New Medical Device Tax could force manufacturers overseas

[Smurf-Herder]

Paulsen warns medical device makers could leave if new tax not lifted
By Derek Wallbank

WASHINGTON — Rep. Erik Paulsen today called for the repeal of new fees on medical device manufacturers after some in other states suggested they might pack up factories and move operations to another country if the new taxes aren't lifted.

Medical device manufacturing is one of the largest manufacturing industries in Minnesota, and some of the state's most lucrative exports. Many of those firms are located in Paulsen's 3rd District.

Under the health reform law, approved this week, medical devices would be subject to a 2.9 percent sales tax. The reconciliation bill moves that down to 2.3 percent and begins it in 2013. It's expected to raise about $20 billion over the next 10 years. The tax doesn't apply to basic medical supplies like eyeglasses, bandages and hearing aids.

It could have been higher. The original draft of the Senate's legislation had the fees at $40 million over 10 years. A group of senators, including Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, had pushed to remove that fee entirely though in the end they had to settle for what's in the reconciliation bill now.

Klobuchar said she was proud of being able to reduce the tax by $20 billion, which she called a "big deal for Minnesota."

"Minnesota is one of the largest medical device alleys in the country, with tens of thousands of jobs in the sector," Paulsen said in a statement. "We can’t afford lost jobs or stifled innovation, which is why I tried to remove this tax before the health care bill was voted on last weekend.

"Jobs should be priority number one in Congress," Paulsen said. "Despite multiple warnings about the negative impact of a tax on the tools of modern technology, the tax was passed anyway — and the results are already looking quite troublesome."

According to a report in the Boston Herald, some of the largest manufacturers in Massachusetts may now be looking to move. And Gov. Deval Patrick, a personal friend of President Obama, has pledged to help do something about the new law.

"This bill is a jobs killer,” said Ernie Whiton, chief financial officer of Chelmsford’s Zoll Medical Corp., which employs about 650 people in Massachusetts. Many of those employees work in Zoll’s local manufacturing facility making heart defibrillators.

“We could be forced to (move) manufacturing overseas if we can’t pass along these costs to our customers,” said Whiton.

The threat — echoed by others in the critical Massachusetts industry — had the governor vowing to intervene to block the sales tax impact.

“I am obviously concerned about the medical device burden here on the commonwealth, which has a very robust industry around medical devices,” Patrick said yesterday.

Steven Cragle, senior director for Medtronic, a medical device manufacturer in Fridley, said relocation is not on the radar for them. "No, that is not a reaction or an opportunity that we're looking at," he said.

Cragle said his firm "would certainly prefer" a 2.3 percent tax than a 2.9 percent tax. And it's a vast improvement over the doubled rate it could have been.

"Relative to some of these proposals in the past, this is certainly an improvement," Cragle said. "That said, we still have concerns about the impact that the tax will have on innovation and on the industry's overall global competitiveness."

Paulsen attempted to put an amendment into the health care bill before the House passed it that would have eliminated the tax, but it (and every other amendment offered) was refused by the House Rules Committee.

Senate Republicans have offered several amendments during the current "Vote-a-rama" session in the Senate to eliminate the medical device tax either in whole or for select groups (like the military's Tricare program). Each was tabled (effectively killed) with the support of both Minnesota senators.

http://www.minnpost.com/derekwallbank/2010/03/25/16923/paulsen_warns_medical_device_makers_could_leave_if _new_tax_not_lifted

[MintJulep]

This is "fishy" talk Smurf. You must hate blacks and poor people. :mad:

[Pat]

Those that don't go overseas (oh heck, and those that do), will just pass those costs onto the consumer.
So much for "making health care more affordable".

[Smurf-Herder]

Those that don't go overseas (oh heck, and those that do), will just pass those costs onto the consumer.
So much for "making health care more affordable".

There's actually not much that makes insurance more affordable. I believe the CBO said that all premiums will go up in cost, with new government regulations on what policies will cover.

BTW, the guy I work with had to cancel his personal policy a couple years back. He has diabetes and his premiums were around $1000 a month, and his income is less than $1500 a month. I haven't heard one thing about actually lowering the cost of premiums anywhere - only being able to get insurance for pre-existing conditions. What's the point of being able to get insurance if you can't afford it (but are forced to buy it under Obamacare)?

This "thing" is going to be a disaster when it comes into full force a few years from now.

[Pat]

There's actually not much that makes insurance more affordable. I believe the CBO said that all premiums will go up in cost, with new government regulations on what policies will cover.

BTW, the guy I work with had to cancel his personal policy a couple years back. He has diabetes and his premiums were around $1000 a month, and his income is less than $1500 a month. I haven't heard one thing about actually lowering the cost of premiums anywhere - only being able to get insurance for pre-existing conditions. What's the point of being able to get insurance if you can't afford it (but are forced to buy it under Obamacare)?

This "thing" is going to be a disaster when it comes into full force a few years from now.
It goes deeper than that SmurfHerder, the bill was pitched to the citizens as an affordable health care bill, yet almost nothing within it does anything to actually address health care costs. Mr Obama himself actually lobbied against allowing imports of cheaper medicine from other countries.
He lies when he says he wants affordable health care.

[MintJulep]

There's actually not much that makes insurance more affordable. I believe the CBO said that all premiums will go up in cost, with new government regulations on what policies will cover..Exactly. Meaning that you as a male will have to have to pay for maternity coverage on your policy although you can never have a baby, tea-totalers will have to have substance abuse coverage, etc.

This is an absolute mess.

[bairdi]

There's actually not much that makes insurance more affordable. I believe the CBO said that all premiums will go up in cost, with new government regulations on what policies will cover.

BTW, the guy I work with had to cancel his personal policy a couple years back. He has diabetes and his premiums were around $1000 a month, and his income is less than $1500 a month. I haven't heard one thing about actually lowering the cost of premiums anywhere - only being able to get insurance for pre-existing conditions. What's the point of being able to get insurance if you can't afford it (but are forced to buy it under Obamacare)?

This "thing" is going to be a disaster when it comes into full force a few years from now.
And what would that policy cost today if the guy you work with had not canceled it? I would guess somewhere in the range of $2800 to $3000 per month. To do nothing just allows insurance companies to continue the practices that have brought us to the point we are at now. My guess is that this "thing" is going to make life much better for people like yourself and your co-worker. Maybe it's time for you to give up on the doom and gloom path and start looking at the positive for a change. I am still waiting for that hyperinflation that you warned about a year ago.

[doctordog]

And what would that policy cost today if the guy you work with had not canceled it? I would guess somewhere in the range of $2800 to $3000 per month. To do nothing just allows insurance companies to continue the practices that have brought us to the point we are at now. My guess is that this "thing" is going to make life much better for people like yourself and your co-worker. Maybe it's time for you to give up on the doom and gloom path and start looking at the positive for a change. I am still waiting for that hyperinflation that you warned about a year ago.

Bullshit bairdi strikes again! No one sees 100% increases, shit. My insurance has gone up every year but my cost of living raise has always more than made up for it.

[Smurf-Herder]

And what would that policy cost today if the guy you work with had not canceled it? I would guess somewhere in the range of $2800 to $3000 per month. To do nothing just allows insurance companies to continue the practices that have brought us to the point we are at now. My guess is that this "thing" is going to make life much better for people like yourself and your co-worker. Maybe it's time for you to give up on the doom and gloom path and start looking at the positive for a change. I am still waiting for that hyperinflation that you warned about a year ago.

How will this make anything better for us?

It only applies to businesses with 30 or more employees - so our boss is off the hook. And I can't afford ANY insurance at all.

[Pat]

How will this make anything better for us?

It only applies to businesses with 30 or more employees - so our boss is off the hook. And I can't afford ANY insurance at all.
Well, that got me thinking.
My eldest child currently purchases insurance through her employer. It's a small but highly successful company in a niche market with guaranteed customers.
But,
They only have 31 employees. I wonder if her employer will potentially fire a couple employees to be below the 30 threshold, then drop their portion of the insurance.
This bill makes it perfectly understandable for them to do that.

[Libertarian94]

Paulsen warns medical device makers could leave if new tax not lifted
By Derek Wallbank

WASHINGTON — Rep. Erik Paulsen today called for the repeal of new fees on medical device manufacturers after some in other states suggested they might pack up factories and move operations to another country if the new taxes aren't lifted.

Medical device manufacturing is one of the largest manufacturing industries in Minnesota, and some of the state's most lucrative exports. Many of those firms are located in Paulsen's 3rd District.

Under the health reform law, approved this week, medical devices would be subject to a 2.9 percent sales tax. The reconciliation bill moves that down to 2.3 percent and begins it in 2013. It's expected to raise about $20 billion over the next 10 years. The tax doesn't apply to basic medical supplies like eyeglasses, bandages and hearing aids.

It could have been higher. The original draft of the Senate's legislation had the fees at $40 million over 10 years. A group of senators, including Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, had pushed to remove that fee entirely though in the end they had to settle for what's in the reconciliation bill now.

Klobuchar said she was proud of being able to reduce the tax by $20 billion, which she called a "big deal for Minnesota."

"Minnesota is one of the largest medical device alleys in the country, with tens of thousands of jobs in the sector," Paulsen said in a statement. "We can’t afford lost jobs or stifled innovation, which is why I tried to remove this tax before the health care bill was voted on last weekend.

"Jobs should be priority number one in Congress," Paulsen said. "Despite multiple warnings about the negative impact of a tax on the tools of modern technology, the tax was passed anyway — and the results are already looking quite troublesome."

According to a report in the Boston Herald, some of the largest manufacturers in Massachusetts may now be looking to move. And Gov. Deval Patrick, a personal friend of President Obama, has pledged to help do something about the new law.

"This bill is a jobs killer,” said Ernie Whiton, chief financial officer of Chelmsford’s Zoll Medical Corp., which employs about 650 people in Massachusetts. Many of those employees work in Zoll’s local manufacturing facility making heart defibrillators.

“We could be forced to (move) manufacturing overseas if we can’t pass along these costs to our customers,” said Whiton.

The threat — echoed by others in the critical Massachusetts industry — had the governor vowing to intervene to block the sales tax impact.

“I am obviously concerned about the medical device burden here on the commonwealth, which has a very robust industry around medical devices,” Patrick said yesterday.

Steven Cragle, senior director for Medtronic, a medical device manufacturer in Fridley, said relocation is not on the radar for them. "No, that is not a reaction or an opportunity that we're looking at," he said.

Cragle said his firm "would certainly prefer" a 2.3 percent tax than a 2.9 percent tax. And it's a vast improvement over the doubled rate it could have been.

"Relative to some of these proposals in the past, this is certainly an improvement," Cragle said. "That said, we still have concerns about the impact that the tax will have on innovation and on the industry's overall global competitiveness."

Paulsen attempted to put an amendment into the health care bill before the House passed it that would have eliminated the tax, but it (and every other amendment offered) was refused by the House Rules Committee.

Senate Republicans have offered several amendments during the current "Vote-a-rama" session in the Senate to eliminate the medical device tax either in whole or for select groups (like the military's Tricare program). Each was tabled (effectively killed) with the support of both Minnesota senators.

http://www.minnpost.com/derekwallbank/2010/03/25/16923/paulsen_warns_medical_device_makers_could_leave_if _new_tax_not_lifted


This is not an isolated incident it is just too expensive to make anything here anymore. We have absolutely nothing thats American made anymore all we do is import import and import. After all of that importing we do a little more importing that is one of the reasons our economy is in the shitter.

[Smurf-Herder]

Well, that got me thinking.
My eldest child currently purchases insurance through her employer. It's a small but highly successful company in a niche market with guaranteed customers.
But,
They only have 31 employees. I wonder if her employer will potentially fire a couple employees to be below the 30 threshold, then drop their portion of the insurance.
This bill makes it perfectly understandable for them to do that.

There are a lot of unintended consequences that people have been willfully ignoring, in this bill.

Nobody has yet addressed the cost of premiums, as well. Only getting everybody to buy a policy. It's like a huge Ponzi Scheme on steroids.

[bairdi]

Well, that got me thinking.
My eldest child currently purchases insurance through her employer. It's a small but highly successful company in a niche market with guaranteed customers.
But,
They only have 31 employees. I wonder if her employer will potentially fire a couple employees to be below the 30 threshold, then drop their portion of the insurance.
This bill makes it perfectly understandable for them to do that.
Did you ever think that maybe one of the reasons that they are highly successful is because they look out for their employees, run the company efficiently and are not driven entirely by the bottom line? Nothing dictates that they provide insurance for their employees now and yet they provide it. Plus they are going to get tax breaks that they currently do not have now. It's a winning situation for them and many small businesses like them.

[Smurf-Herder]

Did you ever think that maybe one of the reasons that they are highly successful is because they look out for their employees, run the company efficiently and are not driven entirely by the bottom line? Nothing dictates that they provide insurance for their employees now and yet they provide it.

Just like John Deere and Caterpillar, who are now forced to drop their retirees plans?

[bairdi]

Just like John Deere and Caterpillar, who are now forced to drop their retirees plans?
The increase cost comes about because of a reduction in subsidies that the companies have been receiving from the US government for the past seven years and the use of tax loopholes to take advantage of it. I thought you guys were against government handouts? Nothing more is being done to Deere and Caterpillar than just having them return to doing business the way they did before 2003 when the subsidies went into effect.

[Pat]

Did you ever think that maybe one of the reasons that they are highly successful is because they look out for their employees, run the company efficiently and are not driven entirely by the bottom line?
No company is driven entirely by it's bottom line (you make a false 1 line point and think it applies across the board?), but all companies that continue to exist do so only if they have profit. Most of their success is based upon the niche market that they serve

Nothing dictates that they provide insurance for their employees now and yet they provide it.
Exactly, so why is the government getting involved? The unintended consequences that Smurf spoke of may come true here.
Plus they are going to get tax breaks that they currently do not have now. It's a winning situation for them and many small businesses like them.
Currently all employers that pay a portion of their employees health insurance get to write that expense off. What new tax benefits are you talking about? Will huge corporations like WalMart (we all know how people hate large corporations) get these same new tax benefits? Are you happy for the WalMarts of the world to get increased tax benefits?

[Pat]

There are a lot of unintended consequences that people have been willfully ignoring, in this bill.

Nobody has yet addressed the cost of premiums, as well. Only getting everybody to buy a policy. It's like a huge Ponzi Scheme on steroids.
Like social security.

[Smurf-Herder]

The increase cost comes about because of a reduction in subsidies that the companies have been receiving from the US government for the past seven years and the use of tax loopholes to take advantage of it. I thought you guys were against government handouts? Nothing more is being done to Deere and Caterpillar than just having them return to doing business the way they did before 2003 when the subsidies went into effect.

The point is, it's hurting people's healthcare - up to 2 million people among 3500 companies. These are just two of them. And the whole thing was supposed to have the end result of the exact opposite.

Companies say health care costs hard to swallow
By JOSH FUNK (AP) – 2 days ago

The health care overhaul will cost U.S. companies billions and make them more likely to drop prescription drug coverage for retirees because of a change in how the government subsidizes those benefits.

In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future.

With more than 3,500 companies now getting the tax break as an incentive to keep providing coverage, others are almost certain to announce similar cost increases in the weeks ahead as they sort out the impact of the change.

Figuring out what it will mean for retirees will take longer, but analysts said as many as 2 million could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers, leaving them to enroll in Medicare's program.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs defended the tax law change Thursday, saying the original provision allowing companies to deduct the federal subsidies from their taxable income was a "loophole" that will be closed by the health care overhaul.

For the government, the tax changes are expected to raise roughly $4.5 billion over the next decade to help pay for the health overhaul. Some of the savings would be negated by retirees enrolling in the Medicare plans.

"You're increasing the incentive for companies to say 'We don't want to be in the health care business any more,'" said James Gelfand, senior manager of health policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which fought the overhaul.

American industrial companies that are struggling to compete globally against companies with much lower labor costs are particularly likely to eventually drop retiree coverage, said Gene Imhoff, an accounting professor at the University of Michigan.

"Anything that they can use to justify pushing something away from the employees, pushing it back on the employees or the government, they're going to do it," Imhoff said. "I'm not sure you can really blame them for trying to do this."

Caterpillar spokesman Jim Dugan said the company is still studying the health care law and doesn't yet know what the full impact will be. But he acknowledged that benefit changes are possible.

"Obviously, there's greater cost pressures on us that could drive changes to plans, but we haven't made any decisions on that," Dugan said.

Spokesmen for Deere and Valero said it was to soon to say how the change would affect the benefits they offer retirees.

When Congress approved the Medicare prescription drug program in 2003, it included government incentives for employers to provide drug benefits to retirees so the public system wouldn't be overwhelmed. Employers that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees can receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs; those subsidies totaled $3.7 billion in 2008.

Under the 2003 law, companies could deduct the entire amount they spent on the drug benefits from their taxable income — including the government subsidy, an average of $665 per retiree.

The health care law signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday prohibits companies from writing off the subsidies starting in 2011, meaning they will no longer be able to deduct them from their taxable income.

For example, if a company spent $100 on benefits, including a $28 government subsidy, it could write off the full $100 on its taxes under the old rules. The new rules would allow the same company to write off only $72.

The follow-up health care bill to reshape parts of the overhaul would delay the changes until 2013.

As many as 1.5 million to 2 million retirees could lose the drug benefits provided by their former employer because of the tax changes, according to a study by the Moran Company, a health care consulting firm.

James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, said between 6 million and 7 million retirees currently get the benefits. But the number of companies offering them has been dwindling for years.

Generally, retirees would prefer to stay with prescription drug coverage provided by their companies as opposed to enrolling in a Medicare Part D plan, said Marilyn Moon, a health care economist with the nonpartisan American Institutes for Research.

She said most of the company-sponsored plans are more generous and almost none have the coverage gap that comes with Part D plans.

"That's particularly painful and problematic for people who have substantial expenses at any one point in time," she said.

Industry groups say they lobbied hard against the change in the tax rules before it was added to the health care law over the winter.

"It was in all of our letters and communications that went up to the Hill, and the companies were heavily involved in that," said Dena Battle, a tax specialist with the National Association of Manufacturers.

Nationwide, companies would take a $14 billion hit on their financial statements if all of the roughly 3,500 companies receiving the subsidies continued to do so, according to a study by Towers Watson, a human resources consulting firm.

That financial hit will be a one-time cost as companies report a new cost estimate for the benefits over the life spans of all retirees.

Deere and Caterpillar were among a group of 10 companies that sent a letter to congressional leaders in December warning of the cost increases. The others were Boeing Co., Con-Way Inc., Exelon Corp., Navistar Inc., Verizon, Xerox Corp., Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. and MetLife Inc.

Most of the other companies that signed the letter said Thursday that it was too soon to estimate their costs. A number of other major U.S. companies also said they did not know how much the tax change would cost them. Some companies might wait until they release their earnings reports next quarter to address the costs so they have time to review the entire law.

The companies that signed the December letter warned that changing the way retiree drug benefits are subsidized would have a broad impact on the economy, and there are already indications that the effects will trickle down to individuals.

Consumers Energy, a Michigan gas and electric company with 2.9 million customers, said it will not take a big first-quarter charge because, like most utility companies, it can try to recover the added costs from its customers through rate hikes.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmzNv5LYXOA6UM_XmUHdOe9augtQD9ELVL3G1

[Pat]

Consumers Energy, a Michigan gas and electric company with 2.9 million customers, said it will not take a big first-quarter charge because, like most utility companies, it can try to recover the added costs from its customers through rate hikes.
Gee, imagine that, a company passing it's increased government mandated expenses onto the consumer.
Liberals don't understand economics.

[bairdi]

Gee, imagine that, a company passing it's increased government mandated expenses onto the consumer.
Liberals don't understand economics.
Liberals understand economics pretty good from my observations. You do understand that all health care costs, whether the person being treated is insured or not, are currently being passed onto the citizens of this country in the form of higher consumer prices, higher insurance costs and higher taxes don't you? What is your solution to the problem?

[doctordog]

Liberals understand economics pretty good from my observations. You do understand that all health care costs, whether the person being treated is insured or not, are currently being passed onto the citizens of this country in the form of higher consumer prices, higher insurance costs and higher taxes don't you? What is your solution to the problem?

Erosion of the middle class working American would not be on my list.:thumbsup:

[bairdi]

The point is, it's hurting people's healthcare - up to 2 million people among 3500 companies. These are just two of them. And the whole thing was supposed to have the end result of the exact opposite.

Companies say health care costs hard to swallow
By JOSH FUNK (AP) – 2 days ago

The health care overhaul will cost U.S. companies billions and make them more likely to drop prescription drug coverage for retirees because of a change in how the government subsidizes those benefits.

In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future.

With more than 3,500 companies now getting the tax break as an incentive to keep providing coverage, others are almost certain to announce similar cost increases in the weeks ahead as they sort out the impact of the change.

Figuring out what it will mean for retirees will take longer, but analysts said as many as 2 million could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers, leaving them to enroll in Medicare's program.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs defended the tax law change Thursday, saying the original provision allowing companies to deduct the federal subsidies from their taxable income was a "loophole" that will be closed by the health care overhaul.

For the government, the tax changes are expected to raise roughly $4.5 billion over the next decade to help pay for the health overhaul. Some of the savings would be negated by retirees enrolling in the Medicare plans.

"You're increasing the incentive for companies to say 'We don't want to be in the health care business any more,'" said James Gelfand, senior manager of health policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which fought the overhaul.

American industrial companies that are struggling to compete globally against companies with much lower labor costs are particularly likely to eventually drop retiree coverage, said Gene Imhoff, an accounting professor at the University of Michigan.

"Anything that they can use to justify pushing something away from the employees, pushing it back on the employees or the government, they're going to do it," Imhoff said. "I'm not sure you can really blame them for trying to do this."

Caterpillar spokesman Jim Dugan said the company is still studying the health care law and doesn't yet know what the full impact will be. But he acknowledged that benefit changes are possible.

"Obviously, there's greater cost pressures on us that could drive changes to plans, but we haven't made any decisions on that," Dugan said.

Spokesmen for Deere and Valero said it was to soon to say how the change would affect the benefits they offer retirees.

When Congress approved the Medicare prescription drug program in 2003, it included government incentives for employers to provide drug benefits to retirees so the public system wouldn't be overwhelmed. Employers that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees can receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs; those subsidies totaled $3.7 billion in 2008.

Under the 2003 law, companies could deduct the entire amount they spent on the drug benefits from their taxable income — including the government subsidy, an average of $665 per retiree.

The health care law signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday prohibits companies from writing off the subsidies starting in 2011, meaning they will no longer be able to deduct them from their taxable income.

For example, if a company spent $100 on benefits, including a $28 government subsidy, it could write off the full $100 on its taxes under the old rules. The new rules would allow the same company to write off only $72.

The follow-up health care bill to reshape parts of the overhaul would delay the changes until 2013.

As many as 1.5 million to 2 million retirees could lose the drug benefits provided by their former employer because of the tax changes, according to a study by the Moran Company, a health care consulting firm.

James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, said between 6 million and 7 million retirees currently get the benefits. But the number of companies offering them has been dwindling for years.

Generally, retirees would prefer to stay with prescription drug coverage provided by their companies as opposed to enrolling in a Medicare Part D plan, said Marilyn Moon, a health care economist with the nonpartisan American Institutes for Research.

She said most of the company-sponsored plans are more generous and almost none have the coverage gap that comes with Part D plans.

"That's particularly painful and problematic for people who have substantial expenses at any one point in time," she said.

Industry groups say they lobbied hard against the change in the tax rules before it was added to the health care law over the winter.

"It was in all of our letters and communications that went up to the Hill, and the companies were heavily involved in that," said Dena Battle, a tax specialist with the National Association of Manufacturers.

Nationwide, companies would take a $14 billion hit on their financial statements if all of the roughly 3,500 companies receiving the subsidies continued to do so, according to a study by Towers Watson, a human resources consulting firm.

That financial hit will be a one-time cost as companies report a new cost estimate for the benefits over the life spans of all retirees.

Deere and Caterpillar were among a group of 10 companies that sent a letter to congressional leaders in December warning of the cost increases. The others were Boeing Co., Con-Way Inc., Exelon Corp., Navistar Inc., Verizon, Xerox Corp., Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. and MetLife Inc.

Most of the other companies that signed the letter said Thursday that it was too soon to estimate their costs. A number of other major U.S. companies also said they did not know how much the tax change would cost them. Some companies might wait until they release their earnings reports next quarter to address the costs so they have time to review the entire law.

The companies that signed the December letter warned that changing the way retiree drug benefits are subsidized would have a broad impact on the economy, and there are already indications that the effects will trickle down to individuals.

Consumers Energy, a Michigan gas and electric company with 2.9 million customers, said it will not take a big first-quarter charge because, like most utility companies, it can try to recover the added costs from its customers through rate hikes.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmzNv5LYXOA6UM_XmUHdOe9augtQD9ELVL3G1
I am really having a difficult time wrapping my mind around your position on this Smurf? First of all, from what I understand here, is that you are ok with the government subsidizing health care costs for these big businesses? Second, you are all for giving these companies the go ahead to use this free money as a tax deduction to further increase profitability. And finally, you are upset that these companies, though they still will receive these subsidies, will now not be allowed to write off the portion of free money they use as an expense? I never ever thought I would see the day where you would be so supportive of government hand outs. I've just seen pigs fly. :lmao2:

[bairdi]

Erosion of the middle class working American would not be on my list.:thumbsup:
The Obama administration is doing more to help the middle class than any conservative politicians have done in the past 40 years. You're freaking trickle down bullshit economics doesn't work so well for most of us.

[Smurf-Herder]

I am really having a difficult time wrapping my mind around your position on this Smurf? First of all, from what I understand here, is that you are ok with the government subsidizing health care costs for these big businesses? Second, you are all for giving these companies the go ahead to use this free money as a tax deduction to further increase profitability. And finally, you are upset that these companies, though they still will receive these subsidies, will now not be allowed to write off the portion of free money they use as an expense? I never ever thought I would see the day where you would be so supportive of government hand outs. I've just seen pigs fly. :lmao2:

Regardless of what was done before, this makes it harder the the individuals trying to maintain coverage - which they were promised under pre-existing agreements as part of their employment.

[doctordog]

The Obama administration is doing more to help the middle class than any conservative politicians have done in the past 40 years. You're freaking trickle down bullshit economics doesn't work so well for most of us.

Taxing working America's healthplans to take care of 15% of America does nothing but destroy the middle class. Now he wants to reward bad money managers for buying more house than they could afford by relieving them of 20-30% of their mortgage.

What will this fucking idiot do next? How many people are upside down on their cars? Will he want to bail them out next? Obama is a cancer like these rogue athletes are to their teams. We should buy out his contract and send him packing, we woudl actually save ourselves money and pain.:thumbsup:

[bairdi]

Regardless of what was done before, this makes it harder the the individuals trying to maintain coverage - which they were promised under pre-existing agreements as part of their employment.
Not if the employer lives up to their end of the agreement. The company may make a little less profit, but the companies are still receiving a free government hand out.

[bairdi]

Taxing working America's healthplans to take care of 15% of America does nothing but destroy the middle class. Now he wants to reward bad money managers for buying more house than they could afford by relieving them of 20-30% of their mortgage.

What will this fucking idiot do next? How many people are upside down on their cars? Will he want to bail them out next? Obama is a cancer like these rogue athletes are to their teams. We should buy out his contract and send him packing, we woudl actually save ourselves money and pain.:thumbsup:
The cancer started in 1980 and metastasis began in 2000. The fucking idiots are gone and are no longer in charge of the nuthouse. A new day has dawned. "We are the change that we seek."

[Smurf-Herder]

The cancer started in 1980 and metastasis began in 2000. The fucking idiots are gone and are no longer in charge of the nuthouse. A new day has dawned. "We are the change that we seek."

Now instead of cancer, we're infested with that flesh-eating bacteria. :thumbsup:

Now the fucking idiots are no longer in charge of the nuthouse - the nuts themselves are. :D

A new day has dawned:

http://www.outerworldarcade.com/arcade/movies/_images/dawn-of-the-dead.jpg

[doctordog]

The cancer started in 1980 and metastasis began in 2000. The fucking idiots are gone and are no longer in charge of the nuthouse. A new day has dawned. "We are the change that we seek."

Your change is the death of the Middle Class, you do have a reason to celebrate.:banghead:

[bairdi]

Now instead of cancer, we're infested with that flesh-eating bacteria. :thumbsup:

Now the fucking idiots are no longer in charge of the nuthouse - the nuts themselves are. :D

A new day has dawned:

http://www.outerworldarcade.com/arcade/movies/_images/dawn-of-the-dead.jpg
Great image. Is that a Tea Party Patriot? It sure as hell looks like one.

[Smurf-Herder]

Great image. Is that a Tea Party Patriot? It sure as hell looks like one.

I thought it looked more like a leader of an E.L.F. cell.

[bairdi]

Your change is the death of the Middle Class, you do have a reason to celebrate.:banghead:
Where have you been for the past forty years?

[doctordog]

Where have you been for the past forty years?

Gaining ground until this past year. Anyone that was willing to work should have gained a lot of ground the last 15.

[Pat]

Liberals understand economics pretty good from my observations. You do understand that all health care costs, whether the person being treated is insured or not, are currently being passed onto the citizens of this country in the form of higher consumer prices, higher insurance costs and higher taxes don't you? What is your solution to the problem?
What problem do you want the solution to?
Please clarify.

[bairdi]

What problem do you want the solution to?
Please clarify.
The ever rising cost of health care problem that everyone recognizes as existing. What is your solution to the current health care crisis?

[doctordog]

The ever rising cost of health care problem that everyone recognizes as existing. What is your solution to the current health care crisis?

Crisis? 85% of Americans still had insurance. You have no idea what a crisis is.

[Pat]

The ever rising cost of health care problem that everyone recognizes as existing. What is your solution to the current health care crisis?
There isn't a health care crisis.
Information about the uninsured,
Analysis of data from earlier Census Bureau and other government reports shows that roughly 7 million are illegal immigrants; roughly 9 million are persons on Medicaid; 3.5 million are persons already eligible for government health programs; and approximately 20 million have, or live, in families with incomes greater than twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four.
Link to facts (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/08/The-Heritage-Foundation-Responds-to-Uninsured-Numbers-in-New-US-Census-Bureau-Report)
The total number of uninsured people also includes people that are temporarily uninsured, as in they are between jobs.
Most of the uninsured are in and out of health coverage. The professional literature also shows that, overwhelmingly, the vast majority of the uninsured are persons who are in and out of coverage, largely as a result of job changes. Only a small number of the uninsured are chronically uninsured.
There is no crisis, and there was no crisis.

When housing prices increased rapidly, we were told it was a crisis because poor people couldn't afford to buy a home. When the real estate bubble burst and housing prices dropped, we were told it was a crisis because poor people owed more on their house than it was worth. It seems that no matter what happens, we are told it is a crisis.
Health care is expensive, that doesn't mean it is over-priced or a crisis. College is expensive, do we have a college crisis?
Tobacco is expensive, does that mean we have a tobacco crisis? (Please note, that the reason tobacco is so expensive is because of the taxes on it that do what? Oh yeah, they pay for SCHIP, a health care program for children)

The framers of our Constitution had doctors and they had medical care. They never said medical care or medical insurance was a right. Because it isn't a right. And today, it still isn't a right, nor is it a crisis.

[Tommy]

I haven't heard one thing about actually lowering the cost of premiums anywhere

really ??? here's how it lowers costs and as a small business owner let me say this.. this is badly needed

letting small businesses and individuals write off their health care insurance costs
the same as big corporations do that will reduce their HC costs 30%

letting them form large pools will reduce their costs another 20 to 30%

additional tax breaks reduce their costs another 5 to 10%

subsidy's for individuals buying their own insurance will reduce costs 40 to 50%


that ads up to a lot more then the 30 bucks a month you would have saved buying your insurance across state lines

those savings puts health insurance in the reach of so many families that desperately need it. I am so disappointed that so many people would spin this stuff. its.... disgusting and a lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves. If there is any truth to Karma a lot of you are really fucked

Jesus healed the sick.. but 2000 years later the followers of Christ dont seem very Christ like

I know what your gonna say... its gonna contain some crazy connection about hitler

[Smurf-Herder]

really ??? here's how it lowers costs and as a small business owner let me say this.. this is badly needed

letting small businesses and individuals write off their health care insurance costs
the same as big corporations do that will reduce their HC costs 30%

letting them form large pools will reduce their costs another 20 to 30%

additional tax breaks reduce their costs another 5 to 10%

subsidy's for individuals buying their own insurance will reduce costs 40 to 50%


that ads up to a lot more then the 30 bucks a month you would have saved buying your insurance across state lines

those savings puts health insurance in the reach of so many families that desperately need it. I am so disappointed that so many people would spin this stuff. its.... disgusting and a lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves

Jesus healed the sick.. but today the followers of Christ arent very Christ like


You got links to prove all that?

I mean, exact wording in the bill. You know, the 2700 page bill that nobody knows everything that's in it. The bill that the senate forgot to put in the section about kids with pre-existing conditions being covered before 2014. The bill in which they forgot to include the mechanism for enforcing the individual mandate.

Or are you just going by what people are saying it says?

Tommy, going by the figures in your statement, it shows my health care costs lowered anywhere between 95% - 120%.

So you're saying that I can get health insurance for as little as $22 a month. Or are you saying the government will pay me $89 a month to have health insurance?

[Tommy]

So you're saying that I can get health insurance for as little as $22 a month. Or are you saying the government will pay me $89 a month to have health insurance?
your math is flawed because your including the govt subsidies for individuals with the tax breaks for small business
and you did that cause it was a knee jerk reaction

look most of the time you seem like a reasonable person

why would you fight to withhold such an important thing for middle class hard working family's .. This is life and death for some people
This is pain and suffering

most people against this have free health insurance and just dont give a shit about anyone else

doesnt the gravity of the consequences demand that we take a sterile and fair look at this. that we absorb and understand information from both sides..

[MintJulep]

most people against this have free health insurance and just dont give a shit about anyone else Who on earth has "free" health insurance?

[MintJulep]

There isn't a health care crisis.
Information about the uninsured,

Link to facts (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/08/The-Heritage-Foundation-Responds-to-Uninsured-Numbers-in-New-US-Census-Bureau-Report)
The total number of uninsured people also includes people that are temporarily uninsured, as in they are between jobs.

There is no crisis, and there was no crisis.

When housing prices increased rapidly, we were told it was a crisis because poor people couldn't afford to buy a home. When the real estate bubble burst and housing prices dropped, we were told it was a crisis because poor people owed more on their house than it was worth. It seems that no matter what happens, we are told it is a crisis.
Health care is expensive, that doesn't mean it is over-priced or a crisis. College is expensive, do we have a college crisis?
Tobacco is expensive, does that mean we have a tobacco crisis? (Please note, that the reason tobacco is so expensive is because of the taxes on it that do what? Oh yeah, they pay for SCHIP, a health care program for children)

The framers of our Constitution had doctors and they had medical care. They never said medical care or medical insurance was a right. Because it isn't a right. And today, it still isn't a right, nor is it a crisis.Nice. :thumbsup:

[doctordog]

your math is flawed because your including the govt subsidies for individuals with the tax breaks for small business
and you did that cause it was a knee jerk reaction

look most of the time you seem like a reasonable person

why would you fight to withhold such an important thing for middle class hard working family's .. This is life and death for some people
This is pain and suffering

most people against this have free health insurance and just dont give a shit about anyone else

doesnt the gravity of the consequences demand that we take a sterile and fair look at this. that we absorb and understand information from both sides

This bill kills the middle "working" class as it will tax their benefits to pay for the non working. This bill takes us from 3 classes to 2 which is what all the Presidents have all had a hand in. We are migrating to the Super Rich and Super Poor under Obama's leadership

[Pat]

Who on earth has "free" health insurance?
Congress critters, and people in Tommy's imagination.

[Tommy]

This bill kills the middle "working" class as it will tax their benefits to pay for the non working. This bill takes us from 3 classes to 2 which is what all the Presidents have all had a hand in. We are migrating to the Super Rich and Super Poor under Obama's leadership

really ??? ya know.... its like dealing with children
you guys never have any substance.. just never ending nonsence

so letting a small business and individuals write off what they spend for health insurance
how does that kill the middle class ??

letting small businesses and individuals group together
how does that kill the middle class ??

giving individuals that make less then 88k a subsidy so they can BUY health insurance
how does that kill the middle class ??

now cmon.. tell me about hitler

[Pat]

really ??? ya know.... its like dealing with children
you guys never have any substance.. just never ending nonsence

so letting a small business and individuals write off what they spend for health insurance
how does that kill the middle class ??

letting small businesses and individuals group together
how does that kill the middle class ??

giving individuals that make less then 88k a subsidy so they can BUY health insurance
how does that kill the middle class ??

now cmon.. tell me about hitler
Then address post #37 in this thread. Its full of substance and facts. Try and argue the facts in it.

[doctordog]

really ??? ya know.... its like dealing with children
you guys never have any substance.. just never ending nonsence

so letting a small business and individuals write off what they spend for health insurance
how does that kill the middle class ??

letting small businesses and individuals group together
how does that kill the middle class ??

giving individuals that make less then 88k a subsidy so they can BUY health insurance
how does that kill the middle class ??

now cmon.. tell me about hitler

Oh, so you have a small business, ok I don't have one, but I want one. I want you to pay and set me up so I can have one, shouldn't everyone have one?

I guess you could tell me to start one just as I can tell 15% of this country to get their own healthcare.

Taxing the haves from the have nots on creates a larger poorer class.

[bairdi]

There isn't a health care crisis.
Information about the uninsured,

Link to facts (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/08/The-Heritage-Foundation-Responds-to-Uninsured-Numbers-in-New-US-Census-Bureau-Report)
The total number of uninsured people also includes people that are temporarily uninsured, as in they are between jobs.

There is no crisis, and there was no crisis.

When housing prices increased rapidly, we were told it was a crisis because poor people couldn't afford to buy a home. When the real estate bubble burst and housing prices dropped, we were told it was a crisis because poor people owed more on their house than it was worth. It seems that no matter what happens, we are told it is a crisis.
Health care is expensive, that doesn't mean it is over-priced or a crisis. College is expensive, do we have a college crisis?
Tobacco is expensive, does that mean we have a tobacco crisis? (Please note, that the reason tobacco is so expensive is because of the taxes on it that do what? Oh yeah, they pay for SCHIP, a health care program for children)

The framers of our Constitution had doctors and they had medical care. They never said medical care or medical insurance was a right. Because it isn't a right. And today, it still isn't a right, nor is it a crisis.
So your answer as to what to do with the current health care problem is do nothing. Got it!

[MintJulep]

really ??? here's how it lowers costs and as a small business owner let me say this.. this is badly needed

letting small businesses and individuals write off their health care insurance costs
the same as big corporations do that will reduce their HC costs 30%

letting them form large pools will reduce their costs another 20 to 30%

additional tax breaks reduce their costs another 5 to 10%

subsidy's for individuals buying their own insurance will reduce costs 40 to 50%




Aetna's Ron Williams on Health Care: What to Expect

At the Table: Charlie Rose talks to Aetna's Ron Williams

CHARLIE ROSE
How do you assess the health-reform bill just signed by President Obama?

RONALD A. WILLIAMS

I think it is a significant milestone because it will give millions of people access to health-care services. I would probably have done things a little differently. But this is now an opportunity to get to work on the fundamental affordability of health-care services, the mischaracterization of our industry as the problem really didn't permit us to work in a collaborative way.

[B]My impression is that the President listened to doctors, nurses, insurance companies, and every other element of the health-care community.

There was good dialogue, but for a variety of reasons there was a point in the dialogue—in the summer—when the focus shifted from health-care reform to health-insurance reform. But it's not too late. We're committed to looking beyond where we are now and getting back to what we need to do to really achieve affordability.

Will insurance premiums go up?

The answer is yes, and some of the things that will drive those premiums are significant additional taxes the industry will ultimately have to pay in the first year.

The President said that this bill would not have any impact on people who already had coverage, that it was about the uninsured, that there would be no change. Will this legislation change the coverage of people who are already paying for it?

My perception is, yes, things will change. You might not have a plan that includes the exact same doctors. You might have plans that have richer benefits, and therefore you're going to pay more for benefits you may or may not want. It would have been a better message to say, we're going to make certain you maintain your eligibility.

Clay Christensen of Harvard Business School said recently that in health care, competition does not help control costs but rather drives them up. He said the structure of the system pits hospitals that want to fill their beds against insurers that want to minimize reimbursement and access. His answer was the health-care provider and health-care insurer should be one and the same, suggesting an integrated system like Kaiser Permanente in California.

Well, I think it's an interesting idea. But all health care, ultimately, is local. There are communities where that model has worked well. Kaiser and Group Health of Puget Sound are examples of where that's worked very well. But it requires a unique physician culture. And even firms like Kaiser, which has tried to expand into other geographies, have found that it's incredibly hard to replicate. Where it can work, it's a fine model. It's just not going to work in most communities.

During this year of debate that you talked about, there was a moment in which Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was concerned by Anthem Blue Cross in California proposing a 39% rate hike and wanted an answer from the insurance company and the industry as to why this was happening? Was it justifiable, especially at a time of recession? What was the answer?

I'll leave it to others to explain the exact increase, because it wasn't our firm that was doing it, but the generic answer I gave the Secretary was first you had an increase from the underlying rate of medical costs—inflation from hospitals, physicians, drugs, devices, technology. You then had the fact that as a result of the economy, healthy members who had been insured for some time but found themselves in tight economic circumstances were canceling their insurance. So you lose the subsidy that is keeping the premium affordable for the insurance pool. At the same time you had a third factor: Healthy young members, as a result of the economy, not entering the insurance pool. Finally there is simply the aging of the population in the insurance pool. And I think that to blame the premium on the health plan really doesn't get at the underlying forces.

Do you feel like the insurance industry was demonized in this debate that took place over the last year?

Yes, I do. And I think our 35,000 employees at Aetna were perplexed and really, I think, very disappointed in the leadership of the country and their selection to demonize and impugn the motives of employees, doctors, nurses, and pharmacists.

By that, you mean the President.

I mean everyone involved.

A Wall Street Journal editorial on Mar. 22 said the first result of reform will be turmoil in the insurance industry, and as small insurers find it impossible to make money, a wave of consolidation is likely. You've already said premiums are going to go up. Are we also going to see consolidation?

I'm much more worried about the solvency question. If you're a small plan and you experience costs that you simply weren't able to price for, there could very well be insolvencies. It's been a long time since we've seen them in the insurance industry, but the insurance commissioners know what can happen.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_14/b4172015497854.htm

[Pat]

So your answer as to what to do with the current health care problem is do nothing. Got it!
You asked me what should be done about the health care crisis. Since there was no health care crisis, nothing needed to be done.
The facts I posted showed that there was no crisis. Just because the media and the politicians called it a crisis didn't actually make it one.
If health care was a crisis, why did the bill address health insurance instead of health care?

P.S.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the facts in my post. Stubborn things those facts can be.

[Tommy]

The framers of our Constitution had doctors and they had medical care. They never said medical care or medical insurance was a right. Because it isn't a right. And today, it still isn't a right, nor is it a crisis.

your so ignorant .. its a little funny but its also quite sad

Pat... every time i read this board i notice you contribute.. nothing ..

[bairdi]

You asked me what should be done about the health care crisis. Since there was no health care crisis, nothing needed to be done.
The facts I posted showed that there was no crisis. Just because the media and the politicians called it a crisis didn't actually make it one.
If health care was a crisis, why did the bill address health insurance instead of health care?
Who would have thunk that you would avoid any meaningful discussion by arguing semantics? Why can't you just say you have no solutions?

[Boogie man]

Who would have thunk that you would avoid any meaningful discussion by arguing semantics? Why can't you just say you have no solutions?

You better get back to the thread on Becker. I just called you a liar and I have the proof.

[doctordog]

Who would have thunk that you would avoid any meaningful discussion by arguing semantics? Why can't you just say you have no solutions?

A solution is not needed when the issue is only for 15% of the population.

[Tommy]

Oh, so you have a small business, ok I don't have one, but I want one. I want you to pay and set me up so I can have one, shouldn't everyone have one?

I guess you could tell me to start one just as I can tell 15% of this country to get their own healthcare.

but... you dont die if you dont have a small business. people are dying because they dont have health insurance..


Taxing the haves from the have nots on creates a larger poorer class.
single people that make over 250k will pay a 3% tax
but you mean like the extra taxes on hotel rooms, cigarettes, liquor, cell phones
or giving tax breaks to oil company's

ohh your not against those cause....

I would be embarrassed to be making these arguments.. its so weak and so small minded

[Tommy]

Who would have thunk that you would avoid any meaningful discussion by arguing semantics? Why can't you just say you have no solutions?
cause they dont have any solutions
they never do ... never...
they do nothing and all they have is criticism and lies for the people cleaning up their mess

their only solutions are .. Tax breaks for the rich and for the oil company's:taunt:
if that fails.. pray..
but when a democrat says we should let small company's and individuals write off their health insurance costs thats.... socialism



small minded children

and if your gonna argue with that.. Go read some of Pat's post and then try and debate the small minded part

[bairdi]

cause they dont have any solutions
they never do ... never...
they do nothing and all they have is criticism and lies for the people cleaning up their mess

their only solutions are .. Tax breaks for the rich and for the oil company's:taunt:
if that fails.. pray..
but when a democrat says we should let small company's and individuals write off their health insurance costs thats.... socialism



small minded children

and if your gonna argue with that.. Go read some of Pat's post and then try and debate the small minded part
Great observation. I couldn't agree with you more.

[doctordog]

but... you dont die if you dont have a small business. people are dying because they dont have health insurance..


single people that make over 250k will pay a 3% tax
but you mean like the extra taxes on hotel rooms, cigarettes, liquor, cell phones
or giving tax breaks to oil company's

ohh your not against those cause....

I would be embarrassed to be making these arguments.. its so weak and so small minded

Taxing my healthcare plan up to 40% is bullshit to pay for someone that hasn't done a damn thing to help themselves. This is a bullshit argument to have with a leftist person anyway as you have no issue butchering baby after baby. EIther you care about all that die or you don't. Which is it?:disbelief:

[Pat]

your so ignorant .. its a little funny but its also quite sad

Pat... every time i read this board i notice you contribute.. nothing ..
Couldn't address the entire post I made, could you?
Why not address the facts I posted?
Why did you just snip a small portion of it and then do nothing but fling an insult at me?
Why not address the post in its entirety?
Are you too intimidated to actually address the entire post and its associated facts, so your only recourse is to snip a small portion and ignore the meat of the post?

P.S.
If you want to claim somebody is ignorant, please look at your grammar in your post. I put your incorrect usage in red for your benefit.

[Pat]

Who would have thunk that you would avoid any meaningful discussion by arguing semantics? Why can't you just say you have no solutions?
It's not semantics, health care and health insurance are two entirely different things.

[Smurf-Herder]

your math is flawed because your including the govt subsidies for individuals with the tax breaks for small business
and you did that cause it was a knee jerk reaction

look most of the time you seem like a reasonable person

why would you fight to withhold such an important thing for middle class hard working family's .. This is life and death for some people
This is pain and suffering

most people against this have free health insurance and just dont give a shit about anyone else

doesnt the gravity of the consequences demand that we take a sterile and fair look at this. that we absorb and understand information from both sides..

How does any of this help someone like me?

It only covers businesses that have 30 or more employees - so my boss is off the hook. I live from paycheck to paycheck right now - so I can't afford ANY insurance. And the premiums will be going up on top of what they are now, because of added regulations on the insurance companies.

[John Galt]

Regardless of what was done before, this makes it harder the the individuals trying to maintain coverage - which they were promised under pre-existing agreements as part of their employment.
Promised by an employer, who was getting a pretty good deal, at taxpayer expense.


Employer pays $100.00 for retiree drug benefit.

Employer gets $28.00 subsidy from govt.

Employer writes off $100.00 as business expense, effectively pocketing $28.00.


You're ok with that?

[Smurf-Herder]

Promised by an employer, who was getting a pretty good deal, at taxpayer expense.


Employer pays $100.00 for retiree drug benefit.

Employer gets $28.00 subsidy from govt.

Employer writes off $100.00 as business expense, effectively pocketing $28.00.


You're ok with that?

You okay with the taxpayers paying for the whole thing instead?

[doctordog]

You okay with the taxpayers paying for the whole thing instead?

Those businesses employ millions of people, the fucking government is for the politicians and that is all, Galt doesn't get it and never will.

[Pat]

Promised by an employer, who was getting a pretty good deal, at taxpayer expense.


Employer pays $100.00 for retiree drug benefit.

Employer gets $28.00 subsidy from govt.

Employer writes off $100.00 as business expense, effectively pocketing $28.00.


You're ok with that?
While I disagree with any subsidy from government, your math is incorrect. Either that, or you don't have a clue how taxes work.

The employer doesn't remove $100 from his tax bill, he is just not responsible for paying tax on that $100. Lets say the employer is in the 20% tax bracket. By spending that $100, he reduced his tax liability by only $20, even though he spent $100.
He didn't "pocket" anything.