious, after hundreds of his posts, that brian wants a nanny state and nothing you, I or anyone else brings to the table in the debate is going to change his mind.

Some people never see the bus until it has run them over…

[meadandale]

flu…it’s patently obvious, after hundreds of his posts, that brian wants a nanny state and nothing you, I or anyone else brings to the table in the debate is going to change his mind.

Some people never see the bus until it has run them over…

[meadandale]

flu…it’s patently obvious, after hundreds of his posts, that brian wants a nanny state and nothing you, I or anyone else brings to the table in the debate is going to change his mind.

Some people never see the bus until it has run them over…

[meadandale]

flu…it’s patently obvious, after hundreds of his posts, that brian wants a nanny state and nothing you, I or anyone else brings to the table in the debate is going to change his mind.

Some people never see the bus until it has run them over…

[Arraya]

Studies have shown people prefer “nanny states” over visible surplus population die off. If there was a way we could hide and rid ourselves of all the useless eaters, without people noticing, it would be cost effective. Once people start to think they have a right to live and eat without a job, we are in trouble.

[Arraya]

Studies have shown people prefer “nanny states” over visible surplus population die off. If there was a way we could hide and rid ourselves of all the useless eaters, without people noticing, it would be cost effective. Once people start to think they have a right to live and eat without a job, we are in trouble.

[Arraya]

Studies have shown people prefer “nanny states” over visible surplus population die off. If there was a way we could hide and rid ourselves of all the useless eaters, without people noticing, it would be cost effective. Once people start to think they have a right to live and eat without a job, we are in trouble.

[Arraya]

Studies have shown people prefer “nanny states” over visible surplus population die off. If there was a way we could hide and rid ourselves of all the useless eaters, without people noticing, it would be cost effective. Once people start to think they have a right to live and eat without a job, we are in trouble.

[Arraya]

Studies have shown people prefer “nanny states” over visible surplus population die off. If there was a way we could hide and rid ourselves of all the useless eaters, without people noticing, it would be cost effective. Once people start to think they have a right to live and eat without a job, we are in trouble.

[briansd1]

[quote=Jim Jones]
Businessweek.com has a good story on it:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/at-t-to-take-1-billion-charge-on-health-care-reform-update1-.html
[/quote]

As I said before a $1 billion non-cash charge results in a $350 million IMMEDIATE cash tax savings (if the tax rate is 35%). It could be more or less depending on the tax rate.

A public’s company EPS would drop and that may affect stock price. But private companies would definitely want to accelerate write-offs to immediately lower taxes.

[briansd1]

[quote=Jim Jones]
Businessweek.com has a good story on it:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/at-t-to-take-1-billion-charge-on-health-care-reform-update1-.html
[/quote]

As I said before a $1 billion non-cash charge results in a $350 million IMMEDIATE cash tax savings (if the tax rate is 35%). It could be more or less depending on the tax rate.

A public’s company EPS would drop and that may affect stock price. But private companies would definitely want to accelerate write-offs to immediately lower taxes.

[briansd1]

[quote=Jim Jones]
Businessweek.com has a good story on it:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/at-t-to-take-1-billion-charge-on-health-care-reform-update1-.html
[/quote]

As I said before a $1 billion non-cash charge results in a $350 million IMMEDIATE cash tax savings (if the tax rate is 35%). It could be more or less depending on the tax rate.

A public’s company EPS would drop and that may affect stock price. But private companies would definitely want to accelerate write-offs to immediately lower taxes.

[briansd1]

[quote=Jim Jones]
Businessweek.com has a good story on it:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/at-t-to-take-1-billion-charge-on-health-care-reform-update1-.html
[/quote]

As I said before a $1 billion non-cash charge results in a $350 million IMMEDIATE cash tax savings (if the tax rate is 35%). It could be more or less depending on the tax rate.

A public’s company EPS would drop and that may affect stock price. But private companies would definitely want to accelerate write-offs to immediately lower taxes.

[Author]

Posts