Magox Posted April 13, 2010 Author Posted April 13, 2010 When is a promise considered a broken promise? Middle class will get killed with health care taxes.............in 2019. Does that mean Obama broke his promise not to tax people making under $200K/year, or does he get a pass since he won't be in office when the taxes take effect? No. Wait. My bad. Looks like he already broke that promise. I've got a few more to add to that politifact link, which I'm surprised they didn't mention. 1) Windfall tax on the health insurance industry. 2) Additional taxes on Big Pharma 3) Additional taxes on medical device equipment. Those costs are certainly going to get passed down, and it won't be to just to people making over $250,000.
Magox Posted April 13, 2010 Author Posted April 13, 2010 Priceless In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members. For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available. The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans? Awesome!!
Doc Posted April 17, 2010 Posted April 17, 2010 People are catching-on that this was a deception to which Bernie Madoff could only aspire. Polls are showing that opposition to Barry's health care abortion is growing after being passed, when you'd think that apathy/resignation would set-in. Repeal and replace.
GG Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 About that cost estimate New batteries in the calculator
IDBillzFan Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 About that cost estimate New batteries in the calculator "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." Geez, she wasn't kidding.
Magox Posted April 26, 2010 Author Posted April 26, 2010 More positive consequences of the Health Insurance Reform. Last week, two major health care companies, Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson, projected slumps in sales because of President Obama's health care overhaul. Johnson & Johnson said the health care overhaul will cost $400 million to $500 million in sales this year. Drugmaker Eli Lilly announced that Obamacare would clip revenue by about $700 million next year – about 3 percent of Lilly's global sales. Numerous other companies released similar data in recent days, and I'd expect more companies to follow suit as first-quarter earnings announcements continue. David Pyott, chairman and CEO of Allergan, a global pharmaceutical and medical device company based in Irvine, met with me Wednesday to discuss the hard implications of President Obama's health care bill and how it will affect Pyott's company and the broader health care industry. To put things in perspective, Allergan employs about 8,300 people worldwide, and roughly 2,200 of them work in Irvine (well over 200 are UC Irvine graduates). The company had revenue of about $4.5 billion last year. Pyott started our discussion by saying the health care bill was "laudable" because "32 million more people will have access to health care." But Pyott quickly and astutely noted that "someone is going to have to pay for it." A lot of that burden has been placed deliberately upon companies in the pharmaceutical industry. What that means for the industry, according to Pyott, is that doctors will see downward adjustments to their payments while drugmakers and device manufacturers will face higher taxes and lower sales. "Huge taxes and fees are coming," Pyott says. The biggest tax will be on pharmaceutical manufacturers. It will cost the industry about $2.3 billion next year. In 2013 an additional excise tax on medical devices of 2.3 percent of sales will kick in. As if that were not enough, the pharmaceutical industry will also be required to pay a 50 percent rebate to the government to help close the "doughnut hole," the gap in the Medicare prescription drug plan where recipients run out of coverage and must pay out-of-pocket costs before catastrophic care kicks in (the coverage gap falls between $3,000 and $6,000). Let us not forget where Medicare Part D came from. But if you are not in the pharmaceutical industry why should you care? Pyott explained, "When huge new taxes are levied, for people like me, who have a global perspective, other markets overseas just became relatively more interesting than the U.S. domestic market, quite clearly." The reality is that companies will have to look to places where they have the most freedom to do their work, and many companies could leave or expand, setting up shop in places with more favorable regulations and tax rates for the industry. Overreaching government programs have real-world implications, and those stemming from President Obama's health care plan are starting to become very apparent. If the recent projections from health care companies are any indication of revenue losses to come, health innovation will be seriously stifled. Many drugmakers and medical device manufacturers are facing the likelihood of having less money to invest in research and development for potentially lifesaving drugs and products. And if industry revenue shrinks as expected, companies will need to become more efficient and leaner, which could mean fewer jobs in the sector. From my perspective, the best thing would be to repeal Obamacare and replace it with better, workable solutions – including real reform of the civil litigation system – but Pyott's more diplomatic approach may be more workable in the short term. Faceless and nameless to the vast majority of Americans, it is easy for politicians and us taxpayers to forget about the big, bad corporate-types who lead the country by employing tens of millions of Americans. Government now unfortunately overemploys droves of American workers, but innovation and sustainable economic prosperity comes from private sector companies that drive the nation's job engine. It's become common for politicians in Washington, Sacramento and all over the country to use demagoguery to demonize the nation's profit generators, and that is why it is important to hear the other side of the story The health care debate has emboldened many executives to speak freely about particular laws that, while perhaps well-intentioned, make things a lot worse for employers and workers alike.
IDBillzFan Posted April 26, 2010 Posted April 26, 2010 More positive consequences of the Health Insurance Reform. These companies obviously hate poor people and want them to die. They are racists. No health care for them.
Magox Posted April 28, 2010 Author Posted April 28, 2010 Looks like Waxman, Stupak and the W.H were wrong. When major companies declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings, Democrats were skeptical. But after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results. issue is a section of the law that eliminates a tax break available to companies that provide drug benefits to retirees as part of their insurance coverage. The tax change, expected to generate $4.5 billion of revenue over the next 10 years, will help offset the cost of providing coverage to the uninsured. Within days after President Obama signed the law on March 23, companies filed reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying the tax change would have a material adverse effect on their earnings. The White House suggested that companies were exaggerating the effects of the tax change. The commerce secretary, Gary F. Locke, said the companies were being “premature and irresponsible” in taking such write-downs. Representative Henry A. Waxman of California and Bart Stupak of Michigan, both Democrats, opened an investigation and demanded that four companies — AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere and Verizon — supply documents analyzing the “impact of health care reform,” together with an explanation of their accounting methods. The documents — hundreds of pages of e-mail messages and financial worksheets — include large amounts of data that substantiate the companies’ concerns. They have reignited a battle over the law in Congress. Representative Joe L. Barton of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said, “From a financial standpoint, from a purely economic standpoint, many companies would be better off discontinuing health care as a fringe benefit, paying the penalty and pocketing the savings.” In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, “The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April.” Moreover, it said, “these one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules.” The committee staff said this view was confirmed by independent experts at the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the American Academy of Actuaries. Mr. Waxman, the chairman of the committee, and Mr. Stupak canceled a hearing at which they had planned to question executives on the effects of the law. In a general analysis of the new law, Verizon said, “To avoid additional costs and regulations, employers may consider exiting the employer health market and send employees” to state-run insurance exchanges, where people can buy insurance. A Caterpillar executive made a similar point in an e-mail message to colleagues, saying the tax changes could “drive many employers to just drop coverage for retirees altogether, and let the government foot the whole bill.” I guess they were right when they said "That we will know whats in the bill after we sign it"
Joe Miner Posted April 28, 2010 Posted April 28, 2010 Looks like Waxman, Stupak and the W.H were wrong. I guess they were right when they said "That we will know whats in the bill after we sign it" That can't be true. I was told I could keep my current coverage if I wanted. It's my right.
IDBillzFan Posted April 28, 2010 Posted April 28, 2010 Looks like Waxman, Stupak and the W.H were wrong. I guess they were right when they said "That we will know whats in the bill after we sign it" I wonder if the admitted incompetence of Waxman, Stupak et.al will now free up other companies to start reporting their health care financial burdens now that they realize they won't have the government crawling up their asses sideways. Also, am I the only one who wonders if Waxman was the guy in The Princess Bride yelling "Inconceivable!!!" all the time?
Magox Posted April 28, 2010 Author Posted April 28, 2010 I wonder if the admitted incompetence of Waxman, Stupak et.al will now free up other companies to start reporting their health care financial burdens now that they realize they won't have the government crawling up their asses sideways. Also, am I the only one who wonders if Waxman was the guy in The Princess Bride yelling "Inconceivable!!!" all the time? Waxman
keepthefaith Posted April 28, 2010 Posted April 28, 2010 Waxman He acts more like a rat than he appears like one.
Magox Posted May 3, 2010 Author Posted May 3, 2010 Congressional Research Service memo raises fresh constitutional questions about Obamacare. A just-released memo from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) raises fresh constitutional concerns about a provision in President Obama’s health-care law that could impose tens of millions of dollars in fines on Congress, state and local governments. As reported by The Daily Caller, Congress could be fined up to $50 million annually by its own health-care law if low-level aides apply for government subsidies to help pay their health-care costs. The new memo from Congress’s research arm states that state and local governments would be on the hook for such fines as well – but argues those fines may be unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedents on federalism. The issue is important because a slew of states are challenging the health-care law’s legality in court. If governments were found to be exempt in court, a ruling could establish one set of rules for the private sector and another more lenient set for the rapidly expanding public sector. The April 29 memo, sent to top House conservative Rep. Tom Price, Georgia Republican, and obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, is inconclusive about whether the health-care law will withstand constitutional scrutiny in court on the provision in question. On one potential challenge, CRS says the argument is “unlikely” to be successful in court. On another, CRS says recent rulings “might suggest” the Supreme Court would look harshly at the relevant provision in the law. Uncertainty is providing fodder for critics of the health-care law who charge Democratic leaders did not fully think out a written bill negotiated behind Sen. Harry Reid’s, Nevada Democrat, closed doors. Specifically, the CRS memo says the health-care law may be unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment under two legal doctrines the Supreme Court has developed under that constitutional amendment: the “commandeering” doctrine and intergovernmental tax immunity. The Tenth Amendment says: “Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” “While this language would appear to represent one of the clearest examples of a federalist principle in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in deciding how the Amendment limits Congress’s ability, through the regulation of interstate commerce, to influence the states’ exercise of their own powers,” the memo says. Yup, another case of "That we will know whats in the bill after we sign it". Brilliant!!
Celtic_soulja Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 Congressional Research Service memo raises fresh constitutional questions about Obamacare. Yup, another case of "That we will know whats in the bill after we sign it". Brilliant!! Since when do you need to know about the details to make the decisions? That's why they have committees of bean counters to seperate the bill in sections and go through it faster. This is not the first thing people in government have done this. Politics are taught this way. I personally wouldn't sign anything I haven't personally read because I wouldn't trust a committee with my brand name, but that's just me.
IDBillzFan Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 Since when do you need to know about the details to make the decisions? Awesome.
DC Tom Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 Awesome. You just don't understand, because you exploit the working class with details. When you ignore the details and focus on the big picture, that's when you accomplish things like making nuclear piles out of pencil shavings. You and I, being "detail oriented", will never succeed at anything.
erynthered Posted May 4, 2010 Posted May 4, 2010 Awesome. You know, I had my own business for over ten years. And it astounds me that this guy is going to get this kind of money, at least he says anyway. I guess I fcked up.
Celtic_soulja Posted May 4, 2010 Posted May 4, 2010 You just don't understand, because you exploit the working class with details. When you ignore the details and focus on the big picture, that's when you accomplish things like making nuclear piles out of pencil shavings. You and I, being "detail oriented", will never succeed at anything. You know, I had my own business for over ten years. And it astounds me that this guy is going to get this kind of money, at least he says anyway. I guess I fcked up. heheheee. What was your business Blue? If you don't mind me asking. You weren't a nuclear physicist like Tom were you? You weren't an investment God like.................Tom were you? You weren't a real estate champion like...................................tom again were you? I was only pointing out the obvious that the system is set up to break down lengthy legislation to get combed over by committees that condense parts of it and make the process faster. I wouldn't be comfortable casting a vote without reading the Health Care War and Peace Doctrine that came out if I were there, but it IS how Congress works and has worked for quite some time. I think anyway...Is that right Tom? I am sure you served as a Senator and House Rep in your days along with the many other things you have done. You completely overplay the whole details game with me. I do not wish to use pencils. YOU know good and hell well I am using my graphite 9 Iron to start a power plant in my little city. I THOUGHT we spoke about this already. I EAT pencil shavings you and Magox already told me making fuel from food sources is a bad idea. MAKE UP YOUR MIND. And don't worry Blue, the money I am going to secure is not for MY business plan. It is for the CDC I am starting. I am not the ENTIRE community development corporation. As I have said a million times before, there are plenty of other people that will be helping with this. I'm not an independent land developer OBVIOUSLY. I have a guy that has been a VP of a financial firm that will be a consultant type, doesn't want money because it will mess with his status with the financial company, but will offer advising to the CDC for free. I have an entrepeneur that ran his own construction company and is currently retired, but will offer his insight as well as some fund raising techniques. I have the experts that will actually design specific parts of the CDC. Again, I am not claiming to be a nuclear physicist, I am just claiming that putting together people that give a sh*t can rebuild a city. I'm more the sales/marketing guy, the one putting it all together, the one taking over and getting it all organized.
Magox Posted May 11, 2010 Author Posted May 11, 2010 CBO revises the costs..... Upwards Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections. The additional spending — if approved over the years by Congress — would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to about $1 trillion. Eh, what's another $115 Billion now a days?
Recommended Posts