Thanks for visiting us!

Badminton Central is a free community for fans of badminton! If you find anything useful here please consider registering to see more content and get involved with our great community users, it takes less than 15 seconds! Everybody is welcome here.

Click here for a FREE account!

The sky has finally fallen...

Discussion in 'Chit-Chat' started by ctjcad, Mar 22, 2010.

  1. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
  2. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    16,147
    Likes Received:
    10
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    Remember the malpractice lawyers.

    I think some level of cause must go to the American consumer attitude. Even if something is a tiny bit wrong in a purchase, the consumer is deemed correct and money can be given back for used goods.

    Of course, in healthcare, you cannot "give" health back, therefore one way is to resort to litigation. Another thing is in medicine, there is no 100% cure. There is always a statistical chance of a bad outcome. Yet one can get sued for following guidelines appropriately. So this leads to the overuse of the most expensive, latest and greatest technology/medication/programs even thought the marginal benefit is very low or even unproven. Where the conflict arises is those opponents are unwilling for those dollars allocated for health to be redistributed from areas of doubtful/unproven benefit (because of the "what if it really works?" factor) to areas of proven benefit to the less fortunate.

    I suspect across the world, the majority of people interested in health would see this as a very great achievement indeed. A basic human right has been given to the people - i.e. access to healthcare.

    As for health outcomes, which is what really counts, we can only wait for the evidence of any success which may take 20 years or more. As for the affordability of the bill, well so what if it is more expensive? Things were not going too well beforehand in terms of healthcare expenditure and the evidence was that it was getting worse with a marked degree of inevitability.
    At least with the new bill, either, things can get better, remain as status quo or get worse. So, we do have some chance of US getting better health;) If the bill hadn't passed, US citizens definitely would have got things worse with no hope for improvement.;)
     
  3. OneToughBirdie

    OneToughBirdie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,923
    Likes Received:
    80
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    icy cold place
    Helping the less fortunate with no medicare is a good proposition, whether it is politically motivated or of pure concience or setting a presidential legacy...we have 50-50 split of congess who agree/disagree to this bill, we have discussion between big 'Y' and small 'c' here...I look at the accounting side and I just could not understand how OB can sustain this cost by adding US$1.6trillion deficit to the national debt this fiscal year, with the current US public debt at US$12.7trillion and increasing US$4.03 billion daily.
    This is only the national debt, not including the 51 states' debt...Until the year-after-year federal annual deficit can be eliminated and the budget balanced, or is OB wildly banking on the economy turning around injecting revenues to treasury, the debt will keep increasing until the US hits the wall and maybe follow Greece...and all these programs will evaporate.
     
  4. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    The winning side claims the new health care system will reduce the budget deficit over time. The losing side thinks otherwise. Only one side can be right.
    Let us see what happens.
    BTW, health care is only one component in the budget. There are many leaks in the other components too. Of course almost all those leaks can be stopped and reversed easily, only if politicians have the political will.
     
  5. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    12
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    why see what happens when plenty history are available to nail down the outcome? It's just common sense but these days COMMON SENSE ARE NOT VERY COMMON.

    historical facts:
    1. how often gov't programs come in on budget or under budget? LOL
    2. health care costs going are up in every countries, are americans more healthier to make obama health bill an exception?
    3. The 30 million of uninsured americans, are they a group whos health is better than the insured americans?? Personally, I think this group has the worst health.

    Predicting obama's health bill going over budget is a more certain thing than Pemuda's predicting LCW losing in majors. Predicting obama health bill going to reduce the budget deficit is more off base than Xball calling LCW to win at majors.:)

    (PS: it's second time i gave credit to xball)
     
    #65 cooler, Mar 26, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  6. silentheart

    silentheart Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    1) Enron Accounting. How can you spend more money in the future and reduce deficit? Double count of income. What Owebama and DamACrap are saying that our deficit will be $X amount in the future without this bad bill. With this bad bill, we will have $(X-y) deficit at the end of 10 year (given that y is a positive number). So when the 10 yr comes, our deficit is actually $(X+Z) while Z is a large positive number. DamACrap will then say, it would be a much larger deficit (ie $X+y+Z) if we did not pass the bad bill. BullSh*t OweMama already used it on the unemployment situation.
    2) You ask for an example of US gov entitlement program actually worked? I will give you 2 examples that does not work. Social Sec and Medicare.
    3) Even actuaries from government say after 10 year, this bill will create $200+ in additional spending. Of course, BO only use numbers going his way. Just like any politician.

    This is a very good report on the con of the current bill. I think it is a very good prediction of what is going to happen.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...e-of-the-Senate-Health-Bill-Means-for-America
     
  7. OneToughBirdie

    OneToughBirdie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,923
    Likes Received:
    80
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    icy cold place
    What you wrote above, you have the makings of a politician or if you are one now. All this 'winnng side' losing side' 'only this' only that' are mumble jumble:rolleyes: Agree healthcare is only one budget component but I can guarantee you it will become the big elephant in no time. I am glad Canada has Medicare and I wish all those less fortunate to have too but the rate it is going is NOT sustainable, it will crash:rolleyes:.
    This thread and the previously banned one have been going on for a long time and all along you advocate/support Medicare, this is the first time, I heard you touch on cost/deficit. OB has this exciting dream to introducing more spending (who do not love spending, saving/deficits/debts are taboo and boring legacy afterall), yet has no idea how to balance the book, simply pass the buck to those unborn or those too young to vote who has the blessing to inherit this wonderful debt;) US$12.7 current debt and rising makes my head spin, even though Math is my best paper, I still could not fathom the number of zeroes or how the US is ever going to pay it of. It is like a wealth transfer to CHN and Japan forever, only saving grace for now is the interest is low. By the time "lets see what will happen"" happens, I am afraid it is too late, the debt enters the point of no return and game over. Unfortunately, when the US sneeze, we catch the cold, and that really worries me, otherwise, I am like you, talk the talk and give a flying leap to US debt.
     
    #67 OneToughBirdie, Mar 26, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  8. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    12
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    The government can because the Government is the Candyman Can

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0
    ____________________________________________________________

    'Cash for refrigerators' kick-starts appliance sales
    by Rob Lever Rob Lever Fri Mar 26, 12:10 pm ET
    WASHINGTON (AFP) – Americans are lining up to snap up rebates for "cash for refrigerators" and "dollars for dishwashers," as part of a government program aimed at both economic stimulus and reduced emissions.

    The effort, modeled after the "cash for clunkers" auto trade-in program, includes nearly 300 million dollars to encourage consumers to dump older appliances in favor of newer, energy-efficient models.

    US officials say the effort, a small part of the nearly 800-billion-dollar economic stimulus measure enacted last year, will help reduce the US carbon footprint because of the heavy electrical consumption of big appliances, and at the same time pump money into the economy that can create jobs.

    One one level, the program, which is being administered by individual states, appears to be succeeding in jump-starting sales.

    In Iowa, which offered rebates up to 500 dollars on refrigerators, washing machines and dishwashers, the 2.7 million dollars in federal funds was exhausted in less than a day by stampeding consumersMinnesota needed less than three days to give out five million dollars in appliance rebates.. Duhhhhhh

    In Ohio, which launched its program Friday with 10.5 million dollars, the state agency administering it said it "anticipates the rebates will be exhausted in a few weeks."

    As of this week, New York still had 5.6 million dollars remaining from its 18.7 million dollars even though some waited in line on the opening weekend.

    "It's been a boon to consumers and retailers," said Francis Murray of the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority.

    The biggest of the state programs will be launched in California April 22, with 35.2 million dollars. And more states will be launching rebate programs in the coming months.

    To qualify for rebates, consumers must buy appliances which meet energy standards set by the federal government and are up to 30 percent more efficient than existing models. Some states are offering extra rebates if consumers recycle old appliances.

    Some see the program as a natural follow-up to the "clunkers" program, which boosted new car sales, and in turn lifted auto production and jobs to help pull the US economy out of its slump.

    Economist Ryan Sweet at Moody's Economy.com said the appliance program probably had an impact on sales and orders for durable goods, big-ticket items expected to last at least three years that are critical to the manufacturing sector.

    "Eight states launched rebate programs last month, which would help explain some of the strength in sales at both electronic and building material stores," he said.

    "This also argues for strong gains in subsequent months and lends some upside risk to our forecast for real durables spending."

    Joel Naroff at Naroff Economic Advisors said that while the clunkers program appeared to have a positive economic impact, the effect of the appliance program may be far less. He said the impact may be reduced even more for appliances made outside the United States.

    "On a 600 dollar washing machine, the retailer may make 100 dollars but the manufacturer will make 300 dollars," he said. "But if the manufacturer is on the other side of the world, that's 300 dollars that goes out of the economy."

    University of Delaware economists Burton Abrams and George Parsons argue that both the clunkers and appliance programs are lemons for taxpayers, mainly because they are destroying otherwise productive assets.

    The auto program, the economists say the societal loss was as much as 2,250 dollars per vehicle because "the value of resources used exceeded the value of resources created. In effect, we shrank the economic pie to improve the conditions of some workers and perhaps some sectors other than labor."

    For appliances, they say the overall loss is more modest, at six dollars for every 100 dollars invested.

    "In essence, the taxpayers... are putting 100 dollars into the pot on behalf of society as a whole," they concluded. "Society gets back nine dollars in environmental benefits. People who buy refrigerators, on average, get 85 dollars in value from the cash transfer. The other six dollars is lost to everyone."
     
    #68 cooler, Mar 26, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  9. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    Is it gonna be free???..

    - Hmm, can someone help me figure out how “c” rhymes with “cos”???:confused::p...we’re a good match in what way??..:confused:

    - I’ve already chimed out repeated times (incl. in the “What don’t you like about your healthcare system?” thread) that there’s a need to reform the current U.S. health care system, but gotta do it “the right way”. This is not the “right way” but at the very least it was a forced start.
    As for Prez BO promising to reform this HC bill during election, well, he’s promised so many things, yet this is the only one so far he’s gotten through. U.S. people expected some kind of reform, but the majority of them didn’t expect this kind of bill or reform to pass (some wanted some kind of reform, some wanted a major reform, some wanted no reform, but the majority of people are not in favor of this bill). Also, BO’s original plan of putting a single-payer system didn’t even make it as this bill essentially turns out to be only 50% or even less of what he really wanted.
    As for the “process or how will he do it once elected”, well, he barked during the campaign that the old way of doing partisan politics will go away. Yet, here we have basically a partisan, one-sided policy that will affect everyone heavily (except for the freaking politicians & high ranking staffers, esp. those who voted in favor of the bill). What does that tell you?..

    - Yes, the U.S. caused the current financial crisis (sub-prime). No doubt. I won’t go much further (but we might revisit again in this thread later), but if you read through the “the sky is falling again” thread, you’ll find out the reasons why.

    - A question: If indeed “people now are going to die as we speak just because s/he doesn’t have insurance coverage”, and Prez BO kept on yelling during his many campaigns that there are many people who need health care and insurance **NOW**, then why do we have to wait 3-4 yrs to finally receive all the so called insurance benefits/coverage?..or is there something else behind this?..:confused:

    - *sigh*..in the constitution, if one reads that particular section, it basically means, every citizen of the U.S. has the inalienable “right to life”. Meaning, that “right to life” has already been given. There was no mention of the govt. giving life or even “free” healthcare. The govt. only protects that individual’s right to his or her own life. That’s the difference.
    That article, I gave, essentially explains why healthcare is a need not a right.
    And if one wants to relate that portion of that constitution to having a government providing a health care to everyone, then let's be consistent. How about giving a free house/shelter or free food or free car insurance coverage or even a free Life Insurance coverage to everyone??..:confused:

    This is America we’re talking about. A country founded and based on individual freedom and taking care of him/herself, first, then helping his/her own fellow citizens out of charity/willingness to give, not "forced". Not a country based on govt. “forcing” its citizens to do this or that for the other fellow citizens by taxation to the max. And Americans definitely don’t like to pay a lot of tax. What reg. folks don't know is that, hardworking regular and even poor people will be taxed through this bill. If someone feels otherwise, then one can move to another country which offers free govt. health care or subsidy.
     
    #69 ctjcad, Mar 26, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  10. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    Y asks why to Mr. t.

    ..the reasons have already mentioned in the “What don’t you like about your healthcare system?” thread. OTB and Cheung already explained part of it also.
    Amongst others: Big Pharma overcharging the U.S. consumers to cover the cheaper prices overseas; R&D in the U.S. sold cheaper overseas.

    Another reason is the tax code. The govt. needs to fix the tax code. There’s no reason they couldn’t fix the tax code now. As long as the tax code continues to encourage people to over-consume healthcare, encourage doctors not to compete w/each other, encourage hospitals not to compete w/each other, the cost will continue to sky rocket. But now with this bill passing, the blame will not be on the insurance companies any longer but will be on the government.

    * Cheung: Fair analysis and sorry to steal the thunder from your "What don't you like about your healthcare system?" thread.:p
    Like already mentioned, the U.S. already has somekind of access to healthcare (Medicare & Medicaid). It's not as if we've never had one. This will just increase the bureaucratic aspect of getting a healthcare. However, not many of those govt. hc programs are popular, even with the poor or lower income folks. And now with this bill, 16 million or half of those 32 million supposedly going to be insured folks will be put on that unpopular Medicaid program. Let's see how long they'll stay on that.
    Also, sure, more people will get some coverage but in the long run this will get worse (financially). The quality? It will not get better as rationing is gonna happen. Not gonna get better. Just look at the other publicly funded programs that's already bankrupt (Medicare and Social Security). When they started, it was still small. But not anymore.
    Only way to sustain it is to 1)raise the tax like the other countries do and lower the quality of lifestyle for Americans or 2)reduce the benefits (which'll lead to lower quality of care). It's either one, no other choice.
    * OTB: you punched it right through the roof w/your takes.;)
     
    #70 ctjcad, Mar 26, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  11. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    Kid me not??..

    - Huh? You just realized that or pretending to know that this has been one of the most contentious issues in the U.S. for a long time? Why the surprise? Where have you been? I definitely don’t advocate such behaviors or actions, but this type of backlash has happened before with past legislative decisions. Even all lawmakers receive threats or insults from time to time, so what’s the big deal? (Unless one is a citizen of China??)
    - Sometimes I feel I’ve been threatened in this forum. Does that mean BC is a wild lawless entity where everything and anything goes? Of course not.
    - Also, if what you read is just a start, imagine in 20-30-40 yrs time when everything is fully implemented. Will there be even harsher backlash from the population?..
    - U.S. will only have some sort of universal health care (most likely a 50-50 system like French or Germany). As a matter of fact, as already mentioned, it already has some sort of socialized health care (in the form of Medicare, Medicaid). This is just letting the govt. take over even more what’s already been there as they “think” they know what to do…..........yeah, right?!?!..
    - Yes, this is the U.S., land of the free (hopefully it’s still is) where people can express everything and anything they want, up to a certain point. Even the law gives them that right.
    - Everyone (both on the left and right side of the aisles) knows the current U.S. health care system can’t be sustained over the long run. This is not new news. This reform has been tried for many decades (from Prez Theodore Roosevelt to Prez BO). Turn the tide towards what?..
    - It’s not just presidents but the lawmakers themselves who are afraid to be kicked out of office. That’s why it’s taken so long to have this kind of bill passed because of the political ramification & consequences. The only ones who control everything is the Congress, not the Prez. And behind them are all the powerful special interest groups, lobbyists, big companies etc.
    And yes, there were 34 Dems who voted against this bill. Are they lemmings also? No! All of those who voted against this bill basically represent their constituents, which is what they're supposed to do. But unfortunately, some of those who voted yes on this bill, didn’t listen to their constituents (who didn’t want this bill to pass). But they did so out of a special promise (and who knows what other backroom deals) from the president himself. That’s why you read all those threats & insults against those politicians who voted for it. If the politicians don’t listen to the people and instead lie, then what is the people supposed to do??..
    Some even say, by passing this bill, those politicians, who voted for it, have committed political suicide…we'll see..
    - Besides those 4 major players who’ve impacted the costs of health care, there are also the supposedly “evil” health insurance companies (the supposed middle man in all this), which Prez BO had been targeting. Guess what, Prez BO is now happily swimming with them as well as the big drug makers. Ooopss..
    - Nice try and those are good suggestions. But reality is?
    What is REAL health care reform? It is making laws that require US pharma companies to sell drugs in the US for less than you can get them in Canada! Reducing the costs by stopping the health care providers from raising rates above inflation level! Making health care NON_PROFIT (which this bill doesn not enforce)! That is health care reform!
    And the Congress should be “forced” to participate, out of **their** pockets, and **not** taxpayer pockets, in any health care reform. But guess what, the Big Pharma companies just gave Prez BO and those who voted for this bill a big fat check and in return, the Big Pharma (as well as the insurance providers) companies got an even fatter check.
    - Again, everything had already been discussed in the “What don’t you like about your healthcare system?” thread.
    ..i can almost bet my house the deficit will grow even higher and probably faster over time, unless, the right politicians and laws or amendments are put in place or replace/amend what’s in the current bill.
    The only way to reduce the budget deficit is to either raise the tax even higher or reduce the benefit (both, of course, are not popular, but that’s what one gets for allowing govt. to control everything). So, yes, it will still be a battle.

    You fix one thing, but don't fix the real issue/cause of the rising cost. At the end, the 1 thing you fixed will get even worse.

    The winning side can only claim that they passed this bill to start off, I’d give them that. But the losing side’s argument will be proven even more correct at the end, but unfortunately it was totally shunned in this legislative process. Prez BO and those who voted for it are ignoring that fact. Why? Because to do this for political expediency.
    As I already mentioned, it will take the people, who have more power and control, and the politicians’ political will to make this bill better. If given a chance, I really hope those politicians will fix this bill. This fall (Nov.), they will have their chance..:cool:
     
    #71 ctjcad, Mar 26, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  12. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    12
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    hey chris, are u making a run at my post count:confused::eek::D:p
     
  13. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    Guess who's behind all this........the IRS!!..and the Prez knows it..

    ..face it folks, this is nothing more than a tax bill disguised in the form of a Health Care Reform Plan...is this really about health & care??..of course the prez won't tell that..

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...er&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning+Bell
    ==========================================================
    16,500 more IRS agents needed to enforce Obamacare
    By: J.P. Freire
    Associate Commentary Editor
    03/18/10 4:32 PM EDT
    New tax mandates and penalties included in Obamacare will cause the greatest expansion of the Internal Revenue Service since World War II, according to a release from Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas.

    A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend. ...

    Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill. In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.

    Americans for Tax Reform has a good breakdown of the bill by the numbers.

    Isn't it reassuring that at a time of recession, government will do what's necessary to ensure its growth?
    Isn't it comforting to know that despite the fact we'll likely have a massive shortage of doctors in America once this thing passes, we'll have an abundance of tax-collecting IRS agents?
     
  14. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    Check out the real deal behind all this..

    ..master silentheart stole the thunder with his other link..anyway, this is the real deal...

    According to a new analysis from Americans for Tax Reform, over the course of a decade, the reconciliation bill will add an estimated $52.3 billion in new taxes. These taxes will be levied against employers, the sick, low-income and moderate-income workers, and just about everyone else, regardless of income.....now, i wonder who'll be feeling the pain..

    [​IMG]
     
  15. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    An outlook of the new HC bill already foreseen??..

    ..yes, he calls himself a republican but in reality he's more of a progressive or liberal..

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_el_pr/us_romney_health_care
    ===========================================================
    "We are up to here with Republicans not being conservative enough," Dr. Sharon Sikora, a local dentist, said as she raised her hand over her head. "And with all due respect, governor, your health care in Massachusetts is not the be-all and end-all, and there are significant problems with that, and I wouldn't embrace that today, either."

    Like the new federal law, the Massachusetts plan requires individuals to buy health insurance and imposes tax penalties on those who don't. Both plans penalize small businesses above a certain size that don't provide coverage to their employees. And both rely on new taxes for some of their financing.

    Massachusetts has succeeded in raising the amount of insured residents to 97 percent, but the cost has strained the state treasury. Powers' agency reported that 68 percent of the 407,000 who are newly insured got a partial or full subsidy for their coverage.
     
  16. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    AT&T to take a $1 Billion dollar loss..

    Now from AT&T: They report that they are expecting to take a $1-Billion dollar loss due to the health control bill. Job losses will surely follow…

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_at_t_health_care
    ===========================================================
    AT&T will take $1B non-cash charge for health care
    AP – In this March 23, 2010 photo,
    By BARBARA ORTUTAY, AP Technology Writer Barbara Ortutay, Ap Technology Writer – 20 mins ago
    NEW YORK – AT&T Inc. will take a $1 billion non-cash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and may cut benefits it offers to current and retired workers.

    The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, AK Steel Corp., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Barack Obama signed Tuesday will raise their expenses. On Friday, 3M Co. said it will also take a charge of $85 million to $90 million.

    All five are smaller than AT&T, and their combined charges are less than half of the $1 billion that AT&T is planning. The $1 billion is a third of AT&T's most recent quarterly earnings. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company earned $3 billion on revenue of $30.9 billion.

    AT&T said Friday that the charge reflects changes to how Medicare subsidies are taxed. Companies say the health care overhaul will require them to start paying taxes next year on a subsidy they receive for retiree drug coverage.

    White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that the tax law closed a loophole.

    Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits — including the subsidies — from their taxable income.

    The new law allows companies to only deduct the 72 percent they spent.

    AT&T also said Friday that it is looking into changing the health care benefits it offers because of the new law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.

    Changes to benefits are unlikely to take effect immediately. Rather, the issue would most likely come up as part of contract negotiations between the company and unions representing its employees and retirees. AT&T is the largest private employer of union workers in the U.S.

    Candice Johnson, spokeswoman for the Communications Workers of America, which represents more than 160,000 AT&T workers, said these employees have contracts in place until 2012. An agreement covering retirees also runs through 2012.

    AT&T rival Verizon Communications Inc. was among 10 companies that sent a letter to congressional leaders in December warning that their costs would increase with the health care changes. Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis said the company had no comment.

    Also on Friday, Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said they are asking the CEOs of Caterpillar, Verizon, Deere and others to testify at an April 21 House subcommittee hearing on claims that the health care law could hurt their ability to provide health insurance to workers.

    Shares in AT&T, which is based in Dallas, climbed 9 cents to close Friday at $26.24.
     
  17. Yoppy

    Yoppy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sydney
    So Chris, how you think the health care reform should look like? If you dont have an alternative you will sound like tipping towards $$$ than lives. At the moment you are only outlining the negative impact of the new bill without giving any alternative solution as to how should your pres should deliver. What is the "right way"?

    We dont think that we are forced to pay Medicare levy on our tax. This is something that as a nation Australians willing to do out of conscince that if we dont have tax on health care in place the results will be ugly. Going through carity or other org (as you suggested) are simply wont work, the scale of health care is too big for them to handle.

    If you dont think that "a right to life" is an obligation for govt to provide a public health care, security, etc, then what? What do you mean by "that “right to life” has already been given" and "The govt. only protects that individual’s right to his or her own life."?

    You mentioned that some form of public health care is needed but just dont agree with pres BO the way its done. So in a sense you also agree on the declaration of independent on "a right to life", no? I know its not easy to admit that only after hundreds of years that Americans can fullfil her own declaration of independent. But its not uncommon, many countries around the world like INA for example is still lingering and could not deliver "Proklamasi Kemerdekaan"

    If you think that American spirit of individuality is like "A country founded and based on individual freedom" will work, then why there are so many Police out in the street? Why there are 1 in 10 Americans are now in jail? The same can be said as for health care is concern, why health results are so poor? You have to have a governing bodies to look at all these issue, not on individual freedom, but on a broader aspect. You cant rely only on guns at home for people to have their own security, you have to have a police force that is publicly funded to provide security. Same can be said to health issue.
     
  18. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    Let me ask all Americans here : are you prepared to have a look at other developed countries' health care system and learn something about them?
    Two very vital life and death items are costs and quality of life like life expectancy and infant mortality, and these are what shame America now.
     
  19. OneToughBirdie

    OneToughBirdie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,923
    Likes Received:
    80
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    icy cold place
    I agree 100% with you two on the 'right to live', 'quality of life' and 'govt role in looking after the health of her citizens', free Medicare and all...Sure congress or rather many prez have fu*ked up bigtime in accumulating this huge US$12.7T debt and escalating by US$4.03B daily. If this debt does not exists, the US$800B annual interest on this debt can buy a lot of health care, improving Americans life than to send over to CHN and Japan as interest. This deficit actually makes carbon tax small potato.
    So, with the deficit this year at US$1.8T, more will be added to the debt...so agreeing with you both on Medicare, what component of the budget is gonna get cut or simply raise taxes to pay for this. Raising tax will be a economic disaster at this time as the US has an unemployment problem...you both should be honest enough to say it as is that this deficit and debt, which is simply passing onto the next generations, is not sustainable, and if US goes the way of Greece, forget about free Medicare, US will default and implode. Yes, nothing is free, Medicare is about $$$, deficit financing by borrowing with no plan on how/when to pay it back is just plainly stupidity. Talking about asking all Americans on healthcare...better ask those who haven't been born or too young to vote what they think of the montrous debt that they are going to pay for it. You know the answer to that one.
     
  20. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    The Congressional Budget Office says the new health care bill would cut the federal deficit by US$138 billion in the next decade and reduce the shortfall further in the next 10 years.
    Opponents of the bill disagree. However, being in the opposition with no stewardship responsibilty all their talk carries no real weight. With a 2-party system, when one party sees white the other party automatically sees black. They are like 2 big gangs, forever fighting over turf.
    Let us see if the governing party can reduce the deficit the new bill promises.
    It is premature to say otherwise.
     

Share This Page