Will You Lose Your Health Care?

[The Mucca]

Just wondering if anyone working for large companies have heard any rumors about your health care plans

either being cut or slashed since the health care bill was passed?

 

Link to some that might

[bpwallace49]

Just wondering if anyone working for large companies have heard any rumors about your health care plans

either being cut or slashed since the health care bill was passed?

 

Link to some that might

 

Are you upset that we are cutting off corporate welfare? Cause it sure sounds like they are requiring businesses to only get a tax deduction based on what they actually receive . . That actually sounds reasonable? Y'know . . only deduct the amount they ACTUALLY PAY?

 

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 deduct only the 72 percent they spent.

[The Mucca]

Are you upset that we are cutting off corporate welfare? Cause it sure sounds like they are requiring businesses to only get a tax deduction based on what they actually receive . . That actually sounds reasonable? Y'know . . only deduct the amount they ACTUALLY PAY?

 

So cutting off so called corporate welfare to screw millions of people out of health benefits is a good idea?

[bpwallace49]

So cutting off so called corporate welfare to screw millions of people out of health benefits is a good idea?

 

They are choosing to screw millions of people. They made over 3 billion in profits last year. More importantly, why the hell was that corporate welfare passed in the first place?

[The Mucca]

They are choosing to screw millions of people. They made over 3 billion in profits last year. More importantly, why the hell was that corporate welfare passed in the first place?

 

 

 

Correct, so why does the Government want to screw millions of people out of their health insurance when they just passed

health care reform?

[bpwallace49]

Correct, so why does the Government want to screw millions of people out of their health insurance when they just passed

health care reform?

 

Wrong again. At & T is choosing to screw millions of people. they made 3 billion in profits last year, and Congress eliminated a corporate welfare tax subsidy that never should have passed in teh first place.

 

At & T is making a choice to screw their own workers out of coverage.

 

I am sure there will be legitimate problems coming up with the health care bill and implementation. You should really save your righteous indignation when it actually matters versus railing about the gubmnet eliminating a tax subsidy that a company that makes over 3 BILLION IN PROFIT probably never needed in the first place.

 

headline-"US Gubmnet eliminates illegal dumping of toxic waste into rivers"

Mucca- "Obviously Obama doesnt care about the workers that will lose their jobs dumping toxic waste into the river. Why is he screwing Americans out of jobs?"

 

[BillyBalata]

I don't get why companies should be allowed to take a tax deduction on money they didn't spend. So this change makes sense to me.

[The Mucca]

It doesn't make since to me.

If the intention of health care reform was so that every American would have health insurance, then why not

leave the tax incentives in? Otherwise, every major employer will stop covering their employees, then how many people

will have to go under the governments insurance? I would think that would be more costly then the tax incentives.

Edited March 27, 2010 by The Mucca

[The Mucca]

Wrong again. At & T is choosing to screw millions of people. they made 3 billion in profits last year, and Congress eliminated a corporate welfare tax subsidy that never should have passed in teh first place.

 

At & T is making a choice to screw their own workers out of coverage.

 

I am sure there will be legitimate problems coming up with the health care bill and implementation. You should really save your righteous indignation when it actually matters versus railing about the gubmnet eliminating a tax subsidy that a company that makes over 3 BILLION IN PROFIT probably never needed in the first place.

 

headline-"US Gubmnet eliminates illegal dumping of toxic waste into rivers"

Mucca- "Obviously Obama doesnt care about the workers that will lose their jobs dumping toxic waste into the river. Why is he screwing Americans out of jobs?"

 

 

What's your problem, I wasn't railing on anyone, just asking questions. Why do you fill the need to argue constantly, does it make you fill like a man?

[bpwallace49]

It doesn't make since to me.

If the intention of health care reform was so that every American would have health insurance, then why not

leave the tax incentives in? Otherwise, every major employer will stop covering their employees, then how many people

will have to go under the governments insurance? I would think that would be more costly then the tax incentives.

 

So you propose doing a "trickle down" theory instead? Give additional tax breaks to businesses and hope they keep insurance benefits in?

 

All I am saying is that there will be plenty of legitmate concerns about this massive unwieldy bill soon enough . . . IMO blaming the elimination of an unneccessary tax break to a company that makes billions in profit on the gubmnet is . I am more concerned how the gubmnet thought giving a company a tax break on money they never spent was a good idea in the first place . . . .

[The Mucca]

What's the difference in a tax break compared to bailouts, they are both keeping the company in business so that

they can keep employees and provide benefits to their employees, I see no difference.

All I am saying is that the tax breaks would most likely cost less to the taxpayers then millions of extra people

being placed in the Government insurance program.

[bpwallace49]

What's the difference in a tax break compared to bailouts, they are both keeping the company in business so that

they can keep employees and provide benefits to their employees,.

 

So you are saying that free market capitalism is wrong?

 

I think bailouts and tax breaks for business are equally wrong. But that is just me.

[Ursa Majoris]

What's the difference in a tax break compared to bailouts, they are both keeping the company in business so that

they can keep employees and provide benefits to their employees, I see no difference.

You probably should stop here as you're now supporting socialism.

[The Mucca]

I don't like them either, but if thats the way things are now unfortunately.

[The Mucca]

You probably should stop here as you're now supporting socialism.

 

I don't see cutting taxes as socialism,

[bpwallace49]

I don't see cutting taxes as socialism,

 

Do you see giving free money to businesses as socialism? Cause a tax deduction that isnt based on taxes paid is exactly that . . . free money for the for-profit business.

[The Mucca]

The way I read it is that the tax deduction was on the money spent by the company for health benefits ie prescription drugs, so I wouldn't

consider that money as for profit money for the company.

[bpwallace49]

The way I read it is that the tax deduction was on the money spent by the company for health benefits ie prescription drugs, so I wouldn't

consider that money as for profit money for the company.

 

The article said the company spent 72 cents . . but then got to take a dollar tax deduction. Does that seem right? or should they only get to deduct what they actually spent? By taking a larger deduction than what they actually spent, they are getting a subsidy from the US gubmnet . . . I.E. corporate welfare.

[The Mucca]

Your right, yeah that's not fair, however now they went to far the other way, letting them only deduct 72cents on the dollar

instead of 100%. Since it's for health care deducting 100% would seem fair to me.

[BillyBalata]

Your right, yeah that's not fair, however now they went to far the other way, letting them only deduct 72cents on the dollar

instead of 100%. Since it's for health care deducting 100% would seem fair to me.

 

 

I think you should go back and reread the article. The companies are paying 72% of the benefit, the gov't is paying 28%. They still get to deduct 100% of what they pay in for this particular benefit. They no longer get to deduct what the gov't paid.

Edited March 27, 2010 by BillyBalata

[The Mucca]

I hope your right cuz this is all the article says

 

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

 

Nothing about the 28%.

[BillyBalata]

I hope your right cuz this is all the article says

 

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

 

Nothing about the 28%.

 

 

wow...and I'm the one that usually stays out of political discussions because I feel I'm in way over my head.

[The Mucca]

wow...and I'm the one that usually stays out of political discussions because I feel I'm in way over my head.

 

And that's the reason for my questions, because I'm not sure how this could effect health care reform.

[Duchess Jack]

What's the difference in a tax break compared to bailouts, they are both keeping the company in business

 

...if you ignore that pesky 3 billion dollar profit thing.

 

That's kind of like me making $250k a year for a family of three and collecting food stamps - and saying - how could I possibly feed my family if you take my food stamps away.

[westvirginia]

OMG at the people wringing their hands and saying "$3BB in profits - how EVIL!"

 

If AT&T didn't make a profit investors wouldn't buy the stock, which wouldn't capitalize the business, which means no AT&T. And that's not a horrendously great margin for them. I don't see why this is so difficult for you lefties to see - if folks can't expect a profit, they won't take a risk. If they won't take a risk, there's no economic growth, no new technologies (because you have to have income in excess of expenses to fund R&D), and no innovations that better our health, our productivity, our general lots in life.

 

Being a former Cingular/AT&T employee, in accounting no less, that charge is probably as much for the Caddilac tax as anything. They weren't the best at letting go of cash for a salary, but the bennies they gave us were better than my Father had as a union coal miner once upon a time. So all you hating on them for profit need to stick that in your pipe and smoke it. As far as the tax issue goes, #1, this isn't only affecting AT&T, it would be any company paying out HC bennies for retirees (and how many companies still do THAT, you profit haters?). On principle, I agree that they should only be allowed to deduct the 72% actually paid. This is another glaring example of how nothing gov't does exists in a vacuum - there are unintended consequences to every new little law fedgov wants to cram down our throats. Actions have consequences, guys, and when AT&T had a business model that used the extra 28% writeoff, and that writeoff disappears, you have to do something to counter that, to make it up.