Free healthcare costs..here we go!

AT&T will take $1B non-cash charge for health care


By BARBARA ORTUTAY, AP Technology Writer Barbara Ortutay, Ap Technology Writer – 24 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."


Doesn't sound free, if companies start dropping wages.

it's a "they say" situation, and, frankly, I expect they had two press releases ready. one saying the passage will raise costs for them, another saying it not passing would raise costs

Why does a group of five or six people need so many threads to argue about one topic?

What's the problem? They can, and probably will, move production to China. The additional unemployed here can still buy health care coverage from a government exchange while they await their new 'stimulus' job.

Nothing is free -- especially from the government...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

AT&T will take $1B non-cash charge for health care


By BARBARA ORTUTAY, AP Technology Writer Barbara Ortutay, Ap Technology Writer – 24 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."


Doesn't sound free, if companies start dropping wages.

---

Quote: "I expect they had two press releases ready."

And you're basing this on?

Incidentally, shouldn't that be "I'm suspecting" or "expected"? I'd be careful labeling others "the semi-illiterati"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

it's a "they say" situation, and, frankly, I expect they had two press releases ready. one saying the passage will raise costs for them, another saying it not passing would raise costs

---

That's one of your more asinine statements.

The fed govt was providing a tax subsidy to companies who provided a prescription drug program for their retirees. The govt did that so we all wouldn't have to pay for those drugs through medicare and the subsidies were far less than it would cost the govt to provide the benefit. The health care eliminated that subsidy.

As a result, the companies have to recognize the liability of their draug program. One of three things is going to happen as a result: the companies will raise prices, the companies will reduce costs [[by cutting employees or moving abroad), or the companies will eliminate the programs [[and we will all end up paying the benefits thru Medicare, and this bill also increased the Medicare prescription program).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

Why does a group of five or six people need so many threads to argue about one topic?

---

They don't. Mods- can you make a mega-thread?

Don't forget the President got the drug companies to make a deal to close the prescription donut hole.
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/...als_plans.html

The Republicans could have done this while they were in power but they didn't. They acted as though most of were expendable. Let them eat cake. Let them pay top dollar for drugs.

This guy has a pretty good take on it, our own Mike Rogers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

"You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak" Abe Lincoln

More about that AT&T $1 billion "loss":

"This week there was an alarming report that AT&T was going to have to reduce its long-term profit estimates by about $1 billion because of the new law — or, as the House minority leader, John Boehner, put it, the newly enacted “job-killing tax increases.� The AT&T charge was for accounting purposes, which is not as much real money as currency-based theology. But still, it did sound bad.
It turned out that the $1 billion goes back to the famous 2003 Medicare prescription drug entitlement passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and paid for through their innovative pretend-it’s-not-there financing system.
In order to keep businesses from ending their drug coverage and dumping their retirees on the federal system, Congress provided a 28 percent reimbursement for the benefits. And, the companies got to deduct the entire cost of the drug plans from their taxes. Including the government subsidy.
Yes! The job-killing tax increase in the new law involves no longer allowing big corporations to take a tax deduction for spending money we gave them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/op...01collins.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diehard

More about that AT&T $1 billion "loss":

"This week there was an alarming report that AT&T was going to have to reduce its long-term profit estimates by about $1 billion because of the new law — or, as the House minority leader, John Boehner, put it, the newly enacted “job-killing tax increases.” The AT&T charge was for accounting purposes, which is not as much real money as currency-based theology. But still, it did sound bad.
It turned out that the $1 billion goes back to the famous 2003 Medicare prescription drug entitlement passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and paid for through their innovative pretend-it’s-not-there financing system.
In order to keep businesses from ending their drug coverage and dumping their retirees on the federal system, Congress provided a 28 percent reimbursement for the benefits. And, the companies got to deduct the entire cost of the drug plans from their taxes. Including the government subsidy.
Yes! The job-killing tax increase in the new law involves no longer allowing big corporations to take a tax deduction for spending money we gave them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/op...01collins.html

---

Diehard, You are essentially correct. The taxpayer has been paying for these 'subsidies' all along. Now business will have to pay the full amount so that the numbers look better on the cost of the health care side of the equation. Remember, this is supposed to save $1.2T over 20 years especially if companies and states pay for some of the costs. Companies, by law, are forced to tell employees about such changes so now Boeing is also going to have to take some charges. It isn't a huge problem to these corporations though because they can just move operations to China to avoid such charges. It was bold of Boeing to make the same announcement because the Boeing CEO could also be asked to sit and look up at Rep. Waxman playing the Grand Inquisitor and , worse yet, listen to him scold them for being forthright like the CEO's of AT&T and John Deere.

it could be the health care bill is just another step from washington to sell out our country to china. we may as well hand them the keys to the white house now, and stop screwing around doing it bit by bit....

Quote:

---

Why does a group of five or six people need so many threads to argue about one topic?

---

because it's a big FKN deal!

Maybe they get paid a bonus to start threads.

Exactly... and we have not seen the full ramification and outworkings of "...what's in the bill"... But at a gut level many Americans, big and start-up business are concerned -- not just the so-called tea-party steepers, "wing-nut" jobs and Palin and or Beck devotees...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papasito

because it's a big FKN deal!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Exactly... and we have not seen the full ramification and outworkings of "...what's in the bill"... But at a gut level many Americans, big and start-up business are concerned -- not just the so-called tea-party steepers, "wing-nut" jobs and Palin and or Beck devotees...

---

My biggest concern is, while the intentions were good and the overhaul was needed, what will be the unintended consequences? What happens when the big players figure out the just-barely-legal loopholes? Will the insurers use every lobbyist, lawyer and dirty trick they can find to keep screwing the people they're supposed to serve? Will there still be people who "work the system" and muck things up for everyone?

Quote: "What happens when the big players figure out the just-barely-legal loopholes? Will the insurers use every lobbyist, lawyer and dirty trick they can find to keep screwing the people they're supposed to serve? Will there still be people who "work the system" and muck things up for everyone?"

Does a bear shit in the woods?