Re: Not an increased fee

Post #323,615 by boxley 3/28/10 3:45:50 PM Reply	Re: Not an increased fee http://www.sfgate.co...27/MNEL1CM039.DTL not deductions If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #323,625 by crazy 3/28/10 7:07:32 PM Reply	Look, a squirrel! Or some other distraction. Please get back to the point that THIS discussion is about removing their ability to deduct money from taxes that they recieived from the the government. At issue is the closing of a 2003 Medicare prescription drug program loophole that allowed companies to receive subsidies of 28 percent of eligible costs, while allowing them to deduct the entire amount - including subsidies - from their taxable income. The new law allows companies to deduct only the 72 percent they spent.
Post #323,646 by beepster 3/29/10 8:42:30 AM Reply	You're smart enough to know it makes no difference what you call it. One persons closed loophole is another persons new tax. There was a law allowing this to happen. Now we have a new law that doesn't. Net result, companies have massive new expenses related to healthcare. How do you think this will square with Obama's promise that those covered with existing programs will SAVE $2500 per year. If the end result is hundreds of millions of added expense on the company, they will adjust benefit levels (down), cut other areas (including heads) and employer provided healthcare will be less than it was. Thank you for playing. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #323,655 by crazy 3/29/10 9:23:49 AM Reply	What Bush Giveth, Obama Taketh Away Shit happens, and there are MANY individual pieces of Bush's reign that I'd love to see undone. Policies crafted by the guys getting the money in multiple industries, with that type of shit, NEEDS to be undone. I expect many more posts by you and Box showing the horrors of it. Thanks for brightening up my day.
Post #323,668 by beepster 3/29/10 10:25:00 AM Reply	Here is the rub for that... what Bush giveth at least had a benefit to you (in general..you meaning people that worked for companies with benefits plans)...and what Obama taketh away goes to the exact same interest groups via a different path...and you think its different because its "big corporate America" taking the hit. Either way, we get screwed. This is taking away from the retirees of these companies and giving it to the welfare state. Pharma gets it either way. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #323,693 by folkert 3/29/10 2:40:26 PM Reply	DING DING DING. Pharma get a technical knock out in three rounds!
Post #323,694 by crazy 3/29/10 2:44:38 PM Reply	Oh, how easy for you to say that Benefit to me? I think not. I don't work for corp america, at least not in a way that particular loophole benefits me. And at the time that stuff was happening, my company was making the big bucks, and screwing the employees with paycuts anyway. Sure, that particular loophole went into the mix of what they were making vs what they were willing to pay out to the employees, but don't pretend it is a major thing. Pay is determined by what the market will bear, NOT what the sales cost of your products is. Profit is in between, and it is up to the execs to keep it for the investors if possible.
Post #323,725 by beepster 3/30/10 12:15:43 AM Reply	Ah... so screw them cause it doesn't affect me. How "democratic" of you. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #323,747 by crazy 3/30/10 10:04:26 AM Reply	No, it WILL affect me Pro and con. In multiple areas. Any many more people. So I have specific reasons for my viewpoint, which I'm perfectly willing to show. C'mon Beep, you've known me a long time. I know the corp side HAS to maintain a balance. I am the most gung ho corp employee/contractor, fully supportive of the goal of management to make money. This is a piece of the puzzle. It will both cost and gain jobs, and will cost and save lives. I simply KNOW when the insurance company is the final word on life and death decision, they HAVE to answer to their owners, which means they have a duty to make as much money as possible. Death wins. So removing this ability from them is a litmus test for me. I see no downsides big enough to weigh against it, and there ARE a lot of downsides, including the concept of a health tax for those who choose to go without, and the federal id system that they'll reguire to run the whole thing. Many more are apparent. But none that rise to the level of making me discount it. Feel free to point more out just in case I've missed it. Can you accept that I'm not as far left as most people think you are far right?
Post #323,766 by beepster 3/30/10 12:34:42 PM Reply	This is not a conversation about the entire bill because, in general, I like the positive aspects of it as well. Simply put, I think they could have done it without the vast majority of the negative aspects of the current bill. This specific item will cost jobs and cost people coverage. These were the people that were promised over and over that their premiums would go down "up to 2500". And the end result is the same, all of those dollars (less the gov't vig) will go to big pharma. The shame is, most will think .."well they have a job so what do they care"...ignoring the fact that a huge chunk of these corp programs are covering retired workers who will lose these benefits because the company simply can't afford to do it anymore. When I was working for that big co in north jersey, there were more retirees covered (by a significant multiplier) by their insurance program than there were employees... I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #323,775 by crazy 3/30/10 3:07:54 PM Reply	So what are you looking for? Yes, it will impact the $$ of these companies. As will many others. Yup. Agreed. And from my random persective, this particluar loophole should have never existed. So, yup, I'm ok with it. How about we look at it from the perspective that this loophole allowed these companies to take my money, gave me no benefit, and was essentially an illegal taking that is finally rectified, at least for the future. Just becuase they negotiated a poor deal with their unions and or retirees does NOT mean I'm gonna lookup, and say: Oh, yeah, let's allow the repubs to kill the bill because of this particular aspect. It makes no sense.
Post #323,671 by mhuber 3/29/10 10:51:07 AM Reply	But a tax loophole is not a givaway Got it. --------------------------------------- Why, yes, I did give up something for lent. I gave up making sense.
Post #323,675 by boxley 3/29/10 11:08:58 AM Reply	Re: But a tax loophole is not a givaway you get paid $100 dollars. You pay $33 in taxes the government now requires $35 dollars in taxes you were stealing the $2 difference from the people yeah, we get it If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #323,756 by lincoln 3/30/10 12:10:12 PM Reply	Re: But a tax loophole is not a givaway Now stick with me for one minute before we talk markets-impact, okay? I want to be clear about the ambiguous Âa change in the tax treatment of the Medicare Part D subsidyÂ line there. HereÂs what facts are: As explained in plain English in todayÂs Wall Street journal, Âcompanies that provide this [Medicare Part D] benefit, as AT&T does, receive a federal subsidy, plus they can deduct the value of this subsidy from their taxes. The health overhaul cancels the deductibility of the subsidy.Â Let me ask a question of readers here in even plainer English: Can anybody actually be upset about the fact that giant corporations have to stop taking tax deductions for welfare checks they get for providing health care to their employees and retirees? Imagine if you will, the government sending you a check to pay for your prescription drugs and then you getting to deduct that amount from your income tax statement. HEY, BIG GOVERNMENT, KEEP YOUR DAMN HANDS OFF MY SUBSIDIES AND ENTITLEMENTS! source: http://blogs.marketw...r-your-portfolio/ "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #323,761 by boxley 3/30/10 12:22:08 PM Reply	like I said, money not held by the government is stolen from the people. We know that is your viewpoint If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #323,782 by crazy 3/30/10 5:00:51 PM Reply	Well, yeah So stop allowing them to steal it from me to support these corporations. http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=26915
Post #323,784 by boxley 3/30/10 5:19:14 PM Reply	hey you elected em suck it up :-) If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #323,786 by crazy 3/30/10 5:23:21 PM Reply	No clue what this means
Post #323,686 by beepster 3/29/10 12:57:41 PM Reply	Not what I said your semantics are based in your position. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #323,648 by boxley 3/29/10 8:51:54 AM Reply	got yer squirrel swingin hope you dont do yer own taxes income 28% of expenses paid deductions 100% including the 28% of COSTS that were subsidized by allowance taxes money paid to the government as a portion of INCOME government for dummies get money from people and corporations. Spend it and borrow more and tax again In no way shape or form were these corps given money by the gummint, they were not taxed as heavily. Now the tax break is gone and more taxes were imposed on top of it If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)

Welcome to IWETHEY!