So I am being told that the new HCR bill is already costing companies more money

[still_one]

Is that accurate?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

5. Jesus Christ, I am asking for some help here, and all I get is wise ass remarks, Thanks a lot

NOT

[Obamanaut]

18. When folks don't really have an answer, you will get such remarks. They don't know

either, or you would get a real answer.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

40. That is all I was asking for, or at least a discussion so wecan utilize some rational arguments

when this comes up, and it will

[Subdivisions]

46. Who are you talking about? n/t

[Obamanaut]

58. Anyone who responds in a manner similar to the now deleted response #1 nt

[JuniperLea]

35. That was a damn fine answer to your question!

WTF are you railing against here?

Sub had it right... tell whomever it is that's feeding you this bullshit to back it up with some proof. What the fuck is wrong with that?

[still_one]

41. Gee, I guess you don't want to know anything about the issues so you can discuss it

and the reasons why it is or isn't a good thing

You think that was a fine answer, that is the way to influence people

[Subdivisions]

45. What the fuck is wrong with asking them to back up their bullshit and if they can't,

telling them to STFU and stop spreading baseless rumors?

[still_one]

48. Well my friend, these baseless rumors are out on most of the news outlets

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_at_t_health_care

and you may or may not agree with the content of those baseless stories, but if you can't even hold a civil discussion, have a good day

[Subdivisions]

44. My comment was not directed at you. I was merely saying that if someone

is telling you this, make them show you some kind of proof. And, if they cannot show you proof, tell them to STFU.

How is that a wise ass remark?

[still_one]

49. I wasn't sure. Anyone telling an associate to STFU is not going to influence them

especially when you are trying to convience them NOT to believe what they read

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_at_t_health_care


All I am looking for is a valid disucsssion, i.e. This is a loop-hole that has been closed, it won't take effect immedately, and by that time....

or it is a misrepresentation of the plan

I am pretty sure this will be plastered by our "friends" at the MSM next week since some major corporations are complaining

Thanks for the clarification

[FrenchieCat]

2. You're being told?

[still_one]

7. AT&T and CAT both reported that today, and that is what an associate told me

I am trying to get some information here to speak intelligently

[Walk away]

23. In what way? Are they being fined? Who are these People you spoke to.

I was the CEO for a national company. I knew everything that was going on but most of our directors were clueless about specifics unless it was related to their divisions. Do they really know anything?

[still_one]

13. Here is the link that was sent to me.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_at_t_health_care

[Walk away]

32. So according to the article, AT&T had a big tax loophole and we,

the tax payers were paying the extra cost of premiums for their retired employee's prescription plans. Now AT&T has to pay and they are pissed off because it's nice when other people pay your bills for you.

[Hannah Bell]

54. loophole courtesy of bushco's medicare pt d, 2003.

= socialized medicine channeled through corps to give them tax benefits.

single-payer now.

[Walk away]

55. Hell yes! Single-Payer Now!....nt

[bigtree]

59. correct

[Born_A_Truman]

78. Exactly!

AT&T was able to write off the cost of their retiree prescription drug plans and that included the subsidy they were getting and now they can only write off what they actually spend. Boo Hoo!

[Cant trust em]

3. I just read that AT&T's costs are going up.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/26/financial/f111559D23.DTL&tsp=1


Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits — including the subsidies — from their taxable income.

The new law allows companies to only deduct the 72 percent they spent.

[The Wielding Truth]

27. They are receiving too much in subsidies form us. IF the HCR

cuts their subsidies that will only help us. If they pass on that cut to the consumer then they will be forcing the government to go after them.

[Hannah Bell]

56. i.e., they got gifted that 28%. it was free money to them. gov't pays

28% of their drug costs & even though they're out *nothing*, they get it as a tax deduction.

"socialized medicine" -- for *corporations.*

no wonder most big corps pay nothing or next to it in taxes.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. Indeed, they should PAY taxes on the subsidy, since the subsidy is income

[MattBaggins]

83. In short they closed an egregious loop hole

[xultar]

84. AT&T what used to be Cingular makes their employees take a $4000 deductable...

and they took all their accrued vacation away and everyone is down to 40 PTO total, including sick days.


FUCK'EM they weren't providing benefits anyway.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. By whom?

Your *friendly* local right winger (teabagger)? :eyes: Don't believe everything you're told and ALWAYS, ALWAYS consider the source!

[kestrel91316]

6. By whom? Somebody who just pulls this stuff out of their ASS??

The bill doesn't even begin to take effect for 3 months, and very little happens for the first 6 months.

Sounds like a made-up RW talking point.

[still_one]

9. It might be, and that is what I am trying to find out. If someone knows help me out

On Bloomberg today CAT said that they had to set a large amount of money aside for it

[LiberalFighter]

15. I never trust anything that Caterpillar says.

[DoBotherMe]

8. It's not costing them more, just less tax credit on income

Here's a link for you http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4321894

Companies are getting less of a tax break on the government subsidy for retiree drug plans. At least that's what I understand. Dana ; )

[still_one]

10. Thank-you, that is exactly what I am looking for /nt

[Cant trust em]

14. What's the difference between...

costing more and eliminating a tax deduction?

Isn't six or one half dozen?

[DoBotherMe]

20. There may be no difference

I'm not familiar with large corporate accounting. They may have to reduce dividends and top salaries, or, yes, layoffs. I suppose the wealthy will continue to kick and scream about their taxes moving to a more equitable share. If they don't like it they can move to Dubai. :shrug: Dana ; )

[still_one]

21. It might have to do with companies that have pensions verses 401ks also

You also have a point, there is no difference

[Cant trust em]

24. Long-term big picture is that companies and people will adjust to less profit and lower benefits

35 million more people will have coverage.

Some people will lose out, but overall I think we all gain.

[still_one]

26. less profits mean lower stock market, or worse, perhaps layoffs

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/health-care-passed-how-will-individuals.html

[Cant trust em]

34. Public policy is all about trade-offs, isn't it?

We're sacrificing some straight income and economic output (some job loss and decreased stock performance) for higher quality of life (near universal health care).

Is that a trade worth making? In the long-term, I'd say yes.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

36. Actually, that's a pretty simplistic way to look at it

What the bill really does is increase the potential health of 35 million Americans. Healthier citizens are more productive citizens. More productive citizens earn more and pay more taxes. Higher tax revenues have the potential to offset a large portion of the expected costs. In addition, higher tax revenues benefit the country by helping to create jobs, which offsets any layoffs that may happen (although I don't think we'll see layoffs happen other than those from companies who would have laid people off anyway, but are using HCR as an excuse). I think that for corporations it's a zero sum game - in other words, they will reap benefits that offset whatever increased costs they realize. Overall, the bill has the potential to improve both our economy and the situation of individual citizens. That will keep the stock market from dropping.

I don't know why I haven't seen an analysis of HCR that contains real information on the secondary and tertiary benefits of health reform.

[still_one]

39. That is true, and hopefully we will be able to convey that message /nt

[area51]

69. You bring up interesting points,

but how much good does it do if this country forces people to buy health insurance, and a once-a-year kickback won't help pay premiums month-to-month, if the co-pays and deductibles keep people from getting actual care?

[bvar22]

77. Thats where their argument falls apart.

Bronze Level Health Insurance does NOT = Health Care.
It DOES equal a monthly Tithe to the For Profit Health Insurance Corporations for a product that will be virtually useless for the majority.

Most of that 35 Million mandated into the "Exchange" will not be able to afford to use the High Deductible/High Co-Pay "Bronze" Insurance they will be forced to buy.
The Democrats very wisely put off THAT part until AFTER the 2012 elections.

[rusty fender]

72. When I read your post, the first thing that came to mind

was, 'Wow, what a fantasy world you live in.' Then I saw your signature line. Homeopathy is like faith healing: no science, just faith. I suppose that if your faith is strong enough, it will keep reality from interfering with your fantasies.

[Abq_Sarah]

62. Or it could mean

Reduced employee wages and benefits or higher consumer prices.

[Abq_Sarah]

61. Yes, it is costing them more

The 28% subsidy was provided to large employers as an enticement to offer retirees prescription drug coverage. They were allowed to write the subsidy off because it kept retirees out of medicare part D and saved the taxpayers and medicare, more money that it would have cost the taxpayers if those employees were put back into medicare part D

The companies have two options now. Shoulder the entire burden or reduce/eliminate prescription drug coverage.

[tridim]

11. It's a corporate hissy fit.

Because they lost, finally.

[gmoney]

12. The corporations and right wingers will now blame EVERY job loss on HCR.

Boortz was saying that Caterpillar claims HCR provisions will cost them $100 Million this year so they'll be cutting jobs, and that one of the cellular companies is going to have to cut 1000 jobs because of it.

Of course, if it had NOT passed, Caterpillar and the cell company would still be cutting those jobs. But now they have a scapegoat.

[matt819]

17. Exactly

Three days after the bill was signed, and they're claiming millions in reduced income and thousands of lost jobs? This just doesn't pass the smell test. It's too early to evaluate the impact on any level, corporate or personal. Some components of the bill don't come into play for several years. I can't agree more. This is scapegoating, and the Dems need to call them out on it every single time.

[abelenkpe]

16. Please answer this question

I would also like to know. Are there any small business owners here or that you know that are saying their health care costs are going to go up? Because I was listening to kpfk recently and it sounded as if small businesses would not be hurt bu HCR. Actually that they would be helped and there were lots of incentives to help small businesses provide health care for their employees. That businesses with under 50 employees still didn't need to provide health care, but if they did they would receive a subsidy. I wanted to ask the owner of the company I work for how it will effect us, but the company meeting has been postponed until next friday.

In the meantime the right has already started spewing a bunch of BS about HCR ruining businesses and sending jobs overseas. That is their talking point. (See: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/health-care-passed-how-will-individuals.html) So I'd like to have some ammunition to counter that. Honestly. Any help???

[DoBotherMe]

33. Small businesses with fewer than 50 employees are not required

to provide insurance coverage. Here's how the law will affect small business: (Hope it helps! Dana ; )

EXEMPTIONS: Businesses with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from any penalties if they choose not to provide insurance coverage for their workers.

REQUIRMENT/PENALTY: Starting on Jan. 1, 2014, companies with more than 50 employees are required to provide insurance coverage or pay a fine of $2,000 per employee, excluding the first 30 employees.

SUBSIDIES: Tax credits will be available on a sliding scale and on a temporary basis to certain employers who offer insurance.

Generally, an employer with fewer than 25 workers and average annual wages of less than $40,000 can get the credit. From 2011 to 2013, eligible employers may qualify for up to 35 percent of their contribution to a worker’s health-insurance premium.

Employers with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $20,000 would be eligible for the full credit.

EXCHANGES: The law provides states with resources to set up a Small Business Health Options Program, a type of insurance exchange to help small businesses and individuals buy insurance collectively. Government agencies or nonprofit organizations can run the exchanges and states can apply for federal aid to set them up.

The plans offered on the state-run exchange must be standardized so small businesses can compare the private insurance plans that must offer a minimum level of benefits established by the law.

States could limit the enrollment in the exchanges to employers with fewer than 50 workers through 2016.

Small businesses that purchase coverage through an exchange can get a tax credit of up to 50 percent of the employer’s contribution toward the health-insurance premium if the employer contributes at least 50 percent of the total premium cost. The credit is available for two years. The full credit will be available to employers with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $25,000.

Starting in 2017, a state may allow larger companies with at least 101 employees to participate in the exchange.

[abelenkpe]

51. Excellent! Thank you!

I'm going to start gathering as much info on this as possible. :)

[Ms. Toad]

37. There is up to a 35% tax credit for small businesses

starting immediately. For companies currently offering health insurance, that means that insurance which cost them $100 before HCR now only costs $65.

For companies not currently offering health insurance, it means they can buy it for 65% of what it would otherwise have cost them - so they may be able to offer it.

Ultimately, the tax credit goes to 50% (I don't remember the timing).

Smaller companies are the first eligible for the exchanges (so they will have the benefit of risk pooling sooner than the bigger companies that already have that benefit).

I believe small companies are exempt from fines for not offering coverage even after 2014 - so it is a win-win for small companies.

[abelenkpe]

50. Thank you!

This will be quite helpful. I'm looking forward to my bosses answer too. I think it would be great to gather reactions from as many business owners as possible as to how they feel about HCR so as to better judge these claims from the right. So far it seems that republicans still believe misinformation are assuming it will cost them more and large multinational corps are complaining they've lost a subsidy. (Boo Hoo.) Anyway, always good to be prepared to counter propaganda. Thank you!

[goclark]

73. I was in Denny's today, the waitress said that she works

two jobs.

Denny's does not give her health benefits but Ralph's Market does.

According to the new Bill ~ what could happen to her?

[Ms. Toad]

81. Until 2014, it depends on how big Ralph's Market is

and how Ralph's market responds to the new rules. If Ralph's Market has fewer than 50 employees, the tax credit that starts sooner than that should encourage Ralph's market to continue offering it. (Nothing prevents Ralphs's market from dropping insurance - but if it does between now and 2014 she would have the option of converting it to a personal policy under HIPAA (after exhausting all her federal and state COBRA rights, if any))

If it is small enough, in 2014 Ralph's market may even be able to offer her even cheaper coverage through the exchange - small businesses (under 50) are currently offered insurance rates based on the health of their employees, so my (small) employer has really awful rates because about half of the people are not insurable (my daughter's health care costs $60,000 a year, for example). At the time our company selected the policy, they asked for detailed health histories for everyone who would be covered by it - just as if we were a family applying for insurance. There was only one policy that met our company's need - so the insurance company had no competition and pretty much got to charge whatever it wanted.

I think our company has to wait until 2015 to be eligible for the pool. Eligibility is based on the size of the company. Our rates should drop by then because instead of looking at the expensive people in our individual company they are based on the rates of lots and lots of small companies - the power of a larger pool that big companies have the advantage of now.

After 2014, Denny's will have to pay penalties if it doesn't provide health care benefits.

I haven't looked at all at if/how the bill deals with individuals eligible for multiple policies.

[goclark]

87. Thanks so much, I'll bookmark it !

[Hannah Bell]

82. if you're barely breaking even, that tax credit doesn't do you much good, unless

they give it to you as added income -- which they do in some cases for big corps, i.e. if you get enough of the right kind of tax credits, you get a rebate (i.e. free money) from the gov't. and big corps can sell their tax breaks as well.

how about small business?

[Ms. Toad]

88. This tax credit is ONLY for small businesses.

The tax credit should roughly offset the tax on the income which you would have if you took the the money as profits, rather than spending it on health care. I don't know how the deductibility is addressed, but you may actually get a double benefit. The amount paid for premiums is currently deductible (so if you take that money as profits, you pay taxes on it at your marginal tax rate - if you pay health insurance premiums you don't pay taxes on that income already). If it is still deductible (and I have not checked), AND you get the tax credit, that would effectively cut the cost of paying for employees health insurance considerably (if you are eligible for the full credit, roughly 35% + whatever your marginal tax rate is).

For small businesses that want to do the right thing, but can't afford to because the individually rated premium cost is double or triple what the big guys have to pay for the same insurance, it should be big enough to make a difference. Once they write the regs, run the numbers on this year's tax bill with and without health care (to take into account the tax impact of buying health insurance - to take it out of your income if that is still permitted, and to subtract the tax credit off the tax bill).

[Hannah Bell]

91. you missed the entire point.

[Ms. Toad]

93. If your post had been clearer, I might not have.

It wasn't clear whether you were asking about personal assistance for employees, large businesses or small businesses.

I decided from the last line of the post that you must have been asking about small businesses, and perhaps you didn't understand that the provision in the law I was talking about only applied to small businesses, so I reiterated that point and tried to address the affordability issue you seemed to be asking about. The tax credit is a direct deduction from the tax bill of the small businesses.

[Abq_Sarah]

63. If you have less than 50 employees

It doesn't really help or hurt you.

Either you earn enough to afford to provide employee health care or you don't. If your company is earning enough to provide health care benefits, the subsidy is just the icing on the cake and a temporary offset for the rise in premiums that will come, at least in the short term. If your company isn't earning enough to provide benefits, a subsidy that expires isn't going to help.

The subsidies are meant to help level the playing field between large and small businesses. Large corporations have a larger pool and can get better rates for their insurance. This bill doesn't change that.

[Pisces]

22. Use your damn brain.

[Spike89]

25. No. But they are revising budgets already

because it will cost them some money next year.

[Oceansaway]

28. CAT & DEERE both UAW...nuff said..n/t

[donco6]

29. It's pretty clear in the article what they're doing.

They're posting an accrual against future costs.


"Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits — including the subsidies — from their taxable income.

The new law allows companies to only deduct the 72 percent they spent."

So the new law got rid of a loophole they've been taking advantage of. Boo fucking hoo.

[rucky]

47. ^^^^^^^^READ THIS^^^^^^^^

[hvn_nbr_2]

30. You're "being told"? Let me guess: those telling you are quoting "some people"?

If they haven't told you any details, they're just making it up or passing along what someone else made up. If they had anything, they'd have told you what it was.

[Carly]

31. I highly doubt it's doing anything just yet

One of my anti-HCR friends is claiming her husband's job will begin deducting $200 from his paycheck starting next week because of this bill. She posted it as her FB status and I just called bullshit on it.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

38. I've seen similar hyperbole

And it's just ridiculous.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[still_one]

42. My understanding is that you are correct, some of that is backloaded /nt

[Carly]

53. Her latest reply

Here was her reply once I called BS:

ok just talked to j. he said its an extra 250 $ a month .. and yes they want the taxes to start being taken out right away which I even stated is bs since most of the crap isn't in effect till 2012 but if you read it it says right there the tax part starts this year my dears ...

I guess I just can't keep replying "bullshit" to her status updates, can I?

[laughingliberal]

66. Well, it is BS. Unless her husband makes one hell of a lot of money

As far as I know, the only people who will see increased deductions from paychecks would be those who make over $250,000 per year. People at that income level will pay an increase of .8% in Medicare taxes on the amount they make over $250,000. What the hell does her husband make?

[Carly]

67. I am guessing here

He's a security guard at a juvenile facility so I think he makes about $35k a year. Maybe a little bit more but nowhere even close to six figures.

[laughingliberal]

70. I know of nothing in the HCR bill which would require any company to start payroll deductions

for individuals at that end of the scale. The only possible, remote explanation would be the company has decided to enroll all their employees in a medical benefits plan they have previously not been a part of to comply with the employer mandate. But I highly doubt it as I don't believe the employer mandate goes into affect for a while.

[stray cat]

43. Before it was even passed - I don't think so?

[anigbrowl]

52. Well, without any context it's kind of hard to evaluate

was it on the news? Was it just some guy talking shit?

You won't get good answers if you run to DU every time you hear some vague statement like that. Ask the person who's making it to back it up, don't waste your time and that of other DUers by doing their research for them. If they can't tell you where they heard it or why they think that, then dismiss it as BS.

Seriously.

[Mike 03]

57. Are you speaking about Deere and Cat? NT

[DailyGrind51]

60. It is really too soon to tell.

[ThomThom]

65. since most of the bill does not take effect for years and the fact

that the insurance company stocks have gone up since Congress passed this bill, I would guess no on the accuracy question. More right wing hype is my guess.

[pdxmom]

68. The Dems have already jumped into this and will be holding

hearings on April 21 on these companies' claims:

"Earlier this week, Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co., and AK Steel Holding Corp. announced their own hefty one-time charges.

Almost immediately, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman of California and Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, chairman of the Oversight and Investigations panel, announced plans to hold an April 21 hearing on “claims by Caterpillar, Verizon, and Deere that provisions in the new health care reform law could adversely affect their company’s ability to provide health insurance to their employees. These assertions appear to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs.”

The committee wants the companies’ CEOs testify and provide evidence of the law’s projected impact."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/03/26/companies-charges-prompt-a-hearing/

Also,

"Caterpillar Inc. and other large companies are being criticized by the Obama administration for reporting now that they will take millions of dollars in hits to their earnings because of one portion of the new health care legislation.

Caterpillar and Deere were accused of being “premature and irresponsible” by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke for saying a change to Medicare Part D laws would hurt their earnings in the present quarter.

Those companies are also being questioned about the amounts they are claiming — amounts that seem to get larger with every company that makes a report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission about taking a one-time charge as a result of the legislation."

http://www.pjstar.com/business/x1447158105/Cat-others-criticized-by-Obama-administration-for-cost-estimates

[Abq_Sarah]

76. Federal law

Requires them to notify the SEC and shareholders by filing a form 8-K:

http://www.sec.gov/answers/form8k.htm

Any material event has to be reported to the shareholders and the SEC as soon as the company learns of it, not when it actually goes into effect.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

71. All the money they had to spend to derail it not surprised, these folks know how to waste money.

[zbiker]

74. unfortunately for me

being an employer with less than fifty employees i haft to look at the source of trouble and how it trickle down to my business. i depends a lot on these guys that have more than 50 employees, if their are losses and lay offs at their level, it will cripple me as far as my income level goes down due to lack of business. with the economy on the straits already this i fear is going to make it double tough on my end. as they say "poop roles down hill" and as a small business owner I'm at the bottom of the rise :(
It's unfortunate that the economy was not addressed first, the the hcb was tackled.

[walldude]

75. Yes it is despite the fucking pathetic handwringing going on here..

People are unfucking believable, they rail against the tea baggers and their violence and name calling and the minute someone questions the mighty health care bill they are on the attack bandwagon. :rofl:

The truth is someone was going to have to pay for this. Am I upset that AT&T and John Deere and Valero energy are going to have to cough up some of those billion dollar profits to make sure their employees stay healthy and can keep working? Fuck no. Frankly I can't understand the mindset that is upset about this, they would rather call you a liar than just admit that yeah it's going to cost money but the people paying have been living off our backs for so long that it's time they coughed up.

[Born_A_Truman]

79. AT&T taking a charge ...

The charges relate to prescription-drug benefits for retirees. Companies that provide this 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.

[yodoobo]

80. So what if it is?

Why should I care if a billion dollar corporations pay more?

[Warren Stupidity]

85. Where ending a huge corporate tax break is 'costing money'?

Yeah, that's true.

[discocrisco01]

86. Well

The key thing with these guys is how to read financial statements. Luckily, I am trained accountant so this stuff is English for me.

On AT&T, went to a website and no results.

[whatsthebuzz]

89. I don't even get comments like that

Everyone around me just shouts the usual bullshit KILL THE BILL! OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST! (Or a Marxist, depending on the mood of the person.)

[Atman]

90. It's very simple...they're compensating for a tax loophole taken away from them.

It isn't any big mystery, although you wouldn't know that listening to their fellows in the corporate media (remember, as others in the thread have pointed out, AT&T and Cat have Union issues):

Here is the deal: The government allows AT&T and Cat, et al, to write off 100% spent on every health care dollar. IOW, YOU AND I PAY FOR IT. However, the Government has been also subsidizing these companies with .28¢ on the dollar for those very same health care expenditures for which they get to claim 100% on their taxes.

All that has happened in that the HCR bill has eliminated that 28% subsidy. Or the 100% write-off, I honestly am not sure which one. Either way, it essentially eliminates a double-dipping loophole, and the brazillion-dollar corporations are whining about it as if it were money they somehow had in their bank accounts in the first place -- WHICH IT WASN'T. In fact, they're writing it down NOW even though it won't actually impact them for a few years.

IOW, they are whining and complaining about accounting gimmicks which have been taken away from them, using accounting gimmicks to justify their whining, meanwhile blaming it all on those pesky employees they have to pay.

.

[eridani]

92. Has nothing to do with HCR. The shitstain insurance parasites are jacking

--their premiums and copays because they can. HCR of course has nothing in it to stop this practice, but they'd be doing the same without it.