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.
You didn't read what the corps are saying. The gov subsidy and deduction did NOT cover their entire cost of providing the benefit. What this HCR bill does is shift even more of the cost onto the corps, so they're saying quite simply, no thanks, and all those seniors now are added to Medicare's prescription benefits rolls.
Now you tell me... with the $500 billion cut in Medicare, how does the gov plan on funding prescription coverage for all those additional seniors?
You may be right, some of these companies may dump prescriptions benefits, but some may not. Right now, the companies are simply issuing their profit statements and since the tax deduction was on the profit side, they are taking the hit now. I don't see why we should leap to the conclusion that all of these companies are going to stop participating in the prescription drug plans. Employee benefits generally aren't a source of profit to a company, and yet companies recognize the value of offering benefits. Each company will have structured the benefits to retirees differently, so each company will have to evaluate how the tax change will affect them, but it's irrational to jump to the conclusion that all these seniors will be added to Medicare's prescription benefits rolls.
This is because they will not be receiving govt benefit which they receivd before.
Soooooo.....are the HC opponents now asking for more government subsidies. I thought the govt was going broke and we needed to save.
Some people always find something to complain about.....
AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees, who would otherwise be on a Medicare Part D plan. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.
Hey..you Dems don't want big bad companies receiving government money.
So it's done now. They won't.
But don't be upset when these retirees move over to medicare to get their drugs and ask you to subsidize them instead.
You may be right, some of these companies may dump prescriptions benefits, but some may not. Right now, the companies are simply issuing their profit statements and since the tax deduction was on the profit side, they are taking the hit now. I don't see why we should leap to the conclusion that all of these companies are going to stop participating in the prescription drug plans.
Are you joking? It will now cost them too much to keep footing the bill for seniors' prescription coverage, when those seniors are eligible for and can be added to Medicare's rolls.
Quote:
Employee benefits generally aren't a source of profit to a company, and yet companies recognize the value of offering benefits.
To a point. When it becomes too expensive, benefits are cut. Shifting the seniors into Medicare is a very attractive way to offset increasing costs because they know those seniors will be covered under Medicare instead of losing that coverage entirely.
Hey..you Dems don't want big bad companies receiving government money.
So it's done now. They won't.
But don't be upset when these retirees move over to medicare to get their drugs and ask you to subsidize them instead.
I don't think they're getting it. They still don't understand that it'll cost the gov MORE this way.
I don't think they're getting it. They still don't understand that it'll cost the gov MORE this way.
No, we understand. There's a possibility it will cost the government more, but it's just a possibility, not guaranteed.
We also understand that people who post in other threads against government bailing-out and subsidizing big business have suddenly changed their minds.
No, we understand. There's a possibility it will cost the government more, but it's just a possibility, not guaranteed.
We also understand that people who post in other threads against government bailing-out and subsidizing big business have suddenly changed their minds.
Well with a few thousand companies doing this and revenue sinking, you can be sure the possibility of this happening is pretty high.
No, we understand. There's a possibility it will cost the government more, but it's just a possibility, not guaranteed.
We also understand that people who post in other threads against government bailing-out and subsidizing big business have suddenly changed their minds.
There is a difference between a corporate tax credit that benefits people and an outright corporate bailout that taxes people.
Can you not see the difference ? Or is everything so black and white to you that there is no middle ground ?
There is a difference between a corporate tax credit that benefits people and an outright corporate bailout that taxes people.
Can you not see the difference ?
You put DE on the same bad pedestal as GS ?
The difference becomes minute when the corporate tax credit duplicates the government subsidy the corporation is already receiving. I appreciate your point of view, but the tax credit was the corporations' second dip into tax dollars, as is amply demonstrated by the $1 billion dollars that AT&T is now not able to claim as profits.
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.
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.
