Cast your vote FOR/AGAINST the HC bill

jeromemsn wrote:The article was about November 22 1963, 1964 wasn't available yet. It was about the assassination of a President. President John F Kennedy

Yeah, I know, I read it. But the author wrote it in 2006. He had historical perspective and academic credentials but chose to apply neither of the two.

Published in slightly different form in Flagpole Magazine, p. 7 (November 22, 2006).

Author: Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law.

“JFK, blown away, what else do I have to say.”–Billy Joel’s song, “We Didn’t Start the Fire.”

Exactly 43 years ago, on Nov. 22, 1963, 46-year old President John F. Kennedy was assassinated at 12:30 p.m. in Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, Texas.

stockingfull wrote:(See my edit, Mike.)

Then you agree that today's "Tea Partiers" are full of crap?

I am not a Tea Party-er nor have I even investigated them. I am a Republican.

Richard S. wrote:You're missing the entire point, I'll go over it again as this doesn't seem to be seeking in. For arguments sake and to keep it simple I'll use nice round numbers so it's easy to understand. The coverage AT&T is providing cost $2K and so does the equivalent Medicare D. The subsidy covers let's say $500 so the corporation is now paying $1500, the tax break takes what amounts to another $500.

Total cost to AT&T is $1K, the total cost to the government is $1K instead of paying the $2K for medicare. This is the key as the US taxpayer is netting $1K in savings.

By removing the tax break the incentive for the corporation to continue coverage is much smaller, the US taxpayer will now pick up the entire $2K tab for those that drop the coverage.

Here's simple question, what benefit does AT&T derive from keeping these people covered with or without the tax break?

OK, this is a "retirement benefit," right? So it's supposed to be funded by monies put away by the employer for the benefit of the employee, presumably protected by ERISA. In other words, the employer promised, as part of its retirement benefit package for its workers, to pay their medical coverage in retirement. Are we good that far?

The employer has always been able to deduct that expense, as all healthcare coverage costs have been since WWII. But somewhere along the way, the employer got another 28% tax credit (which is the same as a deduction for those in the 28% tax bracket). I don't know when or why that happened but that's what's been taken back by the HCR law.

Put another way, not only has the cost been deductible but the government has been paying an additional 28% of the employer's cost of the healthcare it promised to its retirees. I don't recall agreeing to that.

Now, if the employer chooses to threaten to discontinue the retirement benefits it promised its workers, my view is that would be a breach of the employer's promise to provide retirement benefits under ERISA. Whether that's true or not, we as taxpayers are not obliged to pay the same benefit to the retirees as their employer promised before it broke, or threatened to break, that promise.

So no, I don't see it as paying for half a loaf and getting more. To the contrary, if the employer welches on its promise to pay a retirement benefit that its workers earned during their careers, it should be responsible to them for it, and I presume is under ERISA. In this case, AT&T made the promise, it can't be permitted to walk away from the tab for the cost of that promise any more than you or I can be permitted to walk away from the tab for the meal we ordered in a restaurant.

stockingfull wrote:I don't know when or why that happened but that's what's been taken back by the HCR law.

From Wikipedia:

During the 1990s and 2000s, many employers who promised lifetime health coverage to their retirees limited or eliminated those benefits.[1][2] ERISA does not provide for vesting of health care benefits in the way that employees become vested in their accrued pension benefits. Employees and retirees who were promised lifetime health coverage may be able to enforce those promises by suing the employer for breach of contract, or by challenging the right of the health benefit plan to change its plan documents in order to eliminate those promised benefits.

The tax credit was an incentive to keep the employees on the corporate RHCB plan rather than putting them on Med D.

As for the potential lawsuits if the corporation dropped the RHCB, you will have to do some digging into their plans, counselor. I am sure they had some clever exit codicils built in by smart attorneys like yourself.

So now you're good with gov't subsidies? Because weren't you one of those complaining when the "Cadillac" tax was put off into the out-years for the unions?

Could you tell me the difference?

Why should all of us be paying for a sweet retirement bennie for AT&T retirees? And of even greater concern is why should AT&T get off the hook for a promise they made to their workers?

It was the government that wanted to do the subsidy. It saved them $$$. That's my understanding of it. I could be wrong.

And no, I am not good with government subsidies for the most part.

stockingfull wrote:Why should all of us be paying for a sweet retirement bennie for AT&T retirees? And of even greater concern is why should AT&T get off the hook for a promise they made to their workers?

dunno. But I don't think it was at&t's fault.

I think you can blame GWB....and I am sure you will.

When the GM s#!t first hit the fan, my brother called me. His wife has relatives in Ohio, retired GM employees, of course with a rich package of retirement bennies.

So, when he told me about how they might be left in the lurch by the bankruptcy, my answer was a question: No argument that it's a shame, but why should uninsured taxpayers pay a piece of a rich package for GM's retirees, in fact a package so rich it likely was one of the reasons GM sank?

There isn't any good answer. But it sure doesn't cut it for me when big corporations threaten to walk away from promises they made to people who worked for much or all of their careers expecting those promises to be kept.

stockingfull wrote: But it sure doesn't cut it for me when big corporations threaten to walk away from promises they made to people who worked for much or all of their careers expecting that promise to be kept.

How do you feel about it when governments do the same thing?

The same way, of course. But what such promise did the gov't make to you? Are you a postal worker or something?

Is the gov't still paying giant bonuses to mgmt? Dividends to its stockholders?

stockingfull wrote:The same way, of course. But what such promise did the gov't make to you? Are you a postal worker or something?

No, I'm the hardware store owner.

So far, our government hasn't reneged on any of its promises. But it keeps making some very big promises. It has been able to do that for a hundred years because of our financial hegemony in the world. That is changing fast....very fast. A broken promise could happen in our lifetime or a big decision that has the same effect, like printing money indiscriminately.

The promise that I feel was made to me by the Founders was that I would have opportunity as an independent. I see that disappearing fast too. I have run my business lean and mean but I have no retirement plan and may not even be able to go out of business profitably by the time I reach retirement age. Yet, I funded federal, state and local pensioners and all of those big business subsidies through very heavy taxation for all of my 26 years in business. It was impossible to build my business further without excessive risk. I am risk averse and taxation prevented using my own generated cash to expand.

I was warned. I knew the risks. I do not blame the government for all of my lost opportunities. But, to be sure, independent business is fading away. There are too many barriers to entry, too many obstacles to success, too much regulation, too much tax, and too much corporate competition. With the addition of health care taxes/penalties (whether direct or indirect), I probably won't be able to stay in business for as long as I want. Like the armies of unskilled laborers once employed in this country, small proprietors will all but vanish too.

I'm sympathetic, Mike. And I didn't know there were any hardware store owners still around, since Home Depot and Lowe's, not to mention Wally-Mart, killed the mkt.

But I get it that we're headed for a cliff economically. What I don't get is that so many out in the country think they can get along with much less gov't, because it's out there that most of the gov't money goes. Nearly every service the gov't provides, from roads to electric to telephone, is WAY too expensive to justify in rural areas, given the distances.

This'll leave us plenty of grist for the mill. But enough for tonight.

stockingfull wrote:I'm sympathetic, Mike. And I didn't know there were any hardware store owners still around, since Home Depot and Lowe's, not to mention Wally-Mart, killed the mkt.

But I get it that we're headed for a cliff economically. What I don't get is that so many out in the country think they can get along with much less gov't, because it's out there that most of the gov't money goes. Nearly every service the gov't provides, from roads to electric to telephone, is WAY too expensive to justify in rural areas, given the distances.

This'll leave us plenty of grist for the mill. But enough for tonight.

Thanks, but don't cry for me. I'll figure out another way to retire. The problem is that many cannot.

First of all, government doesn't provide most electric service, and no telephone services. Second, there are resources in the country, like lumber, NG, water, farming, & manufacturing that justify minimal roads and other infrastructure.

However, the burden on our state budget, as you alluded to, is state aid for local medicaid. Prior to the enactment of this HC law, it was just over 50% of the county budget as a result of both state and federal mandate. After the enactment it will likely raise our property taxes due to the additional unfunded mandates.

Further burdening the state budget is the state aid to schools. Between the state and the federal law, the once small rural school has grown to require many millions of dollars annually to meet statutory and union requirements, all with limited marginal benefit to students.

It appears that the government caused these excessive budget busting burdens. Perhaps we can get them to do as you threaten, that is, kill the funding and repeal the ludicrous society-killing mandates. With the tax savings, many businesses and citizens will be motivated anew to invest and work inducing prosperity. When you see the success in rural areas, you'll be giddy about trying the idea in the big city of Hudson.

Promises not made cannot be broken.

Looks like we have a HC Law.

Both Obama and Romney win with the Supreme Court's decision. Obama's health care law stands and Romney gets all the voters that want to repeal it. It will be an interesting election. The super PACs will be spending huge sums on both sides. Interesting that Roberts was for it.

If Romney is elected and Congress repeals it, I wonder what will happen to the provisions all ready in effect that most people like. For example being able to cover young adult children on your policy and no insurance coverage denials for pre-existing conditions.

Healthcare in the USA is a broken, expensive mess. Influenced way too much by the medical, insurance and lawyer lobbies.