Caterpillar Takes $100M Charge After Health Care Passes

[Chizzang]

It didn't close a loop hole. It ended a tax policy designed to encourage corporations to provide prescription drug benefits to retirees. Personally, I hate those type of tax clauses so from that point I am glad it is gone. Of course, some one other than the company will now pay for that benefit.

That's my curiosity too...
As you noted: Who pays for this now - because drug companies are addicted to 700% profit margins (so that's not going away) and Retirees can't afford the full dollar medication scam...

so who pays..?

[dbackjon]

OL FU - I do not like using the tax code for social/economic engineering - whether to encourage charitable giving, home ownership, or tax breaks that supposedly encourage investment - you give one person a loophole/break, someone else pays for it, generally the middle class.

CHIZZANG - if Congress would allow drug importation/government to negotiate with BIg Pharma, then you would see lower drug costs.

[OL FU]

OL FU - I do not like using the tax code for social/economic engineering - whether to encourage charitable giving, home ownership, or tax breaks that supposedly encourage investment - you give one person a loophole/break, someone else pays for it, generally the middle class.

CHIZZANG - if Congress would allow drug importation/government to negotiate with BIg Pharma, then you would see lower drug costs.

I agree. I, too, do not like the tax code used in this fashion but I wouldn't call tax laws to promote a behavior a loophole. I suppose that is a technicality. But loophole has a bad connotation. A loophole is generally an intended or inadvertant "mistake" in the tax code that allows someone not to pay a tax that the law actually intends for them to pay. While I don't agree with socio-economic motivators in the tax code, the connotation is not the same. This is an example of someone acting in a fashion desired by the goverment. Similar the first time home buyers tax credit, or energy saving home improvements, etc.

[OL FU]

It didn't close a loop hole. It ended a tax policy designed to encourage corporations to provide prescription drug benefits to retirees. Personally, I hate those type of tax clauses so from that point I am glad it is gone. Of course, some one other than the company will now pay for that benefit.

That's my curiosity too...
As you noted: Who pays for this now - because drug companies are addicted to 700% profit margins (so that's not going away) and Retirees can't afford the full dollar medication scam...

so who pays..?

Don't know, but I would imagine the cost will shift back to the individual or be pick up by the Medicare presciption drug benefit.

[danefan]

Fuck em, dipshit. Big corps don't mean shit anymore. Small business fuels our economy.

And they (small businesses) just got a great big "fuck you" in the ass without even the courtesy of a reacharound.

I'm not so sure about that AZ. There are huge credits in this bill for small businesses providing health insurance to their employees. Not sure if you saw Death Dealer's post, but his estimate was that this would save his business around $30,000 a year.

Seems to me like small businesses will be just fine. Whether the revenue side of the bill will produce enough to cover the expenditures is something we'll have to wait and see though.

[AZGrizFan]

And they (small businesses) just got a great big "fuck you" in the ass without even the courtesy of a reacharound.

I'm not so sure about that AZ. There are huge credits in this bill for small businesses providing health insurance to their employees. Not sure if you saw Death Dealer's post, but his estimate was that this would save his business around $30,000 a year.

Seems to me like small businesses will be just fine. Whether the revenue side of the bill will produce enough to cover the expenditures is something we'll have to wait and see though.

What about the ones not currently providing health care?

[danefan]

I'm not so sure about that AZ. There are huge credits in this bill for small businesses providing health insurance to their employees. Not sure if you saw Death Dealer's post, but his estimate was that this would save his business around $30,000 a year.

Seems to me like small businesses will be just fine. Whether the revenue side of the bill will produce enough to cover the expenditures is something we'll have to wait and see though.

What about the ones not currently providing health care?

Well, if they have less than 50 employees, then they don't have to worry about it. This brings up some issues and there are some questions I'd like to get answers to though. Anyone know the definitions in the bill? Are "employees" FTEs or just anyone on the payroll during the year? Also, how does this effect seasonal employers (farms, orchards, etc...)? Those businesses have been exempted from most employment-related mandates that were "living standards" type of regulations. I can't imagine this bill would force employers to provide health insurance to employees for 3 months worth of work, but I don't know exactly how the bill works in that regard.

[AZGrizFan]

What about the ones not currently providing health care?

Well, if they have less than 50 employees, then they don't have to worry about it. This brings up some issues and there are some questions I'd like to get answers to though. Anyone know the definitions in the bill? Are "employees" FTEs or just anyone on the payroll during the year? Also, how does this effect seasonal employers (farms, orchards, etc...)? Those businesses have been exempted from most employment-related mandates that were "living standards" type of regulations. I can't imagine this bill would force employers to provide health insurance to employees for 3 months worth of work, but I don't know exactly how the bill works in that regard.

Neither do the folks that voted for it, but it didn't stop them.

[dbackjon]

Well, if they have less than 50 employees, then they don't have to worry about it. This brings up some issues and there are some questions I'd like to get answers to though. Anyone know the definitions in the bill? Are "employees" FTEs or just anyone on the payroll during the year? Also, how does this effect seasonal employers (farms, orchards, etc...)? Those businesses have been exempted from most employment-related mandates that were "living standards" type of regulations. I can't imagine this bill would force employers to provide health insurance to employees for 3 months worth of work, but I don't know exactly how the bill works in that regard.

Neither do the folks that voted for it, but it didn't stop them.

Which unfortunately, is par for the course for Congress, no matter who is in charge