Obama care-day 1

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
159
63
Bowling Green Ky
Democrats dragged themselves over the health-care finish line in part by repeating that voters would like the plan once it passed. Let's see what they think when they learn their insurance costs will jump right away.
Even before President Obama signed the bill on Tuesday, Caterpillar said it would cost the company at least $100 million more in the first year alone. Medical device maker Medtronic warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers. Now Verizon joins the roll of businesses staring at adverse consequences.
In an email titled "President Obama Signs Health Care Legislation" sent to all employees Tuesday night, the telecom giant warned that "we expect that Verizon's costs will increase in the short term." While executive vice president for human resources Marc Reed wrote that "it is difficult at this point to gauge the precise impact of this legislation," and that ObamaCare does reflect some of the company's policy priorities, the message to workers was clear: Expect changes for the worse to your health benefits as the direct result of this bill, and maybe as soon as this year.

Mr. Reed specifically cited a change in the tax treatment of retiree health benefits. When Congress created the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003, it included a modest tax subsidy to encourage employers to keep drug plans for retirees, rather than dumping them on the government. The Employee Benefit Research Institute says this exclusion?equal to 28% of the cost of a drug plan?will run taxpayers $665 per person next year, while the same Medicare coverage would cost $1,209.
In a $5.4 billion revenue grab, Democrats decided that this $665 fillip should be subject to the ordinary corporate income tax of 35%. Most consulting firms and independent analysts say the higher costs will induce some companies to drop drug coverage, which could affect about five million retirees and 3,500 businesses. Verizon and other large corporations warned about this outcome.
U.S. accounting laws also require businesses to immediately restate their earnings in light of the higher tax burden on their long-term retiree health liabilities. This will have a big effect on their 2010 earnings.
While the drug tax subsidy is for retirees, companies consider their benefit costs as a total package. The new bill might cause some to drop retiree coverage altogether. Others may be bound by labor contracts to retirees, but then they will find other ways to cut costs. This means raising costs or reducing coverage for other employees. So much for Mr. Obama's claim that if you like your coverage, you can keep it?even at Fortune 500 companies.

In its employee note, Verizon also warned about the 40% tax on high-end health plans, though that won't take effect until 2018. "Many of the plans that Verizon offers to employees and retirees are projected to have costs above the threshold in the legislation and will be subject to the 40 percent excise tax." These costs will start to show up soon, and, as we repeatedly argued, the tax is unlikely to drive down costs. The tax burden will simply be spread to all workers?the result of the White House's too-clever decision to tax insurers, rather than individuals.
A Verizon spokesman said the company is merely addressing employee questions about ObamaCare, not making a political statement. But these and many other changes were enabled by the support of the Business Roundtable that counts Verizon as a member. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg's health-reform ideas are 180 degrees from Mr. Obama's, but Verizon's shareholders and 900,000 employees and retirees will still pay the price.
Businesses around the country are making the same calculations as Verizon and no doubt sending out similar messages. It's only a small measure of the destruction that will be churned out by the rewrite of health, tax, labor and welfare laws that is ObamaCare, and only the vanguard of much worse to come.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
159
63
Bowling Green Ky
It continues as predicted--a shame people can't be held accountable for their actions/convictions in the layoff process.

AT&T to Book $1 Billion Cost on Health-Care Reform (Update3)

March 26, 2010, 4:37 PM EDT

(Adds health-care bill background in 12th paragraph.)
By Amy Thomson and Ian King
March 26 (Bloomberg) -- AT&T Inc. will book $1 billion in first-quarter costs related to the health-care law signed this week by President Barack Obama, the most of any U.S. company so far.
A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing.
AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, joins Caterpillar Inc., AK Steel Holding Corp. and 3M Co. in recording non-cash expenses against earnings as a result of the law. Health-care costs may shave as much as $14 billion from U.S. corporate profits, according to an estimate by benefits consulting firm Towers Watson. AT&T employed about 281,000 people as of the end of January.
?Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees,? said Chris Larsen, an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. in New York, who rates AT&T shares ?overweight? and doesn?t own any himself.
AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees, who would otherwise be on a Medicare Part D plan. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.
?As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company,? the carrier said in the filing.
3M Cost
AT&T?s announcement was followed about an hour later by 3M, the St. Paul, Minnesota-based maker of products ranging from Post-It Notes to respiratory masks. 3M said it expects a one-time expense of $85 million to $90 million after tax, or about 12 cents a share, in the first quarter because of the new law, according to a statement. 3M had about 75,000 employees as of Feb. 5.
Michael Coe, a spokesman for the carrier, declined to comment. Peter Thonis, a spokesman for Verizon Communications Inc., which also employs more than 200,000 people, declined to comment.
New York-based Verizon, the second-largest U.S. phone company, told employees in a note after the law was signed that the tax will make the subsidy less valuable to employers like Verizon and so ?may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.?
AT&T rose 9 cents to $26.24 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares have fallen 6.4 percent this year.
Union Contracts
AT&T employees represented by the Communications Workers of America union have health benefits locked in via contracts that don?t expire until 2012 and 2013, Candice Johnson, a spokeswoman for the union, said in an interview. About 58 percent of the carrier?s workforce is represented by the union, AT&T said in a filing.
Obama signed the health-care reform policy into law on March 23 after a year of pushing the legislation through Congress without a single Republican vote. The new law will be phased in over several years and gives tens of millions of uninsured Americans health coverage. The bill, projected to cost almost $1 trillion, also calls for new taxes on the highest earners and fees on health-care companies.
Much of the public is still unsure about the plan with four in 10 Americans in favor of it, according to a Bloomberg National Poll. Obama is planning a follow-up campaign to sell the law -- the biggest change to the health system since Medicare was enacted in 1965 -- to the public.
--With reporting by Roger Runningen in Washington and Alex Nussbaum in New York. Editors: Lisa Wolfson, Stephen West
To contact the reporter on this story: Ian King in San Francisco at ianking@bloomberg.net; Amy Thomson in New York at athomson6@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tom Giles at tgiles5@bloomberg.net; Julie Alnwick at jalnwick@bloomberg.net
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
159
63
Bowling Green Ky
--also will wager $500 U.S. falls out of top 10 of country ranked by index economic freedoms at conclusion of 2010.

Index is graded on--
The index scores nations on 10 broad factors of economic freedom using statistics from organizations like the World Bank, the IMF and the Economist Intelligence Unit:
  • Business Freedom
  • Trade Freedom
  • Monetary Freedom
  • Government Size
  • Fiscal Freedom
  • Property Rights
  • Investment Freedom
  • Financial Freedom
  • Freedom from Corruption
  • Labor Freedom
The 10 factors are averaged equally into a total score. Each one of the 10 freedoms is graded using a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the maximum freedom. A score of 100 signifies an economic environment or set of policies that is most conducive to economic freedom.<SUP id=cite_ref-index_2-1 class=reference>[3]</SUP> The methodology has shifted and changed as new data and measurements have become available, especially in the area of Labor freedom, which was given its own indicator spot in 2007.<SUP id=cite_ref-freedom_1-1 class=reference>[2]</SUP>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

current top 10
I think the 1-2 punch may surprise some :)

The Top 10

hong-kong-country-globe.jpg
<TABLE class=top10 cellSpacing=0><TBODY jQuery1269695997636="23"><TR nodeIndex="1"><TH class=rank scope=col>Rank</TH><TH class=country scope=col>Country</TH><TH class=overall scope=col>Overall</TH><TH class=change scope=col>Change</TH></TR><TR class=alt nodeIndex="2" jQuery1269695997636="24"><TD class="rank free">1</TD><TD class=country>Hong Kong</TD><TD class=overall>89.7</TD><TD class="change negative">-0.3</TD></TR><TR nodeIndex="3"><TD class="rank free">2</TD><TD class=country>Singapore</TD><TD class=overall>86.1</TD><TD class="change negative">-1.0</TD></TR><TR class=alt nodeIndex="4" jQuery1269695997636="25"><TD class="rank free">3</TD><TD class=country>Australia</TD><TD class=overall>82.6</TD><TD class="change negative">0.0</TD></TR><TR nodeIndex="5"><TD class="rank free">4</TD><TD class=country>New Zealand</TD><TD class=overall>82.1</TD><TD class="change positive">0.1</TD></TR><TR class=alt nodeIndex="6" jQuery1269695997636="26"><TD class="rank free">5</TD><TD class=country>Ireland</TD><TD class=overall>81.3</TD><TD class="change negative">-0.9</TD></TR><TR nodeIndex="7"><TD class="rank free">6</TD><TD class=country>Switzerland</TD><TD class=overall>81.1</TD><TD class="change positive">1.7</TD></TR><TR class=alt nodeIndex="8" jQuery1269695997636="27"><TD class="rank free">7</TD><TD class=country>Canada</TD><TD class=overall>80.4</TD><TD class="change negative">-0.1</TD></TR><TR nodeIndex="9"><TD class="rank mostly-free">8</TD><TD class=country>United States</TD><TD class=overall>78.0</TD><TD class="change negative">-2.7</TD></TR><TR class=alt nodeIndex="10" jQuery1269695997636="28"><TD class="rank mostly-free">9</TD><TD class=country>Denmark</TD><TD class=overall>77.9</TD><TD class="change negative">-1.7</TD></TR><TR nodeIndex="11"><TD class="rank mostly-free">10</TD><TD class=country>Chile</TD><TD class=overall>77.2</TD><TD class="change negative">-1.1</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

kcwolf

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 1, 2000
7,224
21
0
Iowa City
Another promise kept by the President, for which I applaud. The tax loophole cooporations found years ago has been fixed. Too bad they can't recover all the lost revenue from years of tax abuse.

DTB, thanks for sharing. Predicting armegedon, fearmongering, and hate - keep it up please!
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I see from your link that the U.S. was #9 in the world back in 2006. So, I guess things are better this year than they were back in 2006.

Guess we can still experience some decline before we end up back where we were in the Bush years.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
That list of so called countries is a little un-fair to a large county such as ours. Just size of government would make us lower number. I could not find standing for 2009. I see list from 1995/2008 USA hangs around 5 to 8. Im not sure what any of this has to with Obama or Health Care.
 

kcwolf

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 1, 2000
7,224
21
0
Iowa City
Let's have a brief history lesson on flip-flopping rebs. Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen GOP attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.

Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans ? the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
159
63
Bowling Green Ky
I see some equate all the extra costs/layoffs with corruption?

Yep KC- Gumby & Co will sqeeze ever penny out of these Companies that produce millions of jobs--to make sure you and Da Base got that tit--had lots of practice in his pre politics proffession--Acorn Organizer-

They'll take it elswhere (see economic freedomindex)--as will many individuals.

He's going to have to pass more even more consumers taxes--opps forgot -

If you think #'s are bad now-
What happens when these healthcare costs kick in-and consider how things are now--Gumby and company had pay people to buy cars-houses-and employ people to keep employment under double digits--how long you expect that to work?


You can read all the pros and cons--but in its simplest form--you can't operate for long with deficits soaring and revenues tanking--
 

kcwolf

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 1, 2000
7,224
21
0
Iowa City
:toast: The armegedon talk is wonderful!

The party that will continue take another year off yelling disaster. I love it!

:mj07:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
159
63
Bowling Green Ky
I see Wall St just came out with duplicate of intial posts here-- but have it bit more organized than I diid.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575146002445136066.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yep Turf -- Many are angry over that issue.

I get more upset over lameness of O's griftees than the grifter himself.

Using your case as example and Gumby's Grift-

In September, Obama got into a semantic argument with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who noted that requiring all Americans to pay premiums for a government-guaranteed service sounds an awful lot like a tax. "No. That's not true, George," Obama said. "For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is . . . that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you."
Stephanopoulos invoked a dictionary definition of a tax: "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." Obama laughed off the idea that a dictionary might outrank him as the final arbiter of a word's meaning: "George, the fact that you looked up . . . the definition of tax increase indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition."
Okay, put aside your dictionaries. The legislation allocates $10 billion to pay for 16,500 IRS agents who will collect and enforce mandatory "premiums." Does that sound like the private sector at work to you?
++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't get angry over his obvious atempt to con--in fact find it as most--somewhat amusing

What I get angry at are the TU"S KC's and the rest of Gumby's diciples--who read same thing and give it the --

Ace%20Dance.gif

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> checkTextResizerCookie('article_body'); </SCRIPT>
and say--I told you so -it ain't a tax--fck webster and common sense--Gumby has spoken Damit. :)
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
I don't really like the bill but its a start. I don't like spending but if an American gets sick in this country he or she should be able to get treatment and surgery if needed to recover. This should be the greatest country in the world but we can't even take care of our own. Its sick and immoral.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
159
63
Bowling Green Ky
I don't really like the bill but its a start. I don't like spending but if an American gets sick in this country he or she should be able to get treatment and surgery if needed to recover. This should be the greatest country in the world but we can't even take care of our own. Its sick and immoral.

I understand and most liberals and the base would agree with you 100%

My question for you all is- which do you think has been most effective way in past for gov to take care of the people--
Communism or Socialism :0corn

We conservatives are of the same view as Thomas Jefferson-and prefer his analogy

"The gov that rules the least -rules the best."

Every arguement between liberals/Da Base and conservatives can be summed up the same--

Those that ask only for the opportunity to succeed on their own merits without interference from the gov--
vs those want to suck the gov tit from cradle to grave off the backs of the productive.

Your little statement above pretty much says it all--thank you. :)

By the way a lot of things made america great and the land of opportinuity--but don't believe gov benefits was one of them--

--unless your vision of opportunity and pay advance is adding one more dependent to the litter.:SIB
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Wayne: Your Jefferson quote does not apply when an industry is killing the citizens, literally and financially.

He doesn't get it. I find it ironic that neocons want to take Jefferson out of textbooks and now he wants to quote him.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
159
63
Bowling Green Ky
Wayne: Your Jefferson quote does not apply when an industry is killing the citizens, literally and financially.

Gary

Example please-- I can't think of any example where the gov dictating what we do does not infringe on freedoms.

I agree salt-tobacco-over eating--sodas--may not be good for us but don't really think we need gov mandating lifestyles--or using it as pretense to impose more taxes--I should say.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TU
Still waiting for your answer on Gumbies tax answer--I understand that you believe- since your leader told you no one dime in new taxes --it must be so --

Got another for you--remember his rant (grift/con) on Pharmacutical companies --and big rant on no lobbyist-/washington as usual



THE INFLUENCE GAME: Drug lobby's health care win



<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> if(!YAHOO){var YAHOO = {};} YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries = 0; (function(){ if(YAHOO && YAHOO.util && YAHOO.util.Event && YAHOO.Media && YAHOO.Media.Buzz){ (function(){ var buzz = new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-top",{"sync":"buzz-bottom","countPosition":"after","fetchCount":false,"loc_strings":{"buzz_up":"Buzz up!","buzzed":"Buzzed!","one_vote":"{0} vote","n_votes":"{0} votes"}});buzz.onSuccess.subscribe(function(){ if(YAHOO.Updates){ YAHOO.Updates.Disclosure.showDialog({"container":"yup-container","source":"buzz","type":"buzzUp","lang":"en-US"}); } }); })();(function(){ var buzz = new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-bottom",{"sync":"buzz-top","countPosition":"after","fetchCount":true,"loc_strings":{"buzz_up":"Buzz up!","buzzed":"Buzzed!","one_vote":"{0} vote","n_votes":"{0} votes"}});buzz.onSuccess.subscribe(function(){ if(YAHOO.Updates){ YAHOO.Updates.Disclosure.showDialog({"container":"yup-container","source":"buzz","type":"buzzUp","lang":"en-US"}); } }); })(); } else if(YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries < 10000) { YAHOO.BuzzWidgetTries += 500; setTimeout(arguments.callee, 500); } })(); </SCRIPT><CITE class=vcard>By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer Alan Fram, Associated Press Writer </CITE>? <ABBR class=recenttimedate title=2010-03-29T03:31:32-0700>9 mins ago</ABBR>
<!-- end .byline -->WASHINGTON ? Chalk one up for the pharmaceutical lobby. The U.S. drug industry fended off price curbs and other hefty restrictions in President Barack Obama's health care law even as it prepares for plenty of new business when an estimated 32 million uninsured Americans gain health coverage.
To be sure, the law also levies taxes and imposes other costs on pharmaceutical companies, leaving its final impact on the industry's bottom line uncertain. A recent analysis by Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street firm, suggests the overhaul could mean "a manageable hit" of tens of billions of dollars over the coming decade while bolstering the value of drug-company stocks. Others expect profits, not losses, of the same magnitude.
Either way, pharmaceutical lobbyists won new federal policies they coveted and set a trajectory for long-term industry growth. Privately, several of them say their biggest triumph was heading off Democrats led by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who wanted even more money from their industry to finance the health care system's expansion


"Pharma came out of this better than anyone else," said Ramsey Baghdadi, a Washington health policy analyst who projects a $30 billion, 10-year net gain for the industry. "I don't see how they could have done much better."
Costly brand-name biotech drugs won 12 years of protection against cheaper generic competitors, a boon for products that comprise 15 percent of pharmaceutical sales. The industry will have to provide 50 percent discounts beginning next year to Medicare beneficiaries in the "doughnut hole" gap in pharmaceutical coverage, but those price cuts plus gradually rising federal subsidies will mean more elderly people will purchase more drugs.
Lobbyists beat back proposals to allow importation of low-cost medicines and to have Medicare negotiate drug prices with companies. They also defeated efforts to require more industry rebates for the 9 million beneficiaries of both Medicare and Medicaid, and to bar brand-name drugmakers' payments to generic companies to delay the marketing of competitor products.
The impressive list of wins is testament to a carefully planned and well-financed lobbying strategy, led by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry's deep-pocketed trade group.
The trade group has been led by Billy Tauzin, whose $4.5 million in earnings in 2008, the most recent figure available, underscore the high stakes for the industry.
The former Louisiana congressman will quit his post in June ? a decision he abruptly announced in February when it seemed the health bill would die. Some industry officials said at the time that Tauzin was forced out, which the trade group denied.
As Obama's health care drive began last year, drugmakers agreed with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and White House officials to support the effort. In exchange, the companies volunteered $80 billion in 10-year savings for the health care changes, and backed it up with an expensive TV ad campaign pushing Obama's proposal.
It is unclear precisely how much drug manufacturers ended up contributing, in part because much of the savings ? like discounts to seniors ? come off prices the companies themselves set. Their biggest expenses over the decade are estimated to include over $20 billion for an expanded rebate for medicines used by Medicaid, $28 billion for a new fee on drug firms and about $30 billion for closing the "doughnut hole."
In a March 21 newsletter, the financial services firm Morgan Stanley estimated a $95 billion, 10-year price tag, offset by tens of billions the companies would gain from extra customers and other provisions. Industry critics say the cost will be lower because of firms' control of prices, and will be more than outweighed by added sales.
Yet even the worst-case scenario ? a net cost of tens of billions ? would be small for a U.S. drug industry that IMS Health, a medical data firm, calculates earns more than $300 billion a year.
"Let's put it this way: They can afford it," said Tim Chiang, a pharmaceutical analyst in Stamford, Conn.
Drugmakers gained an eleventh-hour win when lawmakers decided against expanding drug discounts to some hospitals serving low-income patients, a proposal some feared could cost tens of billions. The overhaul law that Obama signed Tuesday would have broadened those discounts to inpatients, but the companion bill revising the earlier measure largely pulled that back.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, said in an interview last week that as a trade-off for rolling back that expansion, the drug industry agreed to provide an additional $10 billion over a decade to help close the gap in Medicare coverage.

As for what Democrats gained from their ally, the industry and coalitions it joined spent about $67 million on supportive TV ads since the beginning of 2009, according to Evan Tracey, president of Kantar CMAG, which tracks political ads. That made it one of the biggest players in an airwaves battle that saw all sides spend $220 million.

Pharmaceutical interests spent $188 million lobbying last year, more than all but a handful of industry sectors, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. They employed an army of 1,105 lobbyists.
And after years of funneling most of its campaign contributions to Republicans, the industry has favored Democrats with 56 percent of the $5 million it has handed candidates so far this year. The biggest recipient, by far, of the industry's 2008 election cycle contributions of $13.8 million was Obama, who received $1.2 million for his presidential campaign. "They're certainly going to get a very high return on that investment," Waxman said in a recent interview. :eek:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
159
63
Bowling Green Ky
--more updates on reality vs rhetoric-
-or I told you so

The working class :(
Da Base :00hour


NEWS & COMMENTARY
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR vAlign=bottom><TD colSpan=2>The cost of ObamaCare: AT&T announces $1 billion loss in first quarter...to cut benefits
result of higher taxes in the ObamaCare bill
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



March 29, 2010
Business Week is reporting that ObamaCare will cost AT&T a billion dollars in the just the first quarter, and will now proceed to negotiate changes to its union contracts to reduce health care benefits to its employees. Exactly what Republicans predicted would happen when Democrats were saying "if you want to keep you current insurance you will be able to do so under ObamaCare."

About an hour later, after AT&T announced its loses, 3M announced that a loss of $85 to $90 million after tax dollars. Verizon, in a letter to its employees, warned them that benefit cuts should be expected.

Last week Caterpillar announced last week that it was taking loses as a result of the taxes imposed by ObamaCare and is moving its backhoe operations from Clayton, NC to the United Kingdom, where business taxes are lower.

And all that is just in the first three days of ObamaCare.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
TU
Still waiting for your answer on Gumbies tax answer--I understand that you believe- since your leader told you no one dime in new taxes --it must be so --

No, you are the one who believes everything he is told. You need to evolve from believing everything your party tells you. Maybe you should vote for Ron Paul?
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,057
1,343
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
Gary

Example please-- I can't think of any example where the gov dictating what we do does not infringe on freedoms.

Wayne: I know you are in the insurance industry, so the way health care companies operate probably makes sense to you. But when companies are building in a yearly 10% health care cost increase to their business plans, something is fucked up....oh yeah, and the "providers" are making record profits. People who have paid for insurance, become left out when the "provider" decides they don't have to provide said insurance. It is a joke. If you think things are just great, try dealing with a serious illness or a "pre-existing condition" you just found out about. It is a scam that only a fellow con man would appreciate.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top