DXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2760 times:
From the previous thread:
Quoting DXing (Reply 262):
The company also gives me a huge discount on flying for which no taxes are paid. It's called a benefit, it's something I earn. You evidently don't understand the concept, if this is the only argument you have left then I think we are done here.
If you had that company discount from day 1 at your job, it wasn't earned. It's a benefit, just like my flight benefits at OO, but neither you nor or I earned that benefit. We were awarded and given access to it.
You earn it from the 1st day of your work. Just like you earn paid sick time from day one. Just like you earn paid vacation days from day 1. All benefits.
Also, for those claiming that the polls show a huge turn around in public opinion, guess again. Two of the polls taken since the legislation was signed into law cancell each other out. The other two show the public still disagrees that the law is a good thing.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7843 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2722 times:
ATT takes a Billion Dollar write-down because of the health care reform.
But should we feel sorry for them? Nope.
Turns out that all this is about is the ending of a tax deduction that wasn't and expense. A sweetheart deal from the 2003 Prescription drug program that the Republicans were handing out to business.
So how did it work?
Say a company paid $100 Million for retirees prescription benefits.
They would get a $28 Million government subsidy. Dash from the taxpayers.
But they would write off the entire $100 Million as a tax deduction. Didn't matter that they only had a $72 Million expense.
Smoke & mirrors. But the new law changes that - makes the taxpayer cash a reduction of their costs - which it always has been. Big companies, like ATT, are trying to make it appear that they are being treated badly.
And we can see why Corporate America is so in love with the Republicans. They hand out some very sweet cand.
DXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2708 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5): A sweetheart deal from the 2003 Prescription drug program that the Republicans were handing out to business.
And that passed out of the Senate to the conference with a vote of 76-21. Since there were only 51 Republicans that means that 25 democrats went along with it. In the House all the democrats voted against it. Party of NO anyone? After conference, you know that's where the two different bills differences are ironed out, some thing the democrats can't seem to figure out, the vote in the Senate was 55-44 which means that 3 democrats actually voted for it. In the democrats world that's called bipartisanship. In the House again all the democrats voted against the bill. Party of NO anyone? Original 10 year cost 400 billion. Revised 2009 ten year cost 549 billion. Of course the new health care law projected costs will be dead on and have no overrun whatsoever.
The Democrats know that if, over the next few months a lot more companies start coming forward with disclosures of how much this boondoggle is going to cost, they are going to be in a lot of trouble. The answer? Intimidate them into silence by putting all the companies that have already made announcements to undergo interrogation in front of Congress, and bring their analyses of the fiscal impact, and any documents including emails and messages reviewed by their senior officials that support their claim of increased operating costs.
The purpose is clear. I'll bet you pounds to donuts that from now on, any company desiring to disclose the negative impact of Democrat-passed laws (as required by SEC regulations) will bury them in the notes to financial statements, noticed only by wall street analysts.
I don't hate business. I even owned one before being hit with cancer.
What I don't believe in is anyone playing the big write-offs as the "mean old government hurting them".
All it takes is an Introduction To Accounting 101 to see what went on. They were taking a deduction when they didn't have one.
Maybe poor law writing by the Republican lawyers, maybe just very sharp tax lawyers for the companies finding the loophole.
But it's a loop hole you can drive a freight train through and Obama & the Democrats have closed it.
Oh, let's not forget that when they take the write-off they cut the tax they will be paying. Each $100 million will end up saving about $35 million in cash outflow at the federal level, plus what ever state level taxes are saved. Not too shabby.
Maybe you can explain why Bush & the Republicans didn't close it when they were in power.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7): undergo interrogation in front of Congress, and bring their analyses of the fiscal impact, and any documents including emails and messages reviewed by their senior officials that support their claim of increased operating costs.
I feel great about it. You and i already agreed that the "impact" will be minimal. Are you afraid that this minimal impact will become public knowledge and in the process have more people support of the plan?
DXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2645 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8): And how did the Bush/Cheney Gang FINANCE this?
How have the democrats financed the health care law? When you take away the double count in supposed medicare cuts, the 6 for 10, and add in the doc fix as well as the cost of hiring a whole bunch of IRS auditors (neither were included in the legislation so were not scored by the CBO) that supposed bargain at 945 billion shoots up well past 1 trillion. No wonder President Obama wanted to buy GM, he must harbor a secret desire to be a used car salesman.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7843 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2592 times:
Medicare "cuts" will be the elimination of the unnecessary 15% surcharge private companies get for showing that they can do a better job than the government. Duh. Why do they need that unnecessary 15% when it can be better applied to others?
The IRS & Justice Departments are going to be going after Medicare/Medicaid fraud. That's not a problem for me as these good folks will be able to earn their keep.
As for GM, let's hold onto those shares until we can get a nice, tidy profit off of them. Sorta like the Citi deal.
DXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2582 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12): Medicare "cuts" will be the elimination of the unnecessary 15% surcharge private companies get for showing that they can do a better job than the government. Duh. Why do they need that unnecessary 15% when it can be better applied to others?
The cuts go much deeper than that. Plus the cuts are double counted.
The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund. Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits. To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12): The IRS & Justice Departments are going to be going after Medicare/Medicaid fraud. That's not a problem for me as these good folks will be able to earn their keep
Good luck with that. The IRS has trouble keeping track of who is supposed to get what and how much right now.
Howard Gleckman, of the Urban Institute, sees the IRS’s proposed new role as a part of a historical pattern. “We are always asking the IRS to do all kinds of social engineering,” he said, such as tax credits for new homeowners and renewable energy firms.
In one of the biggest examples of using the tax code to achieve a social goal, Congress shifted much of its effort to help the poor in the 1990s from direct spending to the Earned Income Tax Credit, an IRS-run program that pays rebates to low-income working people to offset taxes.
In 2005, more than 22 million people claimed the credit, resulting in more than $40 billion in payments, a Treasury Department inspector general found last year. The audit also found $11.4 billion in improper payments in 2005 — about 28 cents of every dollar paid out.
Yep, I bet they'll be all over that medicare fraud.
Oh yeah, remember the Presidents line about no new middle class tax, and he defined middle class as 150,000 to 200,000 dollars, depending on which week you heard him speaking?
From the same link:
Under the health care legislation, the IRS will determine who qualifies for the insurance subsidies. Those subsidies would apply to people with incomes up to four times the federal poverty level, which is $43,320 for an individual and $88,200 for a family of four. The government would pay insurance companies to help individuals buy policies on the new exchanges. The exchanges, a central feature in both bills, are a sort of marketplace where small businesses and individuals who don’t get employer-sponsored coverage could shop for health plans.
So if the government decides that a "minimum qualified plan" ends up costing more than what you are paying now, that's a defacto tax increase. What a Country!!!!
The extra IRS agents are there to help make sure that everyone is purchasing a qualified health care plan. On top of that, if the fraud is going on, why was than not a focus of the Administration and the Justice department during the first year in office so at this point they could show some results to prove their point?
The new IRS agents will also, one would think, be put to work making sure that tanning salons are correctly charging the surcharge (which is actually a discriminatory tax since how many latinos and blacks use tanning salons?) that the law calls for as well as making sure that granny and grandpa are being charged the correct amount of tax for their medical devices.
And that doesn't begin to address the cost of the Doc Fix which was not included in the actual health care law since it would have put the bill over a trillion in cost and in the red. Nor does it explain how the second ten years will be paid for since the 6 in 10 gimmick only works in the first ten year period. There are so many financial flaws in this law just awaiting their moment to shine. I guess that's what you get when people vote on a bill they haven't read and don't understand, and submit a less than honest bill to be scored. But to the liberals a bad law is better than no law at all.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12): As for GM, let's hold onto those shares until we can get a nice, tidy profit off of them. Sorta like the Citi deal.
As I said, we will all be dead and gone of old age by the time that happens.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7843 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2552 times:
Quoting DXing (Reply 13): Good luck with that. The IRS has trouble keeping track of who is supposed to get what and how much right now.
They can always ask the Aussies how to do it. As I mentioned before, a friend (ex-cop) went to work for the Fraud Group there and they already had their first Doc nailed to the wall. Programmers, statisticians and cops finding and nailing the cheats.
When crooks commit fraud via a computer they can be found via a computer.
The Doc FIx is one of those games left over from the Bush/Cheney years. It needs its own review, which should include motivations for med students to go into GP/Family Practice. It will be interesting to see how the conservatives approach replacing that current situation with a solid, intelligent law that addresses problems in those areas. Will the Republicans work with the Democrats, or fight them on everything? Contributions from Doctors may hand in the balance.
AGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2549 times:
Dont know if this is related ..but my Girl friend who is a heart specialist at a hostpital here in Tucson was notified that they are cutting the work force by 20% over the next 18 months. A 15% cut will be made fiscal 2010 with a 20% by 2011. Seems weird to me . The employees are blaming the cuts in Medicare / Medicaid reimbursment rates , basicaly they cant not make a profit.
Quoting mt99 (Reply 9): You and i already agreed that the "impact" will be minimal. Are you afraid that this minimal impact will become public knowledge and in the process have more people support of the plan?
The plan is designed to be low impact .... it is simply going to degrade insurance companies and private providers profitablity over time. The slow change will eventualy cripple them until a full government take over will be required. The President said exaclty that in several interviews. They tried for full universal healthcare in the initial bill ...it served to give them a fall back position that seemed easier to pass . What they got was not what they wanted immediatly ...but they can wait ... they know the insurance companies can not operate under these rules and will have to raise thier rates. Its a very sinister play ...
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
DXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2546 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14): The Doc FIx is one of those games left over from the Bush/Cheney years.
The last major change to medicare was in 1995. Not an additional new program but a change to the basic financial structuring. The supplemental budget to cover the shortfall in the medicare annual budget to cover doctors fees has been a recurring annual event since then.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14): It will be interesting to see how the conservatives approach replacing that current situation with a solid, intelligent law that addresses problems in those areas.
You mean like the new health care law with its major funding flaws? Hopefully if the liberals try to ram through yet another such flawed piece of legislation the GOP will be strong enough to once again say they want no part of a bad law.
mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6460 posts, RR: 6 Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2525 times:
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 15): The plan is designed to be low impact .... it is simply going to degrade insurance companies and private providers profitablity over time
I think we are talking about two different things. What Dreadnought and agree on have nothing to do with insurance companies. Its the fact that Caterpillar will see a $100M charge which will "cripple and will destroy caterpillar and all that is holy". He and i agreed that that is a completely baseless claim designed for Fox News headlines.
AGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2508 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 18): He and i agreed that that is a completely baseless claim designed for Fox News headlines.
I guess we will see about that ... Waxman wants the CEO's front and center to hear they're case. I hope that the Caterpiller and John Deer CEO's lay it out clear.
You can be as smart as me and figure out that the insurance companies are going to have to raise rates... forced to cover pre existing conditions ?? It sounds nice but it is bad buisness ... it defies all logic when it comes to the idea of insurance. I agree with parts of the bill that effect dropping patients when they get ill , but forceing companies to insure someone who is irresponsible is crazy .
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6460 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2504 times:
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 19): I guess we will see about that ... Waxman wants the CEO's front and center to hear they're case. I hope that the Caterpiller and John Deer CEO's lay it out clear.
I Hope they do too.
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 19): but forceing companies to insure someone who is irresponsible is crazy .
So in fact - you are saying that Insurance companies currently run "death panels"?
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 19): You can be as smart as me and figure out that the insurance companies are going to have to raise rates
In theory do agree with you, BUT the huge pool of people that will have to be insure will help leverage that risk. I agree that this is a theory too, but looking at the raw data and analyzing it is beyond my pay scale for this website.
Ill defer to people who do make their living analyzing data - the good people at Wall Street - They cant steer us wrong can they? Never - don't be ridiculous.
DXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2484 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17): So the Republicans got what they wanted - lots of power from that '94 mind term election on through the 06 mid term.
Really, you mean despite not having control of the Senate from '00 to '02? You mean despite not having a 60 seat majority in the Senate at any time during those years? Or perhaps you mean not having a veto proof majority in both houses from '94 to '06? Lot's of power means you can actually control legislation from start to finish. Something the democrats could not do this entire past year. Of course when you're Reid you blame the tools and not the carpenter.
Prior to the 47-53 procedural vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blamed the American Medical Association (AMA) for giving him bad information on the number of Republicans expected to support the measure.
What a rube. Remind me again how many seats the democrats held in the Senate last October?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17): Guess they were so focused on cutting taxes and invading Iraq that they couldn't be bothered.
In 1995 President Clinton was in office. No Iraq, no cutting of taxes. You really do have a memory problem. On top of that, as far as the democrats were concerned, no universal care, no bill.
Quoting mt99 (Reply 18): Its the fact that Caterpillar will see a $100M charge which will "cripple and will destroy caterpillar and all that is holy"
AGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17 Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2471 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 20): So in fact - you are saying that Insurance companies currently run "death panels"?
No ... I am saying that if you dont buy insurance before you get sick then they should not have to accept you. Its pretty simple . We just cant have people wait until they have cancer then decide to go buy insurance ... right ?
Quoting mt99 (Reply 20): BUT the huge pool of people that will have to be insure will help leverage that risk
Valid point ..and quite possibly the reason that the stocks are are going up. I have been watching them too ... just sold and made 10K on a healthcare sector stock last week (ISRG). But I am sceptical of the long term profitability with a government that is so vehemently outspoken about them.
That said I still vote with my dollars ...
UHC looks like a decent buy $32 a share right now .. but I am not sue about it.
I am looking at Universal American Corp right now .. .. they specialize in Medicair supplement packages ... $15.00 a share ? .
AGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17 Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2450 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 23): So you agree with the mandate to buy insurance?
No I dont ... I dont like the idea that the G forces me to buy something. Its not like car insurance .... you are forced to buy health insurance or you pay higher taxes thats just going too far. I know its complicated but I am just a small government low restriction guy from another age and time.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
25 DXing: How does one necessarily have to follow, or mean he is for the other?
26 Ken777: Now that will be interesting. Especially when it's pointed out that they received cash for 28% of the expense, but claimed 100% on their tax returns.
27 DXing: The gop did not have veto proof majorities in the House or the Senate. If it means giving Rep, Barney Frank a chance to do more damage than he has al
28 Yellowstone: Here's a good one... What was the first time in US history that people were mandated to purchase health insurance (from the government rather than a p
29 DXing: Even better was the fact that the politicians of the day were already in the habit of spending any extra money collected on the government rather tha
30 Yellowstone: You didn't read that passage too carefully, did you? Seems to me that building hospitals is part of health care, which is what the tax was for in the
31 DXing: Nope, I saw it. But before that it specifically states: So if there is a surplus, rather than give it back they will hold on to it as long as they se
32 Ken777: If the party was as impotent as you make them out to be it's amazing that they were able to achieve all they did - in terms of their wish list. It's
33 Dreadnought: Do we really, really have to dig up the videos again which showed Barney Frank vigorously arguing against any attempts at increasing monitoring and r
34 DXing: Is social security privatized? Are the tax cuts permanent? Considering how much Rep. Frank had to do with the failure of Fannie and Freddie, not to m
35 Ken777: Fortunately not - some Americans would have lost a huge amount when the Dow went from 14000+ to the 6000 range. So basically the elderly in this coun
36 Dreadnought: For someone your age I am surprised that you seem to have no idea what such funds would be invested in. They would be bond-heavy, such as these funds
37 DXing: As opposed to depending on a trust fund that is stuffed with IOU's and doesn't really exist? Recessions come and go as this one will. The difference
38 Ken777: I'll take what backs my monthly Social Security check each months over a private company that is only half way to rebuilding after the Bush Years. An
39 DXing: You just have never understood the difference between mending and ending. Someone is going to have to mend those programs or of their own fiscal weig
40 FlyPNS1: The basic question as a society we have to ask is simply this, is it important to our society that everyone (or almost everyone) have quality health c
41 DXing: Opposition continues at better than 50% even after almost two full weeks of barnstorming around the country trying to sell a plan that is already law.
42 Dreadnought: We passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exe
43 FlyPNS1: No, healthcare will simply become a luxury good that only the well-off can afford. Sure they've affected the price, but they've also made it so that
44 Dreadnought: No, it means that health care will be priced at levels that the free market can accept. If people had to pay for their own health care and insurance
45 DXing: There aren't that many "luxury" types around. In case you hadn't noticed, a significant minority in this country pays the majority of taxes. Fix Medi
46 FlyPNS1: And those price levels will be out of reach for a significant portion of the population....particularly when you consider the stagnant incomes that m
47 Dreadnought: Complete supposition on your part. Prices are high now because doctors and hospitals can get away with it because the Insurance companies are willing
48 FlyPNS1: Do you really think that business model will work with doctors? How many more patients do you really think a doctor can see? Many don't spend enough
49 Dreadnought: Not a bad example - the price of cosmetic surgery is a lot lower than insured operations taking a similar amount of resources. According to the Ameri
50 AverageUser: Have I mentioned national single-pool insurance any time lately?
51 Dreadnought: You mean, handing over the management of our healthcare completely to the same entity which has run Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public pensi
52 DXing: Well get ready because that is exactly the premise behind Obamacare. Lower premiums means more people can afford insurance which means more people ge
53 Dreadnought: Well, to be fair I for one fully support better tits for the entire female population.
54 FlyPNS1: When you consider the relative simplicity of the procedure, that's a pretty high price. Remember, that is only the surgeon's fee for a procedure that
55 DXing: The difference being in that the officials in the private sector are not elected to serve the people. On top of that there is a whole threads worth o
56 AGM100: Correct ... and the governemnt is there with the deep pockets to cover all the issues. Same thing happening in higher education right now ... the gov
57 FlyPNS1: They can be removed if the public isn't happy with them. Oddly though, the public seems to always replace them with someone that is equally as bad. I
58 AGM100: Their is not one person in this country who ..if they work hard and dream of going to college can not get there. Is it easy? ...hell no ... will you
59 Starbuk7: I agree totally, ther eare a lot of people in this country who no longer know what it means to work for something. Thay all expect to get everything
60 DXing: The stockholders of the company can demand a CEO's removal but only the BOD can vote for a CEO's removal. Quite different from a Senator or Congressm
61 FlyPNS1: All the more reason why leaving this country's future in the hands of CEO's is a dangerous proposition. They have NO accountability for their actions
62 Dreadnought: Not true. Scholarships have been available for deserving students for ages. There is the GI Bill. Anyone who really wants to continue their education
63 AirStairs: Right, because Frank's genius policy of forcing banks to make housing loans to bad credit risks and then charging Fannie and Freddie with the moral d
64 DXing: In most cases if you are in the private sector and don't get the job done, you're gone. Not so in Congress. As long as you can blame the other party
65 AGM100: What other country in the world has had millions of poor kids rise to the levels that we have?. None. Millions of lower middle class and poor kids ha
66 mt99: So you want "Death Panels"? Sarah P would not like you...
67 Dreadnought: Basically that's what would be required, but the federal government has never shown itself capable of controlling costs on just about anything, so it