Democrats Admit Companies Were Correct In Warning Of Major Losses Due To ObamaCare

Flopping Aces ^ | 04-27-10 | Curt

[Starman417]

You recall Waxman's outrage over large companies, such as AT&T, informing its shareholders that they will be taking large hits due to ObamaCare:

After the passage of the health care reform bill, some public corporations announced the bill would have adverse affects on how they do business. Deere & Co. announced that it would cost them an additional $150M in expenses, Caterpillar stated in an SEC filing they would earn $100M less in 2010, Verizon sent emails to employees informing them of their expected costs to increase in the short term, and AT&T filed with the SEC that they expect a $1B hit because of the new law.

Now, the the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is calling on the "senior company officials" of each of those companies, and others, to come to D.C. and explain / prove their claims. The stated purpose of this meeting is, "to ensure that the [health care] law is implemented effectively and does not have unintended consequences."

Waxman eventually canceled those hearings and now we know why. The companies were right:

When major companies declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings, Democrats were skeptical. But after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results.

~~~

In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, “The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April.”

Read more at floppingaces.net...

[musicman]

"According to Pelosi all we needed to do was pass it in to law so we could see what was in it."

[Tzimisce]

Okay we lied.

We promised to tell the truth from now on. :)

[sportutegrl]

Businesses were not taxed on money they spent to provide prescription drug coverage to retired employees. How is that a subsidy? This 'subsidy' kept the retired employees covered by their employer instead of medicare part D, saving the government money.

Or, to put it another way, Obama care will tax something that is not now taxed.

[maddogconservative]

No you are confused.

Before obamacare, and after the bushcare the system was the following:

1) The American Taxpayer gave companies a 28% subsidy on the cost of their retirees’ plan.
2) The Company could deduct the entire cost of the plan from their taxes.

Obamacare is taxing the subsidy. If we are going to tax unemployment benefits, if we are going to tax Social Security benefits, then by God we should tax a subsidy to employers.

And by an accounting quirk, when a company lose a perpetual income stream, they have to write it off immediately. It doesn’t really effect the company.

For example -
Caterpillar is at a 52 week high and they took a 90 million hit with the loss of your tax dollars.

[chiefqc]

How many time does mac daddy lie?

[1035rep]

Bookmark

[screaminsunshine]

The Socialist Insaneatics have got to GO!Just look at the Insurance insanity. I have been trying to figure it out and the more I learn the worse it appears. It is simply AWFUL!

[screaminsunshine]

It will be mandated at 9.5% of low earners incomes. Premiums over that will be subsidized by a tax credit. HAHAHAHAH!

[lowbridge]

bump

[DBeers]

The “losses” were a loss of a taxpayer subsidy. Having the CEO’s complain about the loss would have sounded like a unemployed person complaining about their unemployment insurance running out.

What in the hell are you talking about here? Please explain your logic?

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Ask your local newspapes and TV/Radio stations to cover this story, or if they don’t/won’t, ask why?

Letters to the editor linking to this site would also be useful to readers.

Same for calling-in to talk radio shows.

Spread the word, even if it just means emailing it to people, esp. those in the media.

[DBeers]

Ozero is a funny fool as are all the socialistas that pretend they are not spineless whimpering self defeatists... eh maddog?

[ConservativeMind]

Noseman and the rest are all idiots who have never actually worked a day in their lives.

Heck, Noseman didn’t even officially live in the area he represents, as I remember. He rented a room in the basement of someone’s house in that district to meet the requirements.

How and why anyone would elect such a piece of human garbage is beyond me, but I look forward to the day he is thrown in jail.

[IamConservative]

So, we are now supposed to believe they *just now* realize they were lying. Ole “Taking Care of Business” never blessed a trail with a pile of cookies that big..

Freeper obscure reference point on “Taking Care of Business”..

[maddogconservative]

Whenever you get a tax break, the rest of the taxpayers have to make up the difference. Renters subsidize homeowners. Childless couples subsidize Families, etc...

So, using simple accounting, we have the following:
1) Company A spends $100 on insurance for retirees.
2) US Taxpayer cuts a check to Company A for $28.
3) When it comes to tax time, Company A declares a tax deduction of $100 for the insurance expense. So lets assume company a made $5,000, their taxable income would be $4,900.

Now under the Obama plan, step 1&2 would remain the same, but step three would look like this.
3) Company A declares a tax deduction of $72 dollars ($100- 28, the actual amount of money they spent for the insurance). So for $5,000, their taxable income would be $4,928.

What Obama is doing is more in line with standard tax practices. If you move to change jobs you can write that expense off, but if your company reimburses you, you have to declare that income.

[DBeers]

Whenever you get a tax break, the rest of the taxpayers have to make up the difference. Renters subsidize homeowners. Childless couples subsidize Families, etc...

We are created equal. What we do thereafter as far as success is really up to each premised upon merit not "equality" of redistribution. As well, what society chooses to subsidize e.g. marriage is premised upon societal merit.

As far as tax "breaks" -I look at these 'breaks' as paying less to government -giving less of what you rightly own -this is not subsidy.

As far as making up the "difference" -the goverment is creating this health care requirement and imposing it upon the people... Much like they now try to impose themselves with a carbon tax -cap and trade. Would you use the same arguments to suggest corporations subsidized if they as well do not pay thier "fair share" to the tyrant?

Sounds alot like class warfare premised "thats not fair" moral relative socialist arguments for redistribution of wealth under the 'social justice' banner to me and I don't buy it -principle does matter...

I do not want healthcare jammed down my throat and as such do not begrudge the private comapanies that suffer under this assault on freedom with me...

The big picture you seem to miss is all the non taxpayers being subsidized with this abortion called 'reform' -what about that? What about all the insurance companies being subsidized by mandated customers -what about that? What about all the brainless leftist bureaucrats riding desks in Washington DC -what about that subsidy?

It is real simple -your suggestion as to the companies only losing tax payer subsidy is crap on its face once you concede the fact that the supposed 'need' being subsidized is imposed by government and at its core is an unamerican socialist redistribution of wealth -much like the 'need' now being touted by Ozero and his greedy tree hugging clowns of global warming...

[teeman8r]

help keep the NO in NOvember...

NO more idiots in government.
NO more stupid taxes.
NO more working for the company store.

teeman