Democrats threaten companies hit hard by health care bill

[doctordog]

Let the intimidation begin! Waxman is a disgrace.

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation's top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances -- a move one committee Republicans describes as "an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation."

On Thursday and Friday, the companies -- so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M -- said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. Now, both retirees and current employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future.

The news is an embarrassment for Democrats. As President Obama and congressional leaders tout the purported benefits of the new health care law, some of the nation's biggest companies are saying it will mean higher costs and fewer benefits -- not exactly what Democrats want to hear in the days after their historic victory.

So Waxman has ordered the executives to explain themselves at an April 21 hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee's investigative subcommittee. That subcommittee just happens to be chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who held out his vote on health care reform until a few hours before final passage on March 21, giving the bill's opponents the unfounded hope that he might vote against it.

Waxman's demands came Friday in letters to several executives. "After the president signed the health care reform bill into law, your company announced that provisions in the law could adversely affect your ability to provide health insurance," Waxman wrote to Randall Stephenson, chairman and CEO of AT&T. A few hours before Waxman sent his letter, AT&T announced it will take a $1 billion charge against earnings because of the tax provision in the new health bill. AT&T also said it will be "evaluating prospective changes" to its health care benefits for all workers.

Waxman's letter suggests he does not accept the company's decision. "The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern," Waxman wrote to Stephenson, in addition to letters to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, Caterpillar CEO James Owens, and Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen. The companies' decisions, Waxman wrote, "appear to conflict with independent analyses."

Waxman's demands for documents are far-reaching. "To assist the Committee with its preparation for the hearing," he wrote to Stephenson, "we request that you provide the following documents from January 1, 2009, through the present:

(1) any analyses related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T; and (2) any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T. We also request an explanation of the accounting methods used by AT&T since 2003 to estimate the financial impact on your company of the 28 percent subsidy for retiree drug coverage and its deductibility or nondeductibility, including the accounting methods used in preparing the cost impact statement released by AT&T this week.

Waxman's request could prove particularly troubling for the companies. The executives will undoubtedly view such documents as confidential, but if they fail to give Waxman everything he wants, they run the risk of subpoenas and threats from the chairman. And all as punishment for making a business decision in light of a new tax situation.

The particular problem for the companies involves the prescription drug coverage they offer retired workers. In 2003, when President Bush and the Republican Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, they offered a tax break to companies that continued to provide drug coverage for their retirees, rather than forcing them into the Medicare system. The new national health care bill ends that tax break, making it more expensive for the companies to continue offering the coverage. Ultimately, some analysts believe, the companies will stop covering the retirees, pushing them into the government system.

Waxman's action took Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee by surprise. Contacted Saturday, Texas Rep. Michael Burgess, who is the ranking Republican on the investigations subcommittee, said, "The timing of the letters and the hearing and the scope of information requested looks an awful lot like an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation, which is unfortunately the law of the land."

Burgess added, "I heard from several businesses back home in North Texas that the Democrats' health reform would be bad for business, so I am not surprised that companies are beginning to announce that it will cost them…I look forward to hearing more from the officials at these companies about the adverse effects of the Democrats' health reform will have on their business."

In coming days, Republicans are likely to emphasize the costs, both financial and human, of the new law. In an interview Thursday, Rep. Tom Price, head of the House Republican Study Committee, said his party's first priority will be to "identify as often as possible the detrimental and remarkably consequential effects of this bill on communities." Price specifically pointed to the Caterpillar and Deere announcements as examples of what GOP lawmakers will cite as the adverse effects of the law. (At the time Price spoke, AT&T had not yet announced its decision.)

Given that, it's no wonder Democrats are planning an aggressive campaign against the businesses involved. Elections are coming up, and Democratic leaders are in no mood to hear discouraging words about what they regard as their signature achievement.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-companies-hit-hard-by-health-care-bill-89347127.html#ixzz0jW51cQHZ

[Smurf-Herder]

Waxman is pathetic.

[doctordog]

Waxman is pathetic.

I agree, he, Pelosi, and Boxer are all a disgrace to their positions.

[Smurf-Herder]

I agree, he, Pelosi, and Boxer are all a disgrace to their positions.

Actually, that list is much, much longer.

[Hawkeye2j]

Let the intimidation begin! Waxman is a disgrace.

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation's top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances -- a move one committee Republicans describes as "an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation."

On Thursday and Friday, the companies -- so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M -- said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. Now, both retirees and current employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future.

The news is an embarrassment for Democrats. As President Obama and congressional leaders tout the purported benefits of the new health care law, some of the nation's biggest companies are saying it will mean higher costs and fewer benefits -- not exactly what Democrats want to hear in the days after their historic victory.

So Waxman has ordered the executives to explain themselves at an April 21 hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee's investigative subcommittee. That subcommittee just happens to be chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who held out his vote on health care reform until a few hours before final passage on March 21, giving the bill's opponents the unfounded hope that he might vote against it.

Waxman's demands came Friday in letters to several executives. "After the president signed the health care reform bill into law, your company announced that provisions in the law could adversely affect your ability to provide health insurance," Waxman wrote to Randall Stephenson, chairman and CEO of AT&T. A few hours before Waxman sent his letter, AT&T announced it will take a $1 billion charge against earnings because of the tax provision in the new health bill. AT&T also said it will be "evaluating prospective changes" to its health care benefits for all workers.

Waxman's letter suggests he does not accept the company's decision. "The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern," Waxman wrote to Stephenson, in addition to letters to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, Caterpillar CEO James Owens, and Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen. The companies' decisions, Waxman wrote, "appear to conflict with independent analyses."

Waxman's demands for documents are far-reaching. "To assist the Committee with its preparation for the hearing," he wrote to Stephenson, "we request that you provide the following documents from January 1, 2009, through the present:

(1) any analyses related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T; and (2) any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T. We also request an explanation of the accounting methods used by AT&T since 2003 to estimate the financial impact on your company of the 28 percent subsidy for retiree drug coverage and its deductibility or nondeductibility, including the accounting methods used in preparing the cost impact statement released by AT&T this week.

Waxman's request could prove particularly troubling for the companies. The executives will undoubtedly view such documents as confidential, but if they fail to give Waxman everything he wants, they run the risk of subpoenas and threats from the chairman. And all as punishment for making a business decision in light of a new tax situation.

The particular problem for the companies involves the prescription drug coverage they offer retired workers. In 2003, when President Bush and the Republican Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, they offered a tax break to companies that continued to provide drug coverage for their retirees, rather than forcing them into the Medicare system. The new national health care bill ends that tax break, making it more expensive for the companies to continue offering the coverage. Ultimately, some analysts believe, the companies will stop covering the retirees, pushing them into the government system.

Waxman's action took Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee by surprise. Contacted Saturday, Texas Rep. Michael Burgess, who is the ranking Republican on the investigations subcommittee, said, "The timing of the letters and the hearing and the scope of information requested looks an awful lot like an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation, which is unfortunately the law of the land."

Burgess added, "I heard from several businesses back home in North Texas that the Democrats' health reform would be bad for business, so I am not surprised that companies are beginning to announce that it will cost them…I look forward to hearing more from the officials at these companies about the adverse effects of the Democrats' health reform will have on their business."

In coming days, Republicans are likely to emphasize the costs, both financial and human, of the new law. In an interview Thursday, Rep. Tom Price, head of the House Republican Study Committee, said his party's first priority will be to "identify as often as possible the detrimental and remarkably consequential effects of this bill on communities." Price specifically pointed to the Caterpillar and Deere announcements as examples of what GOP lawmakers will cite as the adverse effects of the law. (At the time Price spoke, AT&T had not yet announced its decision.)

Given that, it's no wonder Democrats are planning an aggressive campaign against the businesses involved. Elections are coming up, and Democratic leaders are in no mood to hear discouraging words about what they regard as their signature achievem


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-companies-hit-hard-by-health-care-bill-89347127.html#ixzz0jW51cQHZ
Why didn't they offer an amendment to fix it when they had the opportunity?

[doctordog]

Why didn't they offer an amendment to fix it when they had the opportunity?

I don't think those CEO's were involved in the voting process, thanks for playing.:disbelief:

[mrmeangenes]

Anyone care to guess what that awful provision is they are pissing and moaning about ?

It's the elimination of corporate welfare-in the form of a 28% federal "contribution" towards their healthcare costs : a payment okayed by the previous administration in the vain and childish belief it would keep the Big Boys from shipping jobs overseas.

I dislike Waxman personally, but can see where his demands would rattle these spoiled brats.

[doctordog]

Anyone care to guess what that awful provision is they are pissing and moaning about ?

It's the elimination of corporate welfare-in the form of a 28% federal "contribution" towards their healthcare costs : a payment okayed by the previous administration in the vain and childish belief it would keep the Big Boys from shipping jobs overseas.

I dislike Waxman personally, but can see where his demands would rattle these spoiled brats.

I would rather we supplement 28% and let those companies supply 72% versus dumping all those retirees on us for 100% using Medicare.:thumbsup:

[John Galt]

I would rather we supplement 28% and let those companies supply 72% versus dumping all those retirees on us for 100% using Medicare.:thumbsup:
That's what you would rather do.

You don't get a vote. You, who rails against govt. spending, unless it's for something that you'd 'rather'.


This is for retirees. It doesn't mean that these companies will have to lay off active workers, as you've generalized before.

It will save the companies money, if they don't have to pay anything for retirees' prescriptions.

Let the unions pick up the tab, if they are so concerned for their retirees.

[doctordog]

That's what you would rather do.

You don't get a vote. You, who rails against govt. spending, unless it's for something that you'd 'rather'.


This is for retirees. It doesn't mean that these companies will have to lay off active workers, as you've generalized before.

It will save the companies money, if they don't have to pay anything for retirees' prescriptions.

Let the unions pick up the tab, if they are so concerned for their retirees.

That 28% is a far cry from what we will spend now due to the democrats blunder. I work for one of those companies that is considering reducing benefits or stopping them altogether so 15% of the country can have their insurance while 85% of us pay for it.

[John Galt]

That 28% is a far cry from what we will spend now due to the democrats blunder. I work for one of those companies that is considering reducing benefits or stopping them altogether so 15% of the country can have their insurance while 85% of us pay for it.
This all goes back to your entitlement issues.

You are no better/worse than the millions of people who work just as hard as you do, but they don't get the same entitlements that you do.

The unions are just as bloated as other corporations. They can certainly form their own group ins. plan, and this won't be an issue.

Try to grasp the concept....there are countless millions of retired people, who don't get these perks. Maybe now the rest of you will understand why this issue is so important.


I'm not thrilled with this new law. But...I'll be paying more for insurance, just as others will. Hopefully, the kinks will get worked out as the years pass.


Meanwhile, it's a perfect opportunity for the corporations in this free market system I hear so much about, to demonstrate just how 'benevolent' they can be.

I can't count the times I've heard those who rail against taxes, demand that corporations should be trusted to 'do the right thing'.


Ins/Pharma corporations should step up, and make their products affordable, so that the Deeres, Caterpillars, and AT&Ts of the world can take care of their retirees.



I won't hold my breath

[doctordog]

This all goes back to your entitlement issues.

You are no better/worse than the millions of people who work just as hard as you do, but they don't get the same entitlements that you do.

The unions are just as bloated as other corporations. They can certainly form their own group ins. plan, and this won't be an issue.

Try to grasp the concept....there are countless millions of retired people, who don't get these perks. Maybe now the rest of you will understand why this issue is so important.


I'm not thrilled with this new law. But...I'll be paying more for insurance, just as others will. Hopefully, the kinks will get worked out as the years pass.


Meanwhile, it's a perfect opportunity for the corporations in this free market system I hear so much about, to demonstrate just how 'benevolent' they can be.

I can't count the times I've heard those who rail against taxes, demand that corporations should be trusted to 'do the right thing'.


Ins/Pharma corporations should step up, and make their products affordable, so that the Deeres, Caterpillars, and AT&Ts of the world can take care of their retirees.



I won't hold my breath

John,

I think you confuse entitlement with earned. These retirees gave their companies 30+ of their lives and these packages were contracted for. For Obama to pull the rug out from under them to basically cover a plan for amny free loaders of the system is criminal in my opinion.

Those millions of retirees you mention had the same opportunity as everyone else to get those perks but decided to take a different path in life. That is the one thing I will never understand about the left. They don't understand the simple rule in life of consequences for actions.:thumbsup:

[John Galt]

John,

I think you confuse entitlement with earned. These retirees gave their companies 30+ of their lives and these packages were contracted for. For Obama to pull the rug out from under them to basically cover a plan for amny free loaders of the system is criminal in my opinion.

Those millions of retirees you mention had the same opportunity as everyone else to get those perks but decided to take a different path in life. That is the one thing I will never understand about the left. They don't understand the simple rule in life of consequences for actions.:thumbsup:
You're right...you'll never understand.

Just because you took on a big, bloated union job...that ultimately costs those who purchase the product more...you seem to think that you earned something?

No...you haven't earned anything that other 'hard working' (your favorite qualifier)people haven't earned.

Shit happens. Now, everyone who complains, can see how it feels to be just like all the other hard workers.


I say entitled, you say earned. It doesn't matter what you call it, we're all in the same boat now.


Get used to it.

These perks for retirees, along with the moronic ones....(Auto Workers who get 95% pay when they're layed off)....are bringing down the economy. Why do you think we pay Chinese children to do all of our manufacturing?


By making this specific change, now every taxpayer will contribute to retirees' drug costs. The govt. has been subsidizing it, along with your healthcare.

Funny how you feel your's is earned, but everyone else is a lazy freeloader.

[doctordog]

You're right...you'll never understand.

Just because you took on a big, bloated union job...that ultimately costs those who purchase the product more...you seem to think that you earned something?

No...you haven't earned anything that other 'hard working' (your favorite qualifier)people haven't earned.

Shit happens. Now, everyone who complains, can see how it feels to be just like all the other hard workers.


I say entitled, you say earned. It doesn't matter what you call it, we're all in the same boat now.


Get used to it.

These perks for retirees, along with the moronic ones....(Auto Workers who get 95% pay when they're layed off)....are bringing down the economy. Why do you think we pay Chinese children to do all of our manufacturing?


By making this specific change, now every taxpayer will contribute to retirees' drug costs. The govt. has been subsidizing it, along with your healthcare.

Funny how you feel your's is earned, but everyone else is a lazy freeloader.

I don't have a union job, you haven't being paying attention. I hate unions and what the represent.

[John Galt]

I don't have a union job, you haven't being paying attention. I hate unions and what the represent.
Fine. How about AT&T, Deere, and Cat?


If you live in a state where unions don't prosper, you are getting pay/bennies that are very close, or equal to those of a union worker. They couldn't keep the unions out any other way.

For whatever reason you feel that your healthcare should be subsidized by the govt., there are those that feel you can't rail against govt. spending on healthcare, without assessing your own entitlements.

You claim to make 100G's/yr. I'm sure you can afford to pay a little more for health insurance. Everyone else is.

[Boogie man]

Fine. How about AT&T, Deere, and Cat?


If you live in a state where unions don't prosper, you are getting pay/bennies that are very close, or equal to those of a union worker. They couldn't keep the unions out any other way.

For whatever reason you feel that your healthcare should be subsidized by the govt., there are those that feel you can't rail against govt. spending on healthcare, without assessing your own entitlements.

You claim to make 100G's/yr. I'm sure you can afford to pay a little more for health insurance. Everyone else is.

I'm sure what he can afford is no one's business but his.

[John Galt]

I'm sure what he can afford is no one's business but his.
That's true. But my paying for his healthcare, and retirement fund is.

[doctordog]

Fine. How about AT&T, Deere, and Cat?


If you live in a state where unions don't prosper, you are getting pay/bennies that are very close, or equal to those of a union worker. They couldn't keep the unions out any other way.

For whatever reason you feel that your healthcare should be subsidized by the govt., there are those that feel you can't rail against govt. spending on healthcare, without assessing your own entitlements.

You claim to make 100G's/yr. I'm sure you can afford to pay a little more for health insurance. Everyone else is.

I do pay for a portion of it just not the largest portion. It is part of my compensation package, same for the other salaried people that I work with. So you see my healthcare is not subsidized but it could change now that the President has come out with this asinine idea and drive away what little jobs there are for higher paying hourly careers.

As far as being able to pay more maybe I can, but why should I when it is going to people that could be paying for their own if they would lift one finger and spend some effort looking out for themselves.

The longer we reward people for bad behavior the worse the country will get.

[Boogie man]

That's true. But my paying for his healthcare, and retirement fund is.

You're paying for all the government workers. All of us are. Why do you single him out? Are you for reducing benefits for government workers? Good.

[doctordog]

You're paying for all the government workers. All of us are. Why do you single him out? Are you for reducing benefits for government workers? Good.

He supports slavery.

[John Galt]

I do pay for a portion of it just not the largest portion. It is part of my compensation package, same for the other salaried people that I work with. So you see my healthcare is not subsidized but it could change now that the President has come out with this asinine idea and drive away what little jobs there are for higher paying hourly careers.

As far as being able to pay more maybe I can, but why should I when it is going to people that could be paying for their own if they would lift one finger and spend some effort looking out for themselves.

The longer we reward people for bad behavior the worse the country will get.
You've told us that you pay 5g's a year for your healthcare. A virtual pittance.

You then told us that you pay app. 5% of your annual salary for your hc.


Regardless of your income, the govt. subsidizes the portion that you don't pay.


The issue here, was the taxing of retiree pharma benefits. You then made a comment that your company was considering making cuts as a result.

In essence, the govt. has been picking up 28% of the cost of the drug benefit.

With all this talk of spending, I would think you would be happy?

There are many bloated perks that have been handed out to workers during the 'good' years. Those years are gone. To expect these entitlements in this economy, is silly.


Better the pharma companies should make their products affordable to retirees. Wouldn't that be the American way?

[doctordog]

You've told us that you pay 5g's a year for your healthcare. A virtual pittance.

You then told us that you pay app. 5% of your annual salary for your hc.


Regardless of your income, the govt. subsidizes the portion that you don't pay.


The issue here, was the taxing of retiree pharma benefits. You then made a comment that your company was considering making cuts as a result.

In essence, the govt. has been picking up 28% of the cost of the drug benefit.

With all this talk of spending, I would think you would be happy?

There are many bloated perks that have been handed out to workers during the 'good' years. Those years are gone. To expect these entitlements in this economy, is silly.


Better the pharma companies should make their products affordable to retirees. Wouldn't that be the American way?

Regulations of margin by the goverment is only the beginning of a police state. I would rather my company get the $28 break that to start paying and additional 40% more for insurance because lazy fuck drug dealer, or some "bad back" ass riding the system for free.

Manufacturers and Production facilities are the backbone of our economy and simply tell them FUCK YOU to take care of the 15% that could care less is just plane stupid and bad judgement.

BTW since we pay in approximately 30K per year to the goverment I don't mind that they subsidize 2800 back, it is my money.

[John Galt]

Regulations of margin by the goverment is only the beginning of a police state. I would rather my company get the $28 break that to start paying and additional 40% more for insurance because lazy fuck drug dealer, or some "bad back" ass riding the system for free.

Manufacturers and Production facilities are the backbone of our economy and simply tell them FUCK YOU to take care of the 15% that could care less is just plane stupid and bad judgement.

BTW since we pay in approximately 30K per year to the goverment I don't mind that they subsidize 2800 back, it is my money.
Well then, that puts you in the same boat as the lazy fucks you rail against.

Of course you would 'rather' not pay for your entitlements. Nor, would you like to be taxed on all of your income....that being your entitlements.

You cannot criticize entitlements, while simultaneously claiming that you've 'earned' yours.


If we want to cut this deficit that concerns you so, then it's time you started paying for your healthcare....just as we all do.



And really, this particular discussion is about retirees continuing to receive entitlements, even in a horrid economy. It just doesn't work.

[doctordog]

Well then, that puts you in the same boat as the lazy fucks you rail against.

Of course you would 'rather' not pay for your entitlements. Nor, would you like to be taxed on all of your income....that being your entitlements.

You cannot criticize entitlements, while simultaneously claiming that you've 'earned' yours.


If we want to cut this deficit that concerns you so, then it's time you started paying for your healthcare....just as we all do.



And really, this particular discussion is about retirees continuing to receive entitlements, even in a horrid economy. It just doesn't work.

Deadbeats don't pay taxes, that 28 rebate is fair trade for the 30k they get in return. Pat made a point in the other thread you need to realize about what deduction employers actually get for that subsidy. You just definitley step back, I thought you were wrong, but not being an expert I did not argue the point.