Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Democrats threaten companies hit hard by health care bill

"Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation's top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances -- a move one committee Republican describes as "an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation."

On Thursday and Friday, the companies -- so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M -- said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. Now, both retirees and current employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future."

We're with the Government, and we're here to help.

Seems that I'm not the only one that thinks companies are taking some incredibly pessismistic views on their individual costs associated with this.

These accounting charges scream of artificial projected earnings manipulation.....

danefan wrote:Seems that I'm not the only one that thinks companies are taking some incredibly pessismistic views on their individual costs associated with this.

These accounting charges scream of artificial projected earnings manipulation.....

yeah, who needs to follow GAAP anyways, right?

AZGrizFan wrote:

danefan wrote:Seems that I'm not the only one that thinks companies are taking some incredibly pessismistic views on their individual costs associated with this.

These accounting charges scream of artificial projected earnings manipulation.....

yeah, who needs to follow GAAP anyways, right?

There is still flexibility within GAAP.

danefan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
yeah, who needs to follow GAAP anyways, right?

There is still flexibility within GAAP.

Well, if they're following GAAP, who are we to bitch?

AZGrizFan wrote:

danefan wrote:
There is still flexibility within GAAP.

Well, if they're following GAAP, who are we to bitch?

GAAP requires good inputs to get a good output. Someone still needs to put data in to get a conclusion. This sounds to me like someone is worried that there are some unrealistic inputs (estimated additional costs) in play here.

danefan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, if they're following GAAP, who are we to bitch?

GAAP requires good inputs to get a good output. Someone still needs to put data in to get a conclusion. This sounds to me like someone is worried that there are some unrealistic inputs (estimated additional costs) in play here.

Well, considering the fact that one of the WORST sins an executive can commit is to OVERESTIMATE quarterly earnings, I don't blame them for being pessimistic. The market does NOT take kindly to missing an earnings mark.

AZGrizFan wrote:

danefan wrote:
GAAP requires good inputs to get a good output. Someone still needs to put data in to get a conclusion. This sounds to me like someone is worried that there are some unrealistic inputs (estimated additional costs) in play here.

Well, considering the fact that one of the WORST sins an executive can commit is to OVERESTIMATE quarterly earnings, I don't blame them for being pessimistic. The market does NOT take kindly to missing an earnings mark.

My point exactly. This is an excuse for them to decrease their earnings projections with as large a cost as possible to set up a huge earnings blowout.

If their estimated costs are a sham, they will have succesfully manipulated the stock price when they blow their new estimates out of the water. It all comes down to whether or not the cost estimates are realistic. Isn't that what the inquiry is about?

danefan wrote:Seems that I'm not the only one that thinks companies are taking some incredibly pessismistic views on their individual costs associated with this.

These accounting charges scream of artificial projected earnings manipulation.....

It doesn't matter what the companies do. If they made a mistake in the charge offs, that mistake will be corrected in the normal tax cycle.

Waxman is way out of line. This is truly incitement to revolution and civil war.

Gee, could these projected "charges" on the flipside actually be tax revenue? Wasn't one of the goals of health care reform to reduce the federal deficit?

Just askin'

native wrote:

danefan wrote:Seems that I'm not the only one that thinks companies are taking some incredibly pessismistic views on their individual costs associated with this.

These accounting charges scream of artificial projected earnings manipulation.....

It doesn't matter what the companies do. If they made a mistake in the charge offs, that mistake will be corrected in the normal tax cycle.

Waxman is way out of line. This is truly incitement to revolution and civil war.

They aren't tax charges. Their accounting charges. They relate directly to earnings projections, on which investors rely.

danefan wrote:Seems that I'm not the only one that thinks companies are taking some incredibly pessismistic views on their individual costs associated with this.

These accounting charges scream of artificial projected earnings manipulation.....

You might be right, but the purpose is intimidation pure and simple. I would bring one my accountant speak gurus with me full of present value calculations and tell Waxman to fuck himself.

Wedgebuster wrote:Gee, could these projected "charges" on the flipside actually be tax revenue? Wasn't one of the goals of health care reform to reduce the federal deficit?

Just askin'

Yes.

If the charges do really come to frution that means taxable income would increase and tax revenues would also increase. Whether or not that decreases the deficit is another story all together.

Wedgebuster wrote:Wasn't one of the goals of health care reform to reduce the federal deficit?

Just askin'

Yes, but anyone who actually believes it is an idiot.

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:Seems that I'm not the only one that thinks companies are taking some incredibly pessismistic views on their individual costs associated with this.

These accounting charges scream of artificial projected earnings manipulation.....

You might be right, but the purpose is intimidation pure and simple. I would bring one my accountant speak gurus with me full of present value calculations and tell Waxman to fuck himself.

And you'd be justified if you had some reasonable basis for your valuations.

danefan wrote:

native wrote:
It doesn't matter what the companies do. If they made a mistake in the charge offs, that mistake will be corrected in the normal tax cycle.

Waxman is way out of line. This is truly incitement to revolution and civil war.

They aren't tax charges. Their accounting charges. They relate directly to earnings projections, on which investors rely.

I didn't mean to imply direct tax charge offs, df. ...or short term manipulations.

Whatever they are "charging off" for will self correct in the normal cycle of accounting, will it not? How many quarters can they successfully hide mistakes?

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:

You might be right, but the purpose is intimidation pure and simple. I would bring one my accountant speak gurus with me full of present value calculations and tell Waxman to **** himself.

And you'd be justified if you had some reasonable basis for your valuations.

I am going to guess that they have a reasonable valuation. In fact, I would say I am 99.9% certain. It may be the most conservative valuation but then if I remember my Principles of accounting class, conservatism is one of those important priniciples.

danefan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Gee, could these projected "charges" on the flipside actually be tax revenue? Wasn't one of the goals of health care reform to reduce the federal deficit?

Just askin'

Yes.

If the charges do really come to frution that means taxable income would increase and tax revenues would also increase.

Which means prices increase, demand decreases, supply increases, people lose their jobs, etc, etc, etc...

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:

You might be right, but the purpose is intimidation pure and simple. I would bring one my accountant speak gurus with me full of present value calculations and tell Waxman to **** himself.

And you'd be justified if you had some reasonable basis for your valuations.

PS, the hearings are still pure intimidation. With bad polling numbers they last things democrats need is companies taking charges due to the health care bill.

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:
And you'd be justified if you had some reasonable basis for your valuations.

PS, the hearings are still pure intimidation. With bad polling numbers they last things democrats need is companies taking charges due to the health care bill.

The last thing the demokrats need, if they want to be re-elected, is TRUTH.

native wrote:

danefan wrote:
They aren't tax charges. Their accounting charges. They relate directly to earnings projections, on which investors rely.

I didn't mean to imply direct tax charge offs, df. ...or short term manipulations.

Whatever they are "charging off" for will self correct in the normal cycle of accounting, will it not? How many quarters can they successfully hide mistakes?

In this case probably just 1 quarter. But with charges are big as this in one quarter, a sneaky exec could make literally millions in stock option exercises after that correction occurs..........

Baldy wrote:

danefan wrote:
Yes.

If the charges do really come to frution that means taxable income would increase and tax revenues would also increase.

Which means prices increase, demand decreases, supply increases, people lose their jobs, etc, etc, etc...

Actually in this case it probably just means that the companies stop providing prescription coverage to their retired employees.

danefan wrote:

native wrote:
I didn't mean to imply direct tax charge offs, df. ...or short term manipulations.

Whatever they are "charging off" for will self correct in the normal cycle of accounting, will it not? How many quarters can they successfully hide mistakes?

In this case probably just 1 quarter. But with charges are big as this in one quarter, a sneaky exec could make literally millions in stock option exercises after that correction occurs..........

I don't doubt your word on this stock manipulation idea, I just don't think it is the main point of either Waxman or the CEOs.

This entire imbroglio just shows that Democrats have over-played their "mandate" and will do anything to avoid the consequences.

native wrote:

danefan wrote:Seems that I'm not the only one that thinks companies are taking some incredibly pessismistic views on their individual costs associated with this.

These accounting charges scream of artificial projected earnings manipulation.....

It doesn't matter what the companies do. If they made a mistake in the charge offs, that mistake will be corrected in the normal tax cycle.

Waxman is way out of line. This is truly incitement to revolution and civil war.

Yeah, buddy, the country will rise up in support of the poor, oppressed, CEOs.

Jeezus, man, you need to get out a little more.....it isn't easy to be so out of touch.........