Caterpillar $100million annually
John Deere $150million annually
AT&T $ 1Billion first quarter costs

Quote:“Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees,” said Chris Larsen, an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. in New York, who rates AT&T shares “overweight” and doesn’t own any himself.

"If you like your healthcare coverage... you can keep it" - Barry Obama

That assumes your company doesn't drop healtcare benefits.

AT&T to Book $1 Billion Cost on Health-Care

Companies Reporting Potential Losses Due to Obama's Health Care

Guess what, the costs start immediately, and NO ONE will get any benefits from Obamacare until 2014. That's the only way to make the Ponzi scheme work.

John Deere, Caterpillar, Verizon Announce Rise in Health-Care Costs After Obamacare Passage

Quote:ObamaCare is in its own way a jobs bill. Unfortunately, the jobs it creates are in other countries.

Deere in Obama's Headlights

Why oh Why didn't these co. come out with these estimates before. me thinks they may be looking at a way to bail out on HC.

Welcome to Communist Russia. What will the government own next?

Banks - Check
Automobile Manufacturing - Check
???

(03-26-2010 04:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Why oh Why didn't these co. come out with these estimates before. me thinks they may be looking at a way to bail out on HC.

For many of them, there is a way--leave.

How many will take that option? Obama's hoping nobody, obviously. If he's wrong, that will not be pretty. If he's way wrong, bye, bye, USA.

If he continues to push the far left's agenda, at some point a lot of companies will take that option.

(03-26-2010 06:43 PM)blah Wrote:  Welcome to Communist Russia. What will the government own next?

Banks - Check
Automobile Manufacturing - Check
???

Most of the new costs will come in a reduction in subsidies that about 1,400 companies receive for providing drug coverage to their retirees. In an effort to raise several billion dollars for implementing the health care package, the law makes those subsidies taxable, just like income.

The subsidies began in 2003, when a prescription drug benefit was added to Medicare. To prevent companies that provided retirees with private drug benefits from dumping them into the new Medicare program, the government began providing an incentive. Giving companies a subsidy to continue their private coverage of retirees costs the government around half as much as covering those same retirees directly with Medicare's drug plan.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/26/h...index.html

The new "costs" to corporations come from taxation on government subsidies.

Subsidies that were created to stop corporations from passing their prescription drug costs, onto the newly created Medicare prescription drug benefit program.

No government subsidies, no new taxes.

But, the fact that it's cheaper for the government to offer subsidies, as opposed to directly financing the drugs for those people is yet another example of the superiority of the private sector.

Even on this board, details are important.

(03-26-2010 06:43 PM)blah Wrote:  Welcome to Communist Russia. What will the government own next?

Energy, food, and water. For the safety of the planet are you willing to eat soylent green?

(03-27-2010 06:19 AM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(03-26-2010 06:43 PM)blah Wrote:  Welcome to Communist Russia. What will the government own next?

Banks - Check
Automobile Manufacturing - Check
???

Most of the new costs will come in a reduction in subsidies that about 1,400 companies receive for providing drug coverage to their retirees. In an effort to raise several billion dollars for implementing the health care package, the law makes those subsidies taxable, just like income.

The subsidies began in 2003, when a prescription drug benefit was added to Medicare. To prevent companies that provided retirees with private drug benefits from dumping them into the new Medicare program, the government began providing an incentive. Giving companies a subsidy to continue their private coverage of retirees costs the government around half as much as covering those same retirees directly with Medicare's drug plan.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/26/h...index.html

The new "costs" to corporations come from taxation on government subsidies.

Subsidies that were created to stop corporations from passing their prescription drug costs, onto the newly created Medicare prescription drug benefit program.

No government subsidies, no new taxes.

But, the fact that it's cheaper for the government to offer subsidies, as opposed to directly financing the drugs for those people is yet another example of the superiority of the private sector.

Even on this board, details are important.

This may be obvious if I knew more about your positions...

are you saying these aren't "new taxes", merely a repeal in a subsidy so they don't count or don't impact behavior??

Yes, once again, Obama will be able to say he didn't raise taxes on people making less than 250k... but that doesn't mean he didn't

AT&T, Deere CEOs Called by Waxman to Back Up Health-Bill Costs

March 27, 2010, 7:28 PM

By Viola Gienger

March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Henry Waxman called the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs the companies plan to book related to the new health-care law.

Waxman of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of Michigan released letters they wrote to the executives, saying their plans to record expenses against earnings as a result of the law contradict other estimates. The lawmakers requested the executives appear at hearing Stupak plans on April 21.
“The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern,” Waxman and Stupak, both Democrats, wrote in the letters yesterday. “They also appear to conflict with independent analyses.”
AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, is among employers that have announced plans to book costs related to the health- care law signed this week by President Barack Obama. The 10- year, $940-billion legislation is intended to cover 32 million uninsured Americans and provide benefits such as restricting premiums and ending the practice of denying coverage for pre- existing conditions.
Dallas-based AT&T said in a regulatory filing yesterday it would record $1 billion of costs, the most of any U.S. company so far.
AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.
Tax Burden

“As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company,” the carrier said in the filing.
New York-based Verizon, the second-largest U.S. phone company, told employees in a note shortly after the law was signed that the tax will make a drug subsidy less valuable to employers like Verizon and so “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”
Moline, Illinois-based Deere, the world’s largest maker of farm machinery, said on March 25 that the new health-care law would increase its expenses by $150 million this fiscal year.
Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar, the world’s largest maker of bulldozers and excavators, expects to record a charge of about $100 million in the first quarter of 2010, reflecting new tax liabilities on retiree drug benefits.
No Charge at GE

General Electric Co., the world’s biggest maker of jet engines, power-plant turbines and locomotives, said today it doesn’t anticipate taking a charge tied to the health-care law.
GE, of Fairfield, Connecticut, doesn’t see any “material effect” from the law, spokeswoman Anne Eisele said today.
Waxman and Stupak said the Congressional Budget Office had reported that average premium costs per person would decrease as much as 3 percent by 2016 for companies insuring more than 50 employees. They also cited what they said was a November estimate by the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers, of reduced health-insurance cost trends.
The lawmakers asked the companies to provide documents to the committee supporting their planned charges by April 9.

(03-28-2010 06:06 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  AT&T, Deere CEOs Called by Waxman to Back Up Health-Bill Costs

March 27, 2010, 7:28 PM

By Viola Gienger

March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Henry Waxman called the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs the companies plan to book related to the new health-care law.

Waxman of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of Michigan released letters they wrote to the executives, saying their plans to record expenses against earnings as a result of the law contradict other estimates. The lawmakers requested the executives appear at hearing Stupak plans on April 21.
“The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern,” Waxman and Stupak, both Democrats, wrote in the letters yesterday. “They also appear to conflict with independent analyses.”
AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, is among employers that have announced plans to book costs related to the health- care law signed this week by President Barack Obama. The 10- year, $940-billion legislation is intended to cover 32 million uninsured Americans and provide benefits such as restricting premiums and ending the practice of denying coverage for pre- existing conditions.
Dallas-based AT&T said in a regulatory filing yesterday it would record $1 billion of costs, the most of any U.S. company so far.
AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.
Tax Burden

“As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company,” the carrier said in the filing.
New York-based Verizon, the second-largest U.S. phone company, told employees in a note shortly after the law was signed that the tax will make a drug subsidy less valuable to employers like Verizon and so “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”
Moline, Illinois-based Deere, the world’s largest maker of farm machinery, said on March 25 that the new health-care law would increase its expenses by $150 million this fiscal year.
Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar, the world’s largest maker of bulldozers and excavators, expects to record a charge of about $100 million in the first quarter of 2010, reflecting new tax liabilities on retiree drug benefits.
No Charge at GE

General Electric Co., the world’s biggest maker of jet engines, power-plant turbines and locomotives, said today it doesn’t anticipate taking a charge tied to the health-care law.
GE, of Fairfield, Connecticut, doesn’t see any “material effect” from the law, spokeswoman Anne Eisele said today.
Waxman and Stupak said the Congressional Budget Office had reported that average premium costs per person would decrease as much as 3 percent by 2016 for companies insuring more than 50 employees. They also cited what they said was a November estimate by the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers, of reduced health-insurance cost trends.
The lawmakers asked the companies to provide documents to the committee supporting their planned charges by April 9.

I too would like to hear the corporations explanations and see proof of their assertions.

(03-28-2010 06:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-28-2010 06:06 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  AT&T, Deere CEOs Called by Waxman to Back Up Health-Bill Costs

March 27, 2010, 7:28 PM

By Viola Gienger

March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Henry Waxman called the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs the companies plan to book related to the new health-care law.

Waxman of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of Michigan released letters they wrote to the executives, saying their plans to record expenses against earnings as a result of the law contradict other estimates. The lawmakers requested the executives appear at hearing Stupak plans on April 21.
“The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern,” Waxman and Stupak, both Democrats, wrote in the letters yesterday. “They also appear to conflict with independent analyses.”
AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, is among employers that have announced plans to book costs related to the health- care law signed this week by President Barack Obama. The 10- year, $940-billion legislation is intended to cover 32 million uninsured Americans and provide benefits such as restricting premiums and ending the practice of denying coverage for pre- existing conditions.
Dallas-based AT&T said in a regulatory filing yesterday it would record $1 billion of costs, the most of any U.S. company so far.
AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.
Tax Burden

“As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company,” the carrier said in the filing.
New York-based Verizon, the second-largest U.S. phone company, told employees in a note shortly after the law was signed that the tax will make a drug subsidy less valuable to employers like Verizon and so “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”
Moline, Illinois-based Deere, the world’s largest maker of farm machinery, said on March 25 that the new health-care law would increase its expenses by $150 million this fiscal year.
Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar, the world’s largest maker of bulldozers and excavators, expects to record a charge of about $100 million in the first quarter of 2010, reflecting new tax liabilities on retiree drug benefits.
No Charge at GE

General Electric Co., the world’s biggest maker of jet engines, power-plant turbines and locomotives, said today it doesn’t anticipate taking a charge tied to the health-care law.
GE, of Fairfield, Connecticut, doesn’t see any “material effect” from the law, spokeswoman Anne Eisele said today.
Waxman and Stupak said the Congressional Budget Office had reported that average premium costs per person would decrease as much as 3 percent by 2016 for companies insuring more than 50 employees. They also cited what they said was a November estimate by the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers, of reduced health-insurance cost trends.
The lawmakers asked the companies to provide documents to the committee supporting their planned charges by April 9.

I too would like to hear the corporations explanations and see proof of their assertions.

Why is that? You can only understand sentences of 5 words and words of no more that 4 letters.

(03-28-2010 06:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I too would like to hear the corporations explanations and see proof of their assertions.

Obama asserts his **** don't stink and you don't question how could that be. Although I'm sure you could answer that for us when you pull your head out of his ass.

My employer already offers health insurance to just about everyone (since there are only a handful of recent hires who aren't eligible for benefits), but it pretty much means we'll be out at least $2,200/year per employee. If premiums start rising rapidly then this could get out of hand.

(03-28-2010 06:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-27-2010 06:19 AM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(03-26-2010 06:43 PM)blah Wrote:  Welcome to Communist Russia. What will the government own next?

Banks - Check
Automobile Manufacturing - Check
???

Most of the new costs will come in a reduction in subsidies that about 1,400 companies receive for providing drug coverage to their retirees. In an effort to raise several billion dollars for implementing the health care package, the law makes those subsidies taxable, just like income.

The subsidies began in 2003, when a prescription drug benefit was added to Medicare. To prevent companies that provided retirees with private drug benefits from dumping them into the new Medicare program, the government began providing an incentive. Giving companies a subsidy to continue their private coverage of retirees costs the government around half as much as covering those same retirees directly with Medicare's drug plan.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/26/h...index.html

The new "costs" to corporations come from taxation on government subsidies.

Subsidies that were created to stop corporations from passing their prescription drug costs, onto the newly created Medicare prescription drug benefit program.

No government subsidies, no new taxes.

But, the fact that it's cheaper for the government to offer subsidies, as opposed to directly financing the drugs for those people is yet another example of the superiority of the private sector.

Even on this board, details are important.

This may be obvious if I knew more about your positions...

are you saying these aren't "new taxes", merely a repeal in a subsidy so they don't count or don't impact behavior??

Yes, once again, Obama will be able to say he didn't raise taxes on people making less than 250k... but that doesn't mean he didn't

My position is that its a subsidy that was created to keep corporations from increasing the cost of the massive prescription drug entitlement program created in 2003. A program that many fiscal conservatives view as wasteful spending to begin with.

Of course they count, and impact behavior. But, as usual, there is much more to the story than "Communist Russia, etc. etc."

My opposition is more pragmatic. We keep making the USA a progressively less and less desirable place to do business, at the same time not understanding why more and more jobs go overseas. Duh.

At some point, things reach critical mass and the procession of jobs offshore picks up to stampede proportions. My fear is that we are dangerously close to that point now. And I'm not talking about losing jobs to Chinese sweat shops. I'm talking about losing jobs to other developed countries that pay substantially the same as we do, but without the other things we do to penalize businesses.

I actually support universal health care as something that is good for society. But if something is good for society, it should be paid for by a broad base, not by sticking it to corporations and the "rich" because they make convenient political targets. Turn up the heat too high, and they will get the h#ll out of the kitchen. And to mix metaphors, when they leave they will take their ball with them (in the for of investment and jobs). If you think that is good, then I will leave you to that opinion. But if you don't, you need to connect the dots.

(03-28-2010 06:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I too would like to hear the corporations explanations and see proof of their assertions.

Seriously, Robert... this isn't a difficult one. a $2,000 tax free insurance subsidy is now taxable. That makes it more expensive. $2,000 times what, 36%?? their bracket?? $720 X the number of employees. That is how much it is going to cost them... and tHAT is just the broad strokes, not any details

so if you want to keep your healthcare, you can... you just have to pay more for it. A minor detail Obama and his supporters left out