Healthcare reform

[Cknolls]

So this week corporations started restating earnings estimates based on the new healthcare bill enacted. And now the rat Waxman is doing what he does best, holding a hearing to grandstand and try to make these ceo's look like the bad guys. This isn't how they thought it would play out. Reform was supposed to lower costs. LMAO!!! So far I believe we are close to 1.5 billion dollars and counting. Who would have thought, companies are not going to eat these costs, Medicare recipients will.

[southsider2k5]

So this week corporations started restating earnings estimates based on the new healthcare bill enacted. And now the rat Waxman is doing what he does best, holding a hearing to grandstand and try to make these ceo's look like the bad guys. This isn't how they thought it would play out. Reform was supposed to lower costs. LMAO!!! So far I believe we are close to 1.5 billion dollars and counting. Who would have thought, companies are not going to eat these costs, Medicare recipients will.

 

ATT is writing of a cool billion by itself. I can't imagine that is good for hiring.

[kapkomet]

The choice now is pay out your ass for decent insurance, pay the same for heavily rationed costs and a ton higher out of pocket, or get dropped, and buy it yourself for a billion more because "you're prexisting". We are going through negotiations right now (our enrollment reset date is Jul 1) and I can tell you now it's f***ing UGLY price wise for the same coverage.

[bmags]

I'm glad kap finally recognizes the state of things with the status quo.

[NorthSideSox72]

ATT is writing of a cool billion by itself. I can't imagine that is good for hiring.

If we're going to bash the cost side of this, then let's at least be honest. The charge-off isn't due to increase costs of health care - its closing a sort of strange loophole in previous law that allow companies to get a tax-free federal subsidy for Medicare retiree costs AND still take that amount as part of a tax DEDUCTION. I mean, come on - taking a tax free income stream, turning it out the door to retirees, then taking the deduction for those costs? That's completely bogus.

 

So yes, companies will take charges due to this, and yes, that will have a negative effect on those companies. But its also a matter of getting a corporate tax rule back to something at least resembling fairness. No individual tax payer can get a way with getting a federal grant, spending it, and then deducting it.

 

[Texsox]

If we're going to bash the cost side of this, then let's at least be honest. The charge-off isn't due to increase costs of health care - its closing a sort of strange loophole in previous law that allow companies to get a tax-free federal subsidy for Medicare retiree costs AND still take that amount as part of a tax DEDUCTION. I mean, come on - taking a tax free income stream, turning it out the door to retirees, then taking the deduction for those costs? That's completely bogus.

 

So yes, companies will take charges due to this, and yes, that will have a negative effect on those companies. But its also a matter of getting a corporate tax rule back to something at least resembling fairness. No individual tax payer can get a way with getting a federal grant, spending it, and then deducting it.

 

Everyone will forget this post and remember the ones that came before. Mostly because there were more !!!!.

[southsider2k5]

If we're going to bash the cost side of this, then let's at least be honest. The charge-off isn't due to increase costs of health care - its closing a sort of strange loophole in previous law that allow companies to get a tax-free federal subsidy for Medicare retiree costs AND still take that amount as part of a tax DEDUCTION. I mean, come on - taking a tax free income stream, turning it out the door to retirees, then taking the deduction for those costs? That's completely bogus.

 

So yes, companies will take charges due to this, and yes, that will have a negative effect on those companies. But its also a matter of getting a corporate tax rule back to something at least resembling fairness. No individual tax payer can get a way with getting a federal grant, spending it, and then deducting it.

 

The funny part is many of the "savings" in the health care bill, are this exact kind of accounting.

[Texsox]

The funny part is many of the "savings" in the health care bill, are this exact kind of accounting.

 

So some of the "savings" are actually from stopping some tax breaks from companies, which in effect results in higher taxes paid by corporations?

[southsider2k5]

So some of the "savings" are actually from stopping some tax breaks from companies, which in effect results in higher taxes paid by corporations?

 

No, accounting tricks, which the federal government is exempt from being subject to the rules on.

[StrangeSox]

NSS's post reads to me that they're closing accounting loopholes that amounted to large tax breaks for companies and that's why they're writing profit down.

[Balta1701]

Some have asserted that the individual mandate penalties under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are lower than those imposed in Massachusetts. If that were the case then it would be one reason why one couldn’t generalize the experience in Massachusetts where guaranteed issue exists and near-universal coverage has been achieved with low penalties. If ACA penalties are lower than Massachusetts’ penalties then there is reason for concern that individuals might game the system–buying coverage only when sick, paying the low penalty when coverage isn’t needed–more than they appear to in Massachusetts.

 

So, are ACA penalties lower than those in Massachusetts? This is an empirical question, and I can answer it. The details are below, but to cut to the chase, the ACA penalty will be $674 for an average U.S. resident while the Massachusetts penalty would be $537 on average. That doesn’t mean the ACA penalty is higher for everyone. About 40% of the population would have a higher penalty under Massachusetts rules than under ACA rules. However, nearly half of those who would have a higher Massachusetts than ACA penalty are exempt from ACA penalties due to low income. Many such individuals are eligible for premium and cost sharing subsidies under ACA. Thus, the incentive for gaming is lower for this subset.

 

So, I don’t think it is fair to say the ACA penalties are lower than Massachusetts’ penalties. On average they’re higher, and they’re higher for 60% of of the population. If gaming is low in Massachusetts we cannot expect it to be higher under ACA based on a penalty-size argument. Hence, ACA penalties are not too low. However, the U.S. population may differ from the Massachusetts population, and other details of ACA differ from health reform in Massachusetts. For these reasons, gaming may still be an issue despite the evidence on penalty size. Keep reading if you want the details.

Link

[Balta1701]

"Welcome to the club of states who don't turn their back on the sick and the poor," Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. health care overhaul signed by President Barack Obama last week.

 

From the European perspective, he said, "when we look at the American debate on reforming health care, it's difficult to believe."

 

"The very fact that there should have been such a violent debate simply on the fact that the poorest of Americans should not be left out in the streets without a cent to look after them ... is something astonishing to us."

 

Then to hearty applause, he added: "If you come to France and something happens to you, you won't be asked for your credit card before you're rushed to the hospital."

Koz

[kapkomet]

Koz

 

 

WTF, did Sarkozy turn into Kaperbole ™ over night or something? What a bag of bulls***.

[lostfan]

That really is how Europeans looked at the whole debate though. Every time I read a comment from a European (even a conservative one) they'd mostly be completely bewildered that things like a public option are so controversial and they'd honestly have no clue what Republicans were talking about because we'd still not even be that close to what they have.

[kapkomet]

That really is how Europeans looked at the whole debate though. Every time I read a comment from a European (even a conservative one) they'd mostly be completely bewildered that things like a public option are so controversial and they'd honestly have no clue what Republicans were talking about because we'd still not even be that close to what they have.

 

 

And again, again, again, again... why do I even bother...

 

Anyway, when people from Europe come over here and they see what system we have, they MUCH rather would have ours. ESPECIALLY if something major happens. For sniffles and s***s, Europe's great.

 

I've talked to TONS of them about it (over 50 people because of various positions I've had with international ties), and not a one would rather have their system over our (now destroyed) one.

[StrangeSox]

How many of the Europeans you talk are the ones who could afford our (now destroyed, lol) system?

[kapkomet]

How many of the Europeans you talk are the ones who could afford our (now destroyed, lol) system?

 

Every one of them. Yes, every one. But, they had choices, and they made theirs, much like the ZX millions do today.

[StrangeSox]

Thank you for making my point. They have the luxury of the financial ability to pay for our system, while millions of Americans and millions of Europeans do not.

 

No one ever denied that we have great medical services if you can afford them. Talking to a bunch of relatively well-off (compared to the impoverished) Europeans misses the point.

 

edit: It's like when people who choose to come here to have surgery is used as evidence at how awesome our medical system. It misses the entire point because its using an exception (someone who can self-finance expensive surgery) as the example.

Edited March 31, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

The fact that a few Americans buy cars made by Bugatti proves that Europeans make better cars than the U.S.

[bmags]

I've talked to a lot of people, and a lot of them hate the US medical system. It was pretty empirical analysis.

[lostfan]

Every one of them. Yes, every one. But, they had choices, and they made theirs, much like the ZX millions do today.

I don't really know what to make of this, this is like me saying the United States is a liberal country because my friends are Democrats by about a 2:1 margin.

[kapkomet]

I don't really know what to make of this, this is like me saying the United States is a liberal country because my friends are Democrats by about a 2:1 margin.

 

And Sarkozy's statement is about the same.

[lostfan]

And Sarkozy's statement is about the same.

And I was saying Sarkozy's statement looked consistent with other comments I saw from random Europeans. /shrug

[kapkomet]

And I was saying that once Europeans understand our system and not go by the spoon fed media blitz, they realize ours WAS much better.

[bmags]

And I was saying that once Europeans understand our system and not go by the spoon fed media blitz, they realize ours WAS much better.

 

I'm pretty sure they understand their own system though. And that's why in countries like Britain and France, the right parties, of which the Tories and Sarkozy are a part of, are not running platforms against it. And as a whole, Europeans know way more about our system than we theirs...

 

except of course for the .005% of rich people that travel here for surgeries and pay out of their own pocket.