Companies will be bullied if they make note of Obamacare’s costs. But, if they don’t honestly report those costs, aren’t they in trouble with the SEC and in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley law, requiring that financial reports of companies accurately show their financial liabilities? Am I missing something?
I think this forces the Dem’s to consider an acceleration of their health care time table or to make more palatably economic revisions. By announcing these write downs and cuts to benefits now, it leaves folks hanging until 2014 when supposedly the new Health Care reality comes to full fruition. Enrollment for new benefits occurs at most companies starting each November. Most folks will be furious when they see what the Dem’s have done. The elections are in November hence these cuts will hang like an exploding turkey turd over the election process in 2010!!! These companies are doing their own version of Clove Pliven on the Dems and the Health Care process before the system can be geared up by 2014. If it wasn’t these companies’ intent it will certainly be the effect. Wait until all the RN’s I work with find out what the reduction of the Flex Spend health account limits are going to do to their taxes!
No wonder Waxman is livid, it jams up the election messages planned by them for 2010!
But, if they don’t honestly report those costs, aren’t they in trouble with the SEC and in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley law, requiring that financial reports of companies accurately show their financial liabilities!
you are correct, sir!
You are right, but they need not run to the press with the expenses. If we had some good journalists still, they wouldn’t have to release it to the press. The REAL journalists would dig it up for themselves. One problem, no two problems with this. One, they won’t dig up a story that might prove negative for Obama. Two, most journalists don’t know how to read financial statements with their journalism degrees.
I don't know the legislative language specifically verbatim, but companies are required to report to the SEC any adverse change in their finances that materially affect shareholder wealth ...
The only thing you are missing is that the impossibility to comply is fully intentional. Ayn Rand described the situation well:
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We *want* them broken. You’d better get it straight That it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against? then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Ch. III, “White Blackmail”