Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-27-2010, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,174,808 times
Reputation: 4269

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Seems like if it applies to ALL companies that would mean it applies to ALL the competition for starters?.

That sort of means much of the cost is passed on to consumers.

Also since employers are bearing the cost wouldnt that imply that so far as that goes, less individuals would be bearing their medical expenses giving them more money to spend?

Macro economically it' matters very little if employers must pay the cost.
Pass it on to consumers? Very well said and that should tell everybody here just what will happen.

I guess you haven't seen how much AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere Co, and other large companies say this thing will cost them. Lets look at this a bit. ATT says it will cost them $1 billion and those other two nearly $50 million. I can see a sharp rise in food costs since few farm implements are produced by smaller companies. I will have to drop my land line phone and give up my internet usage if ATT is not lying. Verizon says it will cost them a ridiculous amount, also.

Get real. Do you know that the cost these companies will get hit hardest with is their insurance forever for their union employees along with their paying of prescription medicines for former union employees? I guess not but then you think that employers paying the cost is cool.

Do you see the difference in your first sentence and your last one? I was overcome at the difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2010, 11:03 AM
 
48,505 posts, read 96,596,613 times
Reputation: 18303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
During the presidential campaign this was knows as the 'McCain plan'. Or did McCain propose to tax the emplyee for the HC benefits?
McCain proposed that benefits given for insurance paid by teh employer be taxed as income like individuals paying for the same thing. Then increase the tax dedcution for all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,174,808 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
If the government stops feeding them tax-money they have two choices:

1. Pay it themselves. If they promise all these incentives to their empoyees, then why should the tax-payer pick up the tab?
I think that I don't understand what you said here for at least two reasons. Unless we go to pure socialism we will still be in capitalistic system and corporations will be able to tack the new taxes onto their prices.

Do you understand that all these goodies they are having to pay retirees come from the deals with unions that they submitted to? Surely they didn't offer these deals to their union employees without some force.

Now this makes me wonder how much we have been paying for all these years for union largesse. We know what happened with the UAW and the auto makers and how much of it was because of health insurance. The consumers got to pay the bill for the UAW workers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Florida
77,032 posts, read 47,378,297 times
Reputation: 14802
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The promise was based on the cost-sharing arrangement with the government. Obama's and the Dems' HCR bill cancels the cost-sharing arrangement, so the government gets to pay the full cost of the seniors' prescription coverage through Medicare, as originally legislated.
Maybe Bush should not have tried to run US corporations like that. It's funny how you people support and oppose the same things depending on who is in WH. I'll bet you voted for Bush even after he meddled with the HC in 2003.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,174,808 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
If the government stops feeding them tax-money they have two choices:

1. Pay it themselves. If they promise all these incentives to their empoyees, then why should the tax-payer pick up the tab?

2. Don't pay it. Don't offer the incentives, and don't pay for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2 View Post
EYOW!.. Your boss is not the answer, nor is she as powerful a Beayatch has she has psyched you into believing.

Fox Neuter is phony psycho B.S. It is not news. It is yellow journalism. Scratch that, it is yellow propaganda. Yellow as in Chicken S#it.

Nothing personal toward chickens., they being some of the best Fowl friends I got. Just do not tell my Beefy pals.

These days them Cow types got their own Beefed up lobbies too. Probably seen it..."Eat mor chikin". Well, at least dey R trying.

Change the channel. Flip to the new, or at least to the news. Shift gears. Or, does your boss lady control that also? If so, double clutch her, or learn to power shift.

With this new bill, you no longer have to stay with your boss for the threat of losing your health care coverage.

Good start huh.
Wnat kind of chickens do you associate with? Yellow chicken S***? I wonder if those fraternity boys from back in my college years who had to collect and separate the white from the black knew about or ran into any yellow, while at work.

I think that that commercial about "Eat more chikin" comes from a chicken seller not a cow seller.

You talk about power shift as if it was a much used term these days. Of course, Van Jones speaking at Power Shift, 09 is widely known by people of other than left leaning politics.

Yeah, yeah, I know what you meant by the whole thing but you did open yourself for some smart a** like me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Florida
77,032 posts, read 47,378,297 times
Reputation: 14802
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Do you understand that all these goodies they are having to pay retirees come from the deals with unions that they submitted to? Surely they didn't offer these deals to their union employees without some force.

Now this makes me wonder how much we have been paying for all these years for union largesse. We know what happened with the UAW and the auto makers and how much of it was because of health insurance. The consumers got to pay the bill for the UAW workers.
We, the tax payer, have been paying for union programs because Bush promised the corporations that the tax-payer would be happy to pay for it. Now this subsidy is removed, and you complain. Did you support the goverment subsidizes? It's strange because one day you oppose such things and the next day you support them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,230,301 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
We, the tax payer, have been paying for union programs because Bush promised the corporations that the tax-payer would be happy to pay for it. Now this subsidy is removed, and you complain. Did you support the goverment subsidizes? It's strange because one day you oppose such things and the next day you support them.
It's more than union programs. I pointed out earlier (or maybe in the AT&T thread) that IBM also gets this and they are non-union. I think you honed in on union because of AT&T but this was not limited to those union based corporations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 01:38 PM
 
Location: The Lone Star State
8,030 posts, read 9,021,295 times
Reputation: 5050
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigchuckie View Post
A medical device company in MA has already stated that the new taxes on their products will drive them overseas.
Not surprising.

Being in Texas, I wouldn't be surprised if this takes hold and doctors and companies start moving into Mexico. Call me crazy, and I know things are bad right now with the drug cartel violence there, but the main tourist areas are still mostly fine.

This could drive companies and physicians out of the US and into Mexico where they don't have tax huge burden and government all in their business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 01:53 PM
 
10,719 posts, read 20,235,984 times
Reputation: 10021
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Are you nuts?

1. "All the competition"? Keep in mind that those factories in India, Mexico, and China are not subject to the additional expenses just added to our manufacturers by Obama.

2. "Passed on to the consumers"- sure- those that survive. The rest will lose buisenss to other entities with lower costs

3. "Less individuals would be bearing medical expensens". No- you see, this was a benefit provided by the feds to get retirees from large corporations continued coverage through those companies. It was cheaper ($650 vs $1200) per enrollee to create the new plan.

Further, small buisnesses, many of which do not offer healthcare, now have a large unanticipated expense that will forces layoffs. Those over 50 employees will cut jobs to keep under the magic number of 50.


This was an insane job killing bill, crafted by the master marxist- barry the job killer.
1. You mean those AMERICAN companies that outsource that labor in India, China, and Mexico.

2. Those small companies have already been eliminated by the large multinational companies way before this healthcare bill was approved.

3. 60% of all bankruptcies are due to medical expenses. You are telling me that less bankruptcies won't lead to increased spending?

4. Sure, a company with 60 employees might cut 11 people to fit under 50 employees. A small business with 100 employees is not going to cut 51 employees or half it's work force as it will likely not be able to function. Yes, this is bad but what's worse...the hundreds of thousands of people without health insurance because the executives of these companies want to maximize profits and make millions more?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,261 posts, read 36,979,352 times
Reputation: 16380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
We, the tax payer, have been paying for union programs because Bush promised the corporations that the tax-payer would be happy to pay for it. Now this subsidy is removed, and you complain. Did you support the goverment subsidizes? It's strange because one day you oppose such things and the next day you support them.
I have no idea if we pay for unions or not, but my healthcare plan is paid mostly by my employer, and I pay the rest twice a month. There are three types of health insurance policies for me to pick from: one is a basic health insurance (mostly picked by young people in good health), a regular insurance with a yearly deductible of $750.00 for a couple. This plan covers 80% of most medical procedures, while almost all of it for others. When it covers 80%, I pay 20% of the cost. The best plan is a lot more expensive and has a higher deductible, so most people pick the standard plan (the one I have).

Now, although I am in the union, my plan will turn into Obamacare's "Cadillac" plan. The way it looks, I will have to either double my premium or the deductible. there is no way out of it. My employer will also have to pay a lot more, and if there is no money to pay for it, they will have no choice but to layoff workers.

Now, I was watching PBS last night, and according to the news panel I was watching, for the next ten years there will be a steady increase of government taxes, because there is no money to pay for Obamacare. In fact, the bill passed, but nothing has been funded. That's why it will take around four years for the program to be fully implemented. This will happen (full implementation) after the elections. There is an article at "politico" explaining everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top