AT&T Taking $1B Non-Cash Charge For Health Care

[Rockjay420]

lol, I'm happy with my current insurance of 5 bucks a week. The government fucked up everything they touch or got in bed with. I don't want them deciding my future health plans for me.

yes the government is going to decide everything for you, and the death panel is going to kill your grandma

 

[Spare-Flair]

They were never making wheel barrows of it in the first place. A sub 5 -10% GM is hardly obscene. If you think it is, go start a business and price your product/services at or below a GM of 10%.

 

[ittech]

yeah, big pharma is strangling the healthcare system and this bill will end up giving them more money for more drugs for more people

the insurance companies don't make too huge of a profit but that's not to say they don't overcompensate the executives and shareholders to bring the profits down..

As a mostly libertarian thinking person I hate to say it, but the only way to manage the costs and cover everyone is a complete government takeover of the entire health industry.

I'm talking medical schools to hospitals to insurance and biotech/pharma companies.

take over everything, try to remove profit from every section of it to benefit the taxpayers the most while still trying to provide the same level of service.

Otherwise you'd need something more free market like singapore's system, where it's made affordable for 95% of everyone.

Something in the middle is going to end up with handouts and waste or big profits and unfair practices, etc.

 

[nutzo]

The Canadian government limits the price of prescription drugs - a big reason why drugs are cheaper here. The drug companies have no choice but accept that deal but they still do business. Obviously they are still making money. Just not wheelbarrows full anymore.

Actually this is one of the reasons drugs are so high in the USA. They lose money in Canada, as well as other countries with heavy price controls, and make up for it by over charging us. If/when the US puts the same price controls in place, the companies are either going to have to raise prices in Canada, or go out of business.

You have to include the research and developement cost in the product, it costs billions to bring a new drug to market.

 

[aireyc]

As a mostly libertarian thinking person I hate to say it, but the only way to manage the costs and cover everyone is a complete government takeover of the entire health industry.

What, are you a libertarian in that you feel the individual has the right to determine who wipes their own ass?

What I find HIGHLY AMUSING across the board from the "intellectuals" in favor of any form of universal insurance is their inability to fully understand the big picture and deduce their logic down to its core. By this I am referring to relating health care with general principles of liberty and true authority. Ever consider the fact that a person owns their possessions only within the context of a society? In a world void of society, law, and communal agreement, you can't "own" anything. You merely possess it. As such, in terms of these types of policies, liberals need to recognize the distinction between things that really have a place within the context of a society and those things that bridge the gap between societal (social) and individual. For example, fire, police, defense, infrastructure, public works, etc, are all to the benefit of the society, but social security, health care, public education, etc exist only in the context of the individual. As such, people justify them within the context of the society, but logically they have no grounds whatsoever.

Think of it this way: If you're in favor of the current health care reform, you're the equivalent of a programmer writing C code compiled on PPC that you intend to run on x86. In theory the reasoning makes sense, but if you truly break the machine code down to its simplest logical form, it is incompatible with the reality that exists in our world (or in this example, x86). Assuming you support full-blown socialism, universal insurance makes sense. But you cannot say you support liberty for everyone while simultaneously supporting these types of programs. It's simply contradictory on many levels.

Obviously most people who favor it don't recognize the true distinctions, and as such they will claim otherwise, but that's merely a counter of ignorance and not of true understanding of the issues.

 

[nutzo]

As a mostly libertarian thinking person I hate to say it, but the only way to manage the costs and cover everyone is a complete government takeover of the entire health industry.

I'm talking medical schools to hospitals to insurance and biotech/pharma companies.

take over everything, try to remove profit from every section of it to benefit the taxpayers the most while still trying to provide the same level of service.

You actually believe this?

Let the government completely take over health care, and the drugs you'll have to choose from will be from the company that donated the most to congress. We'll have hospitals built in the middle of nowhere because of who is on the health care commitee. You'll have buracrates deciding how many people are allowed to go to school and what type of doctors they can be,
Do you really want the same people who brought us the TSA, the IRS, and FEMA deciding how health care works?

 

[Parmenides]

Actual doctors and nurses take home peanuts in comparison to all the money being moved around in the health care industry. That's a fact.

 

[Ponder]

The problem is the theory of insurance itself...you can not magically create money and allow everyone unlimited care. Basically they are trying to force everyone to have coverage, limiting the difference between what sick and healthy people will pay and doing nothing to fix the real issue. The end results is healthy people will have to pay more to help out the sickly.

Meanwhile zero is done to control the out of control costs created by the insurance system in the first place. Anyone who has gone to a doctor or a hospital without insurance knows the insane list prices of medical services. You have Doctors bragging about raising cash prices simply to avoid undesirable patients. Hospitals charging five figures for services that insurance only has to pay a thousand dollars or less for...Insurance Companies, like public utilities, have little true incentive to control costs as 4% of a larger sum of money seems to be the goal. We have not even started with the lawsuits...

In the end I rather have seen an attempt to control costs. Limit lawsuits but also keep data on doctors performance. Stop the cash price gouging, people should be able to be uninsured. Imagine if people could actually afford to pay for medical expenses.

 

[ToastyBread]

Wellpoint - 4.0% profit. 2.5 Billion Net Income (61.3 Billion Revenue)
UnitedHealth - 4.3% profit. 3.8 Billion Net Income (87.1 Billion Revenue)
Cigna - 7.0% profit. 1.3 Billion Net Income (18.4 Billion Revenue)
Humana - 2.2% profit. 647 Million Net Income (28.9 Billion Revenue)
Aetna - 4.4% loss. -1.4 Billion Net Income (30.9 Billion Revenue)
That's just from the list that article mentioned. How they maintain their company, how they revise their rules, etc is dependent on so many various conditions which the article will not bother to mention. It's easy cherry picking the numbers to skew the numbers to their advantage. Enrollment is kind of easy to explain because there are alot of factors at play like for example economic downturn which all companies shed their employees which in turns means less to cover for medical. Ya all in all I'm aware that they could raise premium prices but that's always what happens in downturns for everything. You either cut inventory or raise prices. Guess what they did, raise prices because keeping their enrollment up as much as possible is important to them. For other industries, cutting inventory matters more (oil for example).

And what I'm arguing, is that we shouldn't have a system where something that is essentially a "basic need" (such as health care) is primarily controlled by companies whose primary focus is profit. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit, but there is something very wrong when you put profit ahead of people's well-beings. Look at how regularly people with pre-existing conditions were turned down, or people who would become sick, would have their benefits terminated because it was becoming too expensive for the insurance company. It's a greedy, barely/unregulated system that has no concerns whatsoever for those who actually pay into it for coverage. Their primary responsibility should be the policy holders, not the shareholders. At the present time, that hasn't been the case.

If we all force insurance companies to maintain 0% profit margin or take a loss, they will shut their doors, cash their company out of the market, then millions of people with their coverage will lose their insurance. The whole point of profit margin is to allow their company to continue on for the future, shore up their cash reserves to cover any future losses, and to be responsible to their shareholders among several of the reasons. It's like Intel and AMD, how they use their profit margin is entirely up to them as well as how they cover for their losses.

The difference though is that AMD and Intel provide products that aren't essential to life. Sure, you can make the argument that computers have become a pervasive technology that has greatly enhanced our day-to-day living, as well as providing quite a few benefits to society, but at the same time, someone can easily live without one. Can someone live without insurance? Sure, but often when they do get sick, many aren't able to get the services they need because either they don't have coverage (which is approximately 40 million Americans), or when they are able to get help, it ends up costing the taxpayers far more than if that person had been provided a low-cost public health option.

And in regards to the insurance companies "not making a profit", there are plenty of examples of countries where insurance companies operate as non-profit organizations, Germany being one of them. I've been to Germany a few times, and have several friends who are both from there, and currently are living there, and when all of our health care drama began, they basically laughed and couldn't see what the big deal is, and that's basically how the rest of the civilized world looks at us. They mostly view health care as a universal right, not as something that you should only have if you can afford it.

This populist attitude against any idea of for-profit insurance group is bullshit. There's alot of bullshit in the crap sandwich that is being forced on us ie 10 years of taxes, 6 years of coverage.

I'm not against certain forms of insurance being for-profit. Auto insurance is a perfect example of that. Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege (except for those rare occasions where no public transportation is readily available). Thus, I fully expect to have to pay for car insurance, and see no problems with automobile insurance companies making a profit.

Health care though shouldn't be a luxury, it should be something everyone should have. I'm sorry, you may only care about yourself, but some of us actually would like to see the world become a better place for everyone.

Even a lot but not all states are now in revolt against the healthcare reform because it also puts on alot of responsibility on them as well like Arizona will have to spend 4 billion dollars it doesn't have at the expense of the state Medicaid program.

I didn't realize that 14 states out of 50 constitutes "a lot", but ok, sure. And do you know why those states sued? Not because of any true hatred for the plan, but rather because the generally-Republican Attorney Generals in those states (last time I read, only one Attorney General wasn't a Republican amongst the suing states) are making a political statement, AND, even in some of those states who are suing, other high-ranking members of the state governments are opposing the suits. It's not quite as cut-and-dry as you'd like to make it seem. The federal program does not start until 2014 which this only makes situations worse for the states because they have to find money they don't have to fund the program that is being forced on them from the Federal Government. You think it was bad that California has a 25 billion dollar deficit? This reform only makes it worse for California by adding 2-3 billion more annually. Hence why alot of states are suing the Federal Government now even with the 10th Amendment argument. If that doesn't fix it, we should just abandon any notion of government since the feds won't fix their own fucking problem, their own gluttony, their own greed, their own corruption, etc.[/quote]
As someone who lives in Arizona, I can say that it's not quite as cut-and-dry as you try and make it sound.

Is Arizona facing a deficit in regards to health care coverage? Yes, but it has nothing to do with the recently-passed health care reform. Arizona had a $2.5 billion (yes, it's not actually $4 billion) deficit in Medicare. Here's what happened: in 2000, Arizona expanded its Medicare coverage to kids and 300,000+ adults. This was at a time when the state was enjoying huge tax windfalls from new homes, etc. Thus, the state continued to spend extravagantly (and, mind you, while Napolitano was governor for the last several years, the state has mostly been Republican-controlled for the last few decades). The government also offered additional funds, which the state was more than happy to accept, but on the condition they don't withdraw coverage.

Fast forward to today: The state is in a mess, because they continued to plan for large budgets, and then the housing market collapse hit the state hard. Thus, the state has a huge deficit, partly due to the expanded coverage from 2000. The state tries to cut those programs BEFORE the health care reform bill passed, in order to trim the deficit, and it was even suggested that the Federal government was going to sue the state for violation of previous agreements. So now, with the health care reform passed, the state has to try and re-enable those programs (which they had been looking to do anyway, due to said possible lawsuits).

Ultimately though, come 2014, the Federal government will pick up 75% of the tab anyway.

Healthcare reform is a bullshit gimmick and it should have been put on the backburner with us focusing on the economy, closing deficits, addressing holes in the economy, etc. But no, we don't have that, we have a populist smug asshole who is intent on maintaining party loyalty (far leftists morons who should be ignored)

So now, you're true colors come out. You're anti-health care reform no matter what, and clearly a very large conservative. That's fine, that's your right. But it's funny that you're complaining about this, when 40% of our spending each years goes towards the military. Why not cut that down, huh? That could easily cover a good portion of the deficit we're currently facing. Do we really need 2000+ F35 Fighters, when existing fighters are more than capable against EVERY enemy we could potentially face today? I don't think so...

But of course, I'm sure you'll be the first one to decry defense spending cuts...

The media is trying to fucking hard to soften the blow for the Democratic Party in the November 2010 election but the Party's lost it. Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, etc are all out. The independents, the students, and the Republicans will be voting in large numbers over the Democratic Party faithful. Why did I bring up the students?

And yet, the majority that was currently given to the Democratic party, as well as the election of Obama, were both tied to the fact that they WANTED HEALTH CARE REFORM. It's not like they "snuck this out here". They openly advertised it while campaigning, and people voted them in. In fact, you can even find polls showing that a majority are in favor of it passing, such as:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/poll_health-care_reform_more_p.html

Do I think some democrats will lose their seats? Sure. But in general, all that could potentially happen, is that the senate will balance out somewhat, which either means we'll see more cooperation between the parties to pass future legislation, or, more realistically, it'll become a lame-duck government for awhile. Either way, the health care bill is not going to be repealed.

It pisses me off it affects me directly because the interest that was supposed to be going back to refund Pell, Stafford will be helping to defray the cost of healthcare. So there's another potential program that will be facing federal funding shortfalls (a violation of the reconciliation rules, but it doesn't matter, the crap sandwich needs to pass!)

How was it a violation of the reconciliation rules? Oh wait, that's right, it wasn't...

And, do you know who it was that "struck down" the Pell Grant change? It wasn't Democrats... it was Republicans, in their effort to try and stop the Senate from passing the bill. I like how you're blaming Democrats for something that, in reality, was due to your friends...

What's next? VAT? Not even that will bail our ass out. I rather take 2 years of no federal government in our lives than this crap of brown nosing their way into my life. There were people voted for Obama because he's going to pay for their gas, their mortgage, beyond their means expenses, etc because he is THE ONE. "Watch me create a trillion dollars out of thin air! Viola!" when Bernanke in the corner is muttering "Dumbfuck".

And once again, your true colors come out. How's that Confederate flag serving you on your car?

 

[ToastyBread]

wtb edit function

This should be in quotes above:

You think it was bad that California has a 25 billion dollar deficit? This reform only makes it worse for California by adding 2-3 billion more annually. Hence why alot of states are suing the Federal Government now even with the 10th Amendment argument. If that doesn't fix it, we should just abandon any notion of government since the feds won't fix their own fucking problem, their own gluttony, their own greed, their own corruption, etc.

[/quote]

 

[Taldren]

Nothing will get sorted out... it's law now. In November, if everyone's replaced, all that will happen is that they'll start debating how to "fix" what they feel are issues, but ultimately not change anything for the better.

There is plenty that can still be done, but it has to be done by the states. The first round will be the states attorney generals fighting it in courts as being unconstitutional. If that fails the states can nullify the "law" under nullification (see Jefferson 1799/1800) which is basically what the states are doing right now with medicinal marijuana. The final thing that can be done is the states call for a constitutional convention which basically allows them to override the government on any issue.

The ultimate power in the Unitied States is the states themselves acting together ... not the federal government. This was done on purpose and for very good reasons.

 

[mwarps]

LOLOLOLOL Repeal. LOLOLOLOL. Lawsuits LOLOLOLOLOL.

Reasons you lost and will lose again. Pick your favorite:

Appomattox
Veto
290
67
Supremacy Clause (though this is the most activist republican court we've had in .. forever, but not even Roberts is this stupid.)
33 / 38

 

[kirbyrj]

Don't even get me started on this nonsense called "Health Care Reform." I'm not overtly political, but I started a Facebook page to get rid of my Congressman over this bill.

There's a difference between reforming health care (e.g. not allowing people to be thrown out over rising costs) and the government stepping in like they did.

NOT TO MENTION, the Student loan takeover to pay for it, taxing higher end health plans, the $1500 per year "tax" on every American for long term care, the fact that the government can't run a program efficiently enough to save money (see Social Security and Medicare).

THIS IS A DISASTER FOR AMERICA. We will be eating the fallout of this for years to come. Essentially, this was the final straw. The only way out of the financial mess is a VAT tax which is coming soon. Anyone who voted for this law should be voted out of office.

 

[demingo]

the Student loan takeover to pay for itQUOTE]

There has been so much misinformation about this. It's not a take over, its cutting out the middle man. When you currently applied for a loan with the bank, they would give you a loan at a certain rate, but the loan wasn't backed by the bank, it was secured by the government. The banks acted as a middle man which esentially added a few percentage points to a loan they got from the government and gave it to you. The actual money itself was there from the government. The changes simply cut out the middle man, the banks, in order to reduce costs, while increasing the federal budget.

If you do not want to get a loan from the government, you can still goto a bank for a loan. However, it will have to be a personal loan. Which you are much much less likely to get. The only reason so many places were willing to give out student loans was because each one was secured by the government. They actually reduce cost in this. If you don't want a goverment intervention, try and take out a personal loan for school and see how far that gets you without the government promising the banks they'll secure the loan. This was a good change.

So much misinformation from people who don't understand the system.

 

[Taldren]

LOLOLOLOL Repeal. LOLOLOLOL. Lawsuits LOLOLOLOLOL.

Reasons you lost and will lose again. Pick your favorite:

Appomattox
Veto
290
67
Supremacy Clause (though this is the most activist republican court we've had in .. forever, but not even Roberts is this stupid.)
33 / 38

This isn't a video game!! You are acting like this is some sort of football game and you are rooting for your effing team. Grow up and take this as seriously as it should be.

State Nullification overrides everything you listed.

However, I don't think it even needs to go that far. There is no section or amendment within the constitution that allows the government to perform this action and it will be challenged under the 10th admendment as it should be. I don't care how left or right wing a judge is ... there is a very small list of what the government is allowed to do and this is not on it.

 

[Taldren]

the Student loan takeover to pay for itQUOTE]

There has been so much misinformation about this. It's not a take over, its cutting out the middle man. When you currently applied for a loan with the bank, they would give you a loan at a certain rate, but the loan wasn't backed by the bank, it was secured by the government. The banks acted as a middle man which esentially added a few percentage points to a loan they got from the government and gave it to you. The actual money itself was there from the government. The changes simply cut out the middle man, the banks, in order to reduce costs, while increasing the federal budget.

If you do not want to get a loan from the government, you can still goto a bank for a loan. However, it will have to be a personal loan. Which you are much much less likely to get. The only reason so many places were willing to give out student loans was because each one was secured by the government. They actually reduce cost in this. If you don't want a goverment intervention, try and take out a personal loan for school and see how far that gets you without the government promising the banks they'll secure the loan. This was a good change.

So much misinformation from people who don't understand the system.

The government doesn't have any money. It has a collection pot of the people's money that is then distributed at the will of congress and unfortunetly whatever is left over is spent by the executive branch without any oversite.

Where in the constitution does it say that the government can relocate wealth from the people to an individual? Just because its "cheap tea" doesn't make it right. It should still be dumped in the bay.

 

[InorganicMatter]

LOL, wow. So not only do they admit to using a loophole to dodge $1 billion worth of taxes, but now that the party is over they announce they are going to pass on the cost to their employees! Awesome.

 

[bexamous]

Also, anyone read explanation of what is changing? Seems like basically AT&T is unhappy that they cannot use a loophole to get out of paying taxes that htey previously had been using. For anyone against health care bill I guess, you'd be happier if AT&T didn't haev to pay those taxes? BTW, again, someone ends up paying, if AT&T isn't paying taxes due to loophole, who do you think does?

Anyone comment?

Pre 2003, companies paid for prescription drug benefits for retirees and could deduct it from their taxes.

Companies complained they had to spend money, in 2003 govt then subsidized these prescription drug benefits companies were paying for (== they took your money, gave it to AT&T to buy stuff). AT&T btw saved 1.6Billion dollars that year because of it. On top of this, companies then realized they could still deduct the full amount of the money they spent, including the subsidy money they got from the govt, from their taxes (==they pay less taxes, so YOU, normal person, pays more). AT&T is happier because they get to keep their money.

New Health Care bill, govt goes 'We will still give you money AT&T, but you can't deduct that money we give you off your taxes, that makes no sense.' AT&T cries they have to spend money.

Soooo, everyone who hates Health Care bill, what do you think makes sense to do? Letting AT&T deduct subsidies from their taxes is retarded and is a loophole.
Your choices are:
1. You say FU AT&T, we already are giving you a subsidy, be happy with that, you saved 1.6billion from it.
2. You say poor AT&T, I will pay more taxes so govt can give you a larger subsidy.

 

[[Spectre]]

As a Canadian - the problem with the American healthcare system is not this bill or whatever social costs you need to bear...it's basically corporate greed.

Corporate greed is NOT THE PROBLEM. I have been listing the profit margins. 3-4% is NOT greedy it is BARELY surviving.

Healthcare is uneccesarily expensive. There has to be legislation to reduce the cost of healthcare and the exploitation of people who need healthcare.

Then get the government (ridiculous compliance, competition restrictions, reimbursement, etc) and lawyers out. They are the two biggest costs of doing business for us, but people like you don;t want to know what the real reasons are you just want ot blame companies. Well news flash for everyone, it isn't your hospital or health insurance company that raises costs. But you'll never listen so.....

The Canadian government limits the price of prescription drugs - a big reason why drugs are cheaper here. The drug companies have no choice but accept that deal but they still do business. Obviously they are still making money. Just not wheelbarrows full anymore.

Actually it is places like Canada that make drugs more expensive in the US. When the companies that develop them CAN NOT spread the cost around WE IN THE US pay more. So YOU can thank the US for subsidizing your medicine. Canada is PART OF THE PROBLEM.

 

[7th Angel]

hopefully all this gets sorted out in November.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional.

 

[[Spectre]]

LOL, wow. So not only do they admit to using a loophole to dodge $1 billion worth of taxes, but now that the party is over they announce they are going to pass on the cost to their employees! Awesome.

Of course they are. They were able to use that loophole in order to lower their cost of doing and business....and you know what they did when they could lower their cost of doing business?

THEY WERE HORRIBLY GREEDY AND GAVE THEIR EMPLOYEES BETTER BENEFITS!!!!! (The exact opposite thing you people who support these horrible policies argued would happen if business's lowered their costs)

Now that their costs are GOING UP because of the GOVERNMENT they are passing the cost along because they have to stay competitive and drug and insurance costs for retirees is NOT flat, but an ever increasing cost year by year as people live longer. As a prudent business which has to...you know pay people who work there and give them jobs and stuff....they can not take on cost structures like that and stay competitive.

If AT&T takes on that burden then goes bankrupt well that was a good plan....not!

Here is another little newsflash, as business's we DON'T pay taxes. You pay our taxes. When my tax burden goes up I pass it along to my customers because it is part of my overhead. So jack our taxes, I really don't care because you guys are going to be paying it not me. We are an industry that can't be sent overseas so every time the government screws with our costs it will directly negatively impact you and there is nothing you can do about it because everyone of us in the industry faces the same costs from the government.

 

[bexamous]

Of course they are. They were able to use that loophole in order to lower their cost of doing and business....and you know what they did when they could lower their cost of doing business?

THEY WERE HORRIBLY GREEDY AND GAVE THEIR EMPLOYEES BETTER BENEFITS!!!!! (The exact opposite thing you people who support these horrible policies argued would happen if business's lowered their costs)

Before the loophole existed the employees had the same benefits. All they added subsidies and loophole did was allow them to pay less money for what they were buying. Hmm... penny saved is a penny... oh yeah, so they made more money.

Now that their costs are GOING UP because of the GOVERNMENT they are passing the cost along because they have to stay competitive and drug and insurance costs for retirees is NOT flat, but an ever increasing cost year by year as people live longer. As a prudent business which has to...you know pay people who work there and give them jobs and stuff....they can not take on cost structures like that and stay competitive.

Can you comment on my last post? What do you want?
1. You say FU AT&T, we already are giving you a subsidy, be happy with that, you saved 1.6billion from it.
2. You say poor AT&T, I will pay more taxes so govt can give you a larger subsidy.

Or you can suggest a 3rd option.

 

[[Spectre]]

Before the loophole existed the employees had the same benefits. All they added subsidies and loophole did was allow them to pay less money for what they were buying. Hmm... penny saved is a penny... oh yeah, so they made more money.

Actually they didn't. In 2004, AT&T lost $6.1 billion dollars. Had that not been there they would have lost more.

Can you comment on my last post? What do you want?
1. You say FU AT&T, we already are giving you a subsidy, be happy with that, you saved 1.6billion from it.
2. You say poor AT&T, I will pay more taxes so govt can give you a larger subsidy.

Or you can suggest a 3rd option.

3. Well lets see, you could leave it as it was as that incentive allowed them to cover more people cheaper than the government because it is cheaper than forcing people onto Medicare part D which the GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO CUT under this bill. The democrats just said a big fuck you to seniors.

4. Or you could...god forbid get the government out of fucking with the system.

Now, what do I want? I want people who do not work in this industry nor understand how it works to stop telling us how our industry works and that we make a ton of money because we don't and you don't know what you are talking about. All you are doing is reciting what people who only want to control you have fed you to say.

 

[bexamous]

Do you think there is a difference between increasing their subsidy and keeping subsidy the same and allowing them to deduct it from taxes? They are pretty much the same thing in the end. So I'll put you down for 'You want to say poor u AT&T, I will pay more taxes so govt can give you a larger subsidy'.

Thanks.

 

[Huan]

ATT has been trying to come up with a way to completely get rid of benefits to employees and as someone stated this has become their scape goat.. State of TN is doing it too this november with an insurance change... Im hoping i'm not working with the state by then anyways.. They are too similar to the nazi regime.. At least my facility that i work at is..

 

[PurduEE]

I hope this shit gets repealed, I was never for it. I already pay $80 a check for Blue Cross/Blue Shield

why should I pay more for some fucknuts I don't even know to get some kind of insurance?

WTF, I hope it gets repealed at the speed of light, it taxes the working man to pay for the bums.

Jesus that's low... I pay around $700/check now, $1200 when my son is born. Yes, I said that I'll be paying ~$14,400/yr for insurance for a family of three.

 

[bacon]

$12.2 billion sounds like a huge obscene profit…Until you look deeper and find out that number amounts to about 3.4%.

A little business acumen would make you aware nobody stays in business with such a low profit margin.

Anyone who knows anything about big business knows that they can make numbers appear with some creative accounting. I agree that nobody stays in business with these low margins, yet these companies post these same numbers quarter after quarter and are thriving. It just doesn't jive.

 

[jnmunsey]

Bottom line is almost all companies will use the new health care bill to reduce or eliminate benefits, regardless of how the bill directly affects their bottom line. They have a scapegoat now if anyone questions why they are reducing coverage.

With the economy the way it is now it is a sellers' market, so companies don't have to offer as many benefits as before to get good employees. As the economy ramps up(this may take 20 years, if ever) then they will have to adjust to stay competitive.

The health care bill may be a scapegoat, but the economy is the real culprit, and the health care bill will do nothing to improve it.

 

[kirbyrj]

No, I perfectly understand what is going on. The government said to themselves someone else is making money on the student loans and we need a way to divert this money directly into the bullshit healthcare program to pay for it. The government can borrow money at 2% and sell it to students at 6%, tell banks and Sallie Mae (etc) they are greedy while trying to make a profit and do the same thing except divert the money into an inefficient program instead of allowing any other company to make money.

Begs the question whether or not YOU know what's really going on.

the Student loan takeover to pay for itQUOTE]

There has been so much misinformation about this. It's not a take over, its cutting out the middle man. When you currently applied for a loan with the bank, they would give you a loan at a certain rate, but the loan wasn't backed by the bank, it was secured by the government. The banks acted as a middle man which esentially added a few percentage points to a loan they got from the government and gave it to you. The actual money itself was there from the government. The changes simply cut out the middle man, the banks, in order to reduce costs, while increasing the federal budget.

If you do not want to get a loan from the government, you can still goto a bank for a loan. However, it will have to be a personal loan. Which you are much much less likely to get. The only reason so many places were willing to give out student loans was because each one was secured by the government. They actually reduce cost in this. If you don't want a goverment intervention, try and take out a personal loan for school and see how far that gets you without the government promising the banks they'll secure the loan. This was a good change.

So much misinformation from people who don't understand the system.

 

[kirbyrj]

With the economy the way it is now it is a sellers' market, so companies don't have to offer as many benefits as before to get good employees. As the economy ramps up(this may take 20 years, if ever) then they will have to adjust to stay competitive.

The health care bill may be a scapegoat, but the economy is the real culprit, and the health care bill will do nothing to improve it.

Not only will it do nothing to improve it. It's going to hurt it as the government is essentially tying another noose around its neck promising benefits it has no way to pay for.

 

[webdev511]

AT&T is just making headlines because their loop hole got closed. Why was the loop hole there in the first place? Because when Medicare Part D was passed by reconciliation, the party in power opted not to fund the bill. Hello Deficit Spending!

Hence why a lot of states are suing the Federal Government now even with the 10th Amendment argument. If that doesn't fix it, we should just abandon any notion of government since the feds won't fix their own fucking problem, their own gluttony, their own greed, their own corruption, etc. Healthcare reform is a bullshit gimmick and it should have been put on the backburner with us focusing on the economy, closing deficits, addressing holes in the economy, etc.

If the States challenge the individual mandate, but since Congress has the power to tax and the mandate is enforced via a tax credit for those that have insurance, the States will lose.

If the States challenge other aspects of the LAW, I suspect they will run into the commerce clause. You know the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate activities which impact the nation's economy or economies across state lines? Don't think health care qualifies? If not, why?

The States already know they are going to lose the challenge, their just puffing themselves up so they appeal to their base.

While I don't think making health care 100% non-profit is the answer, I don't think anyone is going to stickup for companies making care decisions based on the need to make their quarterly target for Wall Street.

Anyone that truly believes that repealing the closure of a huge tax loophole and giving insurance companies to once again rescind coverage, impose annual and lifetime limits is delusional. Why? First off even if both the house and senate get a republican majority, which is unlikely, but even more unlikely that they will achieve the super majority in both chambers required to overturn a VETO. Secondly once people finally understand that there are no death panels and no bureaucrats getting between them and their doctor, any candidate running on a platform of "Repeal Healthcare Reform" is about as likely to get elected as someone from the Natural Law Party.

 

[BillR]

Actually this is one of the reasons drugs are so high in the USA. They lose money in Canada, as well as other countries with heavy price controls, and make up for it by over charging us. If/when the US puts the same price controls in place, the companies are either going to have to raise prices in Canada, or go out of business.

You have to include the research and developement cost in the product, it costs billions to bring a new drug to market.

Gross Margin is a largely useless number. NET margin, that 3.4% that keeps popping up is what counts.

Gross is your paycheck before deductions, net is after deductions.

The second post explains part of this huge difference. Add in the lawsuits and other liabilities…Ain’t much profit for the drug manufacture.

Worse, to stay in business many if not most drug companies are now taking their manufacturing overseas, a huge help for the jobless.

 

[webdev511]

No, I perfectly understand what is going on. The government said to themselves someone else is making money on the student loans and we need a way to divert this money directly into the bullshit healthcare program to pay for it. The government can borrow money at 2% and sell it to students at 6%, tell banks and Sallie Mae (etc) they are greedy while trying to make a profit and do the same thing except divert the money into an inefficient program instead of allowing any other company to make money.

Actually I don't think you do understand what's gong on. Instead of letting banks make loans with Fedral funds and have the "profit" stay at the banks, our government is going to make the loans and re-invest the gains back into education via grants, NOT healthcare.

 

[BillR]

<snip>And what I'm arguing, is that we shouldn't have a system where something that is essentially a "basic need" (such as health care) is primarily controlled by companies whose primary focus is profit. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit, but there is something very wrong when you put profit ahead of people's well-beings. Look at how regularly people with pre-existing conditions were turned down, or people who would become sick, would have their benefits terminated because it was becoming too expensive for the insurance company. It's a greedy, barely/unregulated system that has no concerns whatsoever for those who actually pay into it for coverage. Their primary responsibility should be the policy holders, not the shareholders. At the present time, that hasn't been the case.

Three weeks ago I had my wife in the hospital. One dose of one medication she has to take costs me $.18 at the drug store. That same pill was $32.00 when dispensed at the hospital.

How is big Pharma making money on this? Why is 1 aspirin $9.00 at the hospital?

 

[BillR]

Actually I don't think you do understand what's gong on. Instead of letting banks make loans with Fedral funds and have the "profit" stay at the banks, our government is going to make the loans and re-invest the gains back into education via grants, NOT healthcare.

Wrong. The government took over student funding because they now have complete control over everything educational. The grants you speak of…Tax Payer money give always, there is no money to reinvest because the government never profits from anything.

 

[BinarySynapse]

Three weeks ago I had my wife in the hospital. One dose of one medication she has to take costs me $.18 at the drug store. That same pill was $32.00 when dispensed at the hospital.

How is big Pharma making money on this? Why is 1 aspirin $9.00 at the hospital?

Why is one aspirin $9.00? because they had to give four away for free.

 

[demingo]

No, I perfectly understand what is going on. The government said to themselves someone else is making money on the student loans and we need a way to divert this money directly into the bullshit healthcare program to pay for it. The government can borrow money at 2% and sell it to students at 6%, tell banks and Sallie Mae (etc) they are greedy while trying to make a profit and do the same thing except divert the money into an inefficient program instead of allowing any other company to make money.

Begs the question whether or not YOU know what's really going on.


Do you not understand that those banks were getting the money from the government??!?!

 

[BillR]

No, I perfectly understand what is going on. The government said to themselves someone else is making money on the student loans and we need a way to divert this money directly into the bullshit healthcare program to pay for it. The government can borrow money at 2% and sell it to students at 6%, tell banks and Sallie Mae (etc) they are greedy while trying to make a profit and do the same thing except divert the money into an inefficient program instead of allowing any other company to make money.

Begs the question whether or not YOU know what's really going on.



Do you not understand that those banks were getting the money from the government??!?!

You missed a few fine points. First, the government has NO money of their own. They do however have our taxes in ever growing proportion.

The banks are supposed to make a (gasp) profit so they can loan money to more students. Should it happen that banks do make a profit they wouldn’t need money from government. Mortgage companies are also supposed to make a profit believe it or not. The whole profit thing went down the tubes when government exceeded its authority and forced the banks to make loans to those who could never pay the money back and they backed that brilliant decision with yours and mine tax money.

As such the result is the government not only has no money, they owe money to the taxpayers which will never be paid back. But hey, that’s no problem right? They have everyone’s paycheck to draw on…As long as people have jobs.

You mentioned diverted money, man have you got that right. The fact is between the printing presses printing new money thus killing the overall value of money and the diversion of funds within the ever growing government it’s the only money government has. Oh, that and what we owe China, Japan etc.

I get it, do you?

 

[BillR]

Why is one aspirin $9.00? because they had to give four away for free.

Actually I think it helps cover the 10 given away for free. The point is big Pharm is not the winner here, in fact that’s the crux of the issue, there is no winner.

 

[[Spectre]]

Do you think there is a difference between increasing their subsidy and keeping subsidy the same and allowing them to deduct it from taxes? They are pretty much the same thing in the end. So I'll put you down for 'You want to say poor u AT&T, I will pay more taxes so govt can give you a larger subsidy'.

Thanks.

No but given your understanding of any of the issues involved I guess that is to be the expected response from you.