Thread: Major Companys take massive TAX hit in 2011 over Obamacare

Originally Posted by skeptic1

Do you actually approve of using tax money to defray the cost of 'COMPANY" health plans for retirees and allow the companies to deduct the money from the government as an EXPENSE as well ????? Or are you a conservative only when you choose to be ?

I had posted an account of what had happened did i misread or is this a separate event you have commented on ?

The subsidy was designed to offset the tax consequence of all these retirees going on to Medicare part D....as they will now. It was actually a tax SAVINGS to provide the subsidy.

Originally Posted by Imperator

they gave them a tax break.

Call it what you will. Unless I misread the government subsidized the cost of the benefits that were being paid for the retirees. (They picked up part of the cost) The companies deducted both the costs they had paid as an expense and also deducted the amount of the subsidy paid by the government as an expense. The government described this event as a loophole. The legislation is closing the loop hole. Apart from those benefittinge why would anyone complain anbout this FIX ???

Originally Posted by smurf

Simplistic, and wrong.

Again.

Please explain how, or, like most conservatives, are you unable to?

And btw, do you guys fathers own stock in EVERY corporation?

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Damn, there goes my new phone booth!

Maybe you could just cut back?

Originally Posted by skeptic1

Call it what you will. Unless I misread the government subsidized the cost of the benefits that were being paid for the retirees. (They picked up part of the cost) The companies deducted both the costs they had paid as an expense and also deducted the amount of the subsidy paid by the government as an expense. The government described this event as a loophole. The legislation is closing the loop hole. Apart from those benefittinge why would anyone complain anbout this FIX ???

Obviously there is a lot of misunderstanding on this.

The subsidy amounted to 28% of the emloyer cost of the prescription plan. If the plan cost was $100,000.00 the subsidy received would be $28,000.00. The employer could then expense the whole plan cost ($100,000.00). This had the effect of making a plan that had a front end cost of $100k only result in a $78k effective cost for the carrier. On the government side they came out ahead because they didn't have to foot 100% of the $100k cost if the retirees were receiving Medicare D.

Now, with the subsidy gone, the employer has to pay 100% of the plan cost or they can cancel the plan and the taxpayer can pay 100% of the plan cost when the retirees end up in the Medicare D program. In effect, the taxpayers were only paying 28% of that cost before and will likely be stuck paying 100% of the cost now.

exactly. The cost to taxpayers for that 28 percent benefit was about $665 per person. The cost to taxpayers for the Medicare coverage they will need now is about $1,200 per person. Great job Obama.....math isn't his long suit is it?

Originally Posted by lutherf

Obviously there is a lot of misunderstanding on this.

The subsidy amounted to 28% of the emloyer cost of the prescription plan. If the plan cost was $100,000.00 the subsidy received would be $28,000.00. The employer could then expense the whole plan cost ($100,000.00). This had the effect of making a plan that had a front end cost of $100k only result in a $78k effective cost for the carrier. On the government side they came out ahead because they didn't have to foot 100% of the $100k cost if the retirees were receiving Medicare D.

Now, with the subsidy gone, the employer has to pay 100% of the plan cost or they can cancel the plan and the taxpayer can pay 100% of the plan cost when the retirees end up in the Medicare D program. In effect, the taxpayers were only paying 28% of that cost before and will likely be stuck paying 100% of the cost now.

THe employers chose a plan they must have known (or should have) could not support without government aid. The employees belong on Medicare and plan D. Why should they fair better than the rest of us taxpayers ? What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. `

Originally Posted by skeptic1

THe employers chose a plan they must have known (or should have) could not support without government aid. The employees belong on Medicare and plan D. Why should they fair better than the rest of us taxpayers ? What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. `

yea that'll show'em..only its us picking up the check so you can make a point......

Originally Posted by skeptic1

THe employers chose a plan they must have known (or should have) could not support without government aid. The employees belong on Medicare and plan D. Why should they fair better than the rest of us taxpayers ? What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. `

The employers had to be ERISA compliant is they were self insured and it was the Bush administration that made this offer to the employers in the interests of saving some tax money.

In 2003, as a large employer with a whole bunch of pensioners to cover I ended up very happy with the MMA as Medicare part D would cover the prescriptions that I was now covering and this would save me money. The government, however, wanted me to keep on paying for these people so that the average taxpayer would not have to. I agreed to retain coverage for all of my pensioners as long as I was given a subsidy comprable to the tax savings I would get by kicking everyone to the curb. That's how the 28% number came up as that would be reasonably close to what the tax would be if I DIDN'T have the prescription plan expense.

This SHOULD have made everyone happy. The government gets the taxpayer off the hook for covering all my retirees; I more or less break even on the deal and my retirees get a prescription plan comprable to Medicare part D. Now, however, I no longer get the subsidy which puts a dent in my bottom line (and in the amout of tax I pay) and the taxpayer gets to cover 100% of my retirees prescriptions instead of only 28%. The only ones who are not negatively effected are the retirees and all other parties take a hit.

Why did this happen? Probably because Obama has damned near nobody in his administration that understands how businesses work.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Please explain how, or, like most conservatives, are you unable to?

I am able to explain, but you are unable to comprehend. To keep it simple for you, let's just say goober used a false premise upon which to base his "argument". You do know what a false premise is, right?

By the way, did you ever respond to my insurance tutorial in the other thread?

Originally Posted by John Drake

And btw, do you guys fathers own stock in EVERY corporation?

My father and I own stock in numerous different corporations, doesn't everyone?

But what is your point?

I almost cannot believe that even rightwingnuts give a shit about corporate giants tax dodges and the loss of them for the poor babies.

Originally Posted by Maharishi

I almost cannot believe that even rightwingnuts give a shit about corporate giants tax dodges and the loss of them for the poor babies.

You haven't read a damned thing about this issue. Have you? You, just like the administration, saw "tax subsidy" and "Corporation" in the same sentence and made up your mind about what was going on.

Absolutely pathetic. I can tolerate ignorance. People generally do have the capacity to learn. But when I see willful stupidity it just makes me lose all respect for the left.

Originally Posted by Imperator

at&t is taking a Billion dollar charge....nice.

AT&T To Take $1 Billion Charge For Health-Care Reform | AHN

And the unemployment rate is about 20%.

On top of this, the HC bill is going to result in a jobs bonanza for foreign countries:

US healthcare reform is boon for India outsourcing companies
The US healthcare reform law creates much more paperwork for insurance firms – and plenty of new business for Indian outsourcing companies.
By Taylor Barnes, Correspondent / March 25, 2010


Mumbai

With 22 pen strokes, President Obama signed into existence not just a historic healthcare reform law but also monumental piles of paperwork: New member registration forms. More claims. Ever-expanding databases. And on top of that, pressure to cut costs.

The bulge in administrative work may look like a nightmare to American insurance firms and government employees. But
to outsourcing executives here in India, it’s heaven-sent. A number of Indian companies are already anticipating an increase in workload thanks to Obama's healthcare law.


The addition of 32 million insured Americans is “very significant” for Indian outsourcers, says Ananda Mukerji, chief executive officer of Firstsource Solutions in Mumbai. Companies like his will see “increased opportunities” as US health insurers and hospitals scramble to reorganize to comply with the new law, he wrote in an email to the Monitor.

This extra work will include processing new enrollments, organizing bigger member databases, processing more claims, providing more support services, and managing more revenue, he says.

In particular, outsourcers can expect to benefit from insurers’ need to minimize administrative costs, Mr. Mukerji says, citing a recent Deloitte Center for Health Solutions study showing that up to 41 percent of the cost of a health plan is administrative.

US healthcare reform is boon for India outsourcing companies / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Kramer