Obamacare Cost to Business = LOST JOBS, higher consumer prices and LESS SERVICE!!!

[GHook93]

Whether you are in the left, right or middle, you do not want to see companies taking such huge hits that they are forced to cut costs or glup even go out of business. Cutting costs equates to:
(1) Heads rolling - This is a foresure impact (expect the official unemployment of 10% to increase and the unofficial to skyrocket)
(2) Pushing costs to consumer (you will see it from office supplies to food at restaurants and the grocery store)
(3) Cutting Employee Benefits overall (see about retiree benefits and drug coverate below)
(4) Cutting R&D meaning we get less innovation (and the is extremely bad for industries competing int he global market - See Zoll)
(5) Extra incentive to move some or even all operations overseas (see Haiti)
(6) Less Corporate Spending (a big chunk that drives the market is intercorporate spending! It dwarfs consumer spending. It will sharply go down)

Below is a list of publicly known impact on companies. You better believe all businesses big and small are feeling the impact directly, indirectly and with enough force to hurt everyone!


Estimate profit losses directly caused by Obamination:

AT&T to Book $1 Billion Cost on Health-Care Reform (Update3) - BusinessWeek
14 billion from U.S. corporate profits, according to an estimate by benefits consulting firm Towers Watson

Cost to S&P 500:

Dems Set to Bully Companies That Note ObamaCare's Costs
Analysts suggest that the total first-quarter hit to S&P 500 firms will be $4.5 billion.

Cost to John Deere:

First victims of Obamacare: John Deere, CAT, Verizon announce rise in health care costs
John Deere’s announced number is $150 million, over 10% of its profits.

Cost to the Medical Device Industry (forget about innovation!):

How Obamacare hits industry and threatens jobs | Washington Examiner
$20 billion hit for the medical device industry, meaning Zoll and other medical device makers could well be headed for hard times.

The total tax on the industry would be about $2 billion a year, or $20 billion over the next decade. Companies watched nervously as lawmakers pushed ahead

Cost to MA Zoll (ever wonder why MA voted for Brown and against Obamination Care? Zoll is a huge employer, this bill will hurt MA hard!):

How Obamacare hits industry and threatens jobs | Washington Examiner
"We believe that the tax will cost us somewhere between $5 million and $10 million a year," says Richard Packer, Zoll's chairman and chief executive officer

That would be a devastating blow. Zoll employs about 1,800 people. Roughly 1,600 of them are in the United States, and about 650 of those are in Massachusetts. Once the new tax kicks in, that could all change. "We can't run this company at a break-even or a negative rate," says Packer, "so we will be forced to look at alternatives."

The company's first option is to pass the increase on to customers like hospitals and ambulance companies. That might or might not work, given that they are coming under increasing pressure to cut their own costs.

The next option is to cut research and development -- a short-term, money-saving move that will surely cost Zoll down the road. And a third option, says Packer, is to "look at trying to shift jobs to lower-cost places around the world." That would be bad news for Massachusetts and the USA.

. "


Cost to Caterpiller:

Caterpillar: Health care bill would cost it $100M - Chicago Breaking Business
The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.

"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."

Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation.

Cost to AT&T:

AT&T: Obamacare Will Cost Us $1 Billion
AT&T is claiming a $1 billion Q1 2010 charge for the impact of health care reform on its business, according to CNBC.

Read more: AT&T: Obamacare Will Cost Us $1 Billion

Cost to 3M:

AT&T to Book $1 Billion Cost on Health-Care Reform (Update3) - BusinessWeek
3M, the St. Paul, Minnesota-based maker of products ranging from Post-It Notes to respiratory masks. 3M said it expects a one-time expense of $85 million to $90 million after tax, or about 12 cents a share, in the first quarter because of the new law, according to a statement. 3M had about 75,000 employees as of Feb. 5.

Effect on Verizon (not stated amount, but its significant):

AT&T to Book $1 Billion Cost on Health-Care Reform (Update3) - BusinessWeek
New York-based Verizon, the second-largest U.S. phone company, told employees in a note after the law was signed that the tax will make the subsidy less valuable to employers like Verizon and so “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”

RESPONSE - LEAVE US SOIL:

* Move to Haiti?/ AT&T, Verizon and others: Obamacare may have significant implications for both retirees and employers? Count Us Out
* Move to Haiti?/ AT&T, Verizon and others: Obamacare may have significant implications for both retirees and employers”

RESPONSE - BENEFITS CUT:

ObamaCare's Effects Are Already Showing - WSJ.com
While the drug tax subsidy is for retirees, companies consider their benefit costs as a total package. The new bill might cause some to drop retiree coverage altogether. Others may be bound by labor contracts to retirees, but then they will find other ways to cut costs. This means raising costs or reducing coverage for other employees. So much for Mr. Obama's claim that if you like your coverage, you can keep it—even at Fortune 500 companies.

In its employee note, Verizon also warned about the 40% tax on high-end health plans, though that won't take effect until 2018. "Many of the plans that Verizon offers to employees and retirees are projected to have costs above the threshold in the legislation and will be subject to the 40 percent excise tax." These costs will start to show up soon, and, as we repeatedly argued, the tax is unlikely to drive down costs. The tax burden will simply be spread to all workers—the result of the White House's too-clever decision to tax insurers, rather than individuals.

A Verizon spokesman said the company is merely addressing employee questions about ObamaCare, not making a political statement. But these and many other changes were enabled by the support of the Business Roundtable that counts Verizon as a member. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg's health-reform ideas are 180 degrees from Mr. Obama's, but Verizon's shareholders and 900,000 employees and retirees will still pay the price.

Businesses around the country are making the same calculations as Verizon and no doubt sending out similar messages. It's only a small measure of the destruction that will be churned out by the rewrite of health, tax, labor and welfare laws that is ObamaCare, and only the vanguard of much worse to come.

 

[GHook93]

I'm sorry, but anyone who supports Obamination care is well (OK I will be nice) uneducated on the importance of business to employment and America!

 

[GHook93]

And the Obamination Care Supporters are silent!

Mission Accomplised!

 

[GHook93]

Believe it or not, small business (usually who can't afford to insure all) will be high the hardest by the Obamination Care bill!

How Obamacare will affect small business - by Bob Schmidt - Helium
(1) Raised Labor Costs...

, labor costs must rise if health insurance is mandated for all employees of businesses above a certain size. Even those businesses that are not required to provide insurance coverage will have to prove their compliance with any change in laws that apply to the business community.

(2) Existing Health Care Insurance Costs and Availability...
while detractors to governmentally mandated healthcare insist that healthcare insurance will cost more by necessity. Detractors point out that providing insurance for over 30 million people must raise the cost of insurance premiums

(3) Eventual Affect of Labor Costs...
As healthcare insurance must be provided to all employees, it is a given that employees will still need to make enough net income for survival. That means that business ownership will have to actually pay for the additional healthcare coverage mandated by federal law.

(4) Higher Taxes...
It is also a given that taxes in many areas are likely to increase when the ultimate costs of mandated healthcare are known. Specific tax hikes are unknown at this point in time, but will certainly be a reality. Somehow, funds must be raised to pay for a program that conservative estimates say will cost almost one trillion dollars. The likelihood that other cost savings combined with new taxes can keep that number accurate is questioned.

What does this equate to for small businesses? Dead weight costs, the significantly reduces profits! Less profits equates to cost cutting. Small businesses that can't cut cost, go OUT OF BUSINESS!

 

[hboats]

Don't you realize that was the intent of this bill all along? They want to make it so that companies can't afford to carry their existing health care benefits. It's all about control. They wanted us to think it wasn't, but that was just for the short term. Long term, it's about controlling 1/6 of the U.S. economy.

Rick

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I agree with boats. This was the goal of the 0bamination that was the senate bill. They want higher unemployment, they want to drive the private insurance companies out of the market.

The deeper the crisis, the more people have the need to get rescued. It doesn't work so well in a democracy, so they will loose seats this year. But they knew that all along too.

It was not as if any of this was unknown.

There were many ways to do this well, there were many ways to do this less badly. They went for the worst possible option every step of the way, and they did so deliberately.

 

[RodISHI]

I would imagine J D, Cat, ATT and the others can now understand just a little about how it feels to be on the front side of the train being pushed down the railroad.

 

[GHook93]

Don't you realize that was the intent of this bill all along? They want to make it so that companies can't afford to carry their existing health care benefits. It's all about control. They wanted us to think it wasn't, but that was just for the short term. Long term, it's about controlling 1/6 of the U.S. economy.

Rick

I don't buy that, because if this bill does hurts the economy that way it appears it will, then the Democrats are setting up for a slaughter!

 

[auditor0007]

While there are problems with this bill, the end result has not yet been determined. I find it amuzing how everyone is so concerned about how many jobs will be lost, yet there is no discussion as to how many jobs have already been lost due to health insurance premiums increasing 130% in the past ten years under the wonderful system without these new reforms. On top of that, it has been projected that without any changes, healthcare costs will continue to increase at relatively the same rate as they have over the last decade.

If you think that the more than doubling of healthcare costs in the last ten years hasn't cost us millions of jobs, then you all are off your rockers. But the answer by so many of you here has been the same; nothing is wrong with the way things are. Maybe had so many not been sleeping at the wheel, there could have been more constructive discussion that may have led to a better plan. But instead of addressing the real problem, the only discussion was against making any real changes to the system.

This new legislation is a starting point. I'm sure that over time, it will be tweaked and changes made. In the end though, costs will continue to rise. However, the argument that it will now cost us more is not likely valid, as costs were going to continue increasing anyway. If we want to get serious about reducing costs, then we need to look at how healthcare is delivered in the US. That is where many changes need to be made. The entire system is inefficient and counterproductive.

Since the insurance companies found a way to deny me coverage after years of being insured, I have seen first hand how much money is wasted. Now that I am forced to pay cash for my healthcare, I'm paying less than half what the insurance companies paid for the same treatments and care. I keep asking myself "where was all that money going to in the past"?

Think about this for one minute. We are currently spending $8000 per year per person for healthcare. That equates to approximately $625,000 per person over their lifetime. With a median income of around $45,000 per year, this is 30% of the average person's lifetime earnings. Since other countries spend much less than this, it becomes obvious that even with higher tax rates, they end up with more disposable income. More disposable income leads to healthier economies and more people working.

We let this get out of control a long time ago. Fixing it is not going to be easy, but we must have a starting point. To me, this legislation is just that, a starting point. It is not the answer for cutting costs, but it is a start, and it sure as hell puts us in a better place than where we were.

 

[GHook93]

I have been attacked in a similar way in the real world. I agree with EVERYTHING you are saying. Our employer based healthcare system is fraud beyond belief. It puts our corporations at a huge disadvantage in the global environment.

Therefore, I am a Universal Healthcare guy. Take healthcare out of our employer's hands. Take that burden off of them.

What this bill does is puts more of the healthcare burden on our businesses and that is unsustainable!

While there are problems with this bill, the end result has not yet been determined. I find it amuzing how everyone is so concerned about how many jobs will be lost, yet there is no discussion as to how many jobs have already been lost due to health insurance premiums increasing 130% in the past ten years under the wonderful system without these new reforms. On top of that, it has been projected that without any changes, healthcare costs will continue to increase at relatively the same rate as they have over the last decade.

If you think that the more than doubling of healthcare costs in the last ten years hasn't cost us millions of jobs, then you all are off your rockers. But the answer by so many of you here has been the same; nothing is wrong with the way things are. Maybe had so many not been sleeping at the wheel, there could have been more constructive discussion that may have led to a better plan. But instead of addressing the real problem, the only discussion was against making any real changes to the system.

This new legislation is a starting point. I'm sure that over time, it will be tweaked and changes made. In the end though, costs will continue to rise. However, the argument that it will now cost us more is not likely valid, as costs were going to continue increasing anyway. If we want to get serious about reducing costs, then we need to look at how healthcare is delivered in the US. That is where many changes need to be made. The entire system is inefficient and counterproductive.

Since the insurance companies found a way to deny me coverage after years of being insured, I have seen first hand how much money is wasted. Now that I am forced to pay cash for my healthcare, I'm paying less than half what the insurance companies paid for the same treatments and care. I keep asking myself "where was all that money going to in the past"?

Think about this for one minute. We are currently spending $8000 per year per person for healthcare. That equates to approximately $625,000 per person over their lifetime. With a median income of around $45,000 per year, this is 30% of the average person's lifetime earnings. Since other countries spend much less than this, it becomes obvious that even with higher tax rates, they end up with more disposable income. More disposable income leads to healthier economies and more people working.

We let this get out of control a long time ago. Fixing it is not going to be easy, but we must have a starting point. To me, this legislation is just that, a starting point. It is not the answer for cutting costs, but it is a start, and it sure as hell puts us in a better place than where we were.

 

[RodISHI]

I have been attacked in a similar way in the real world. I agree with EVERYTHING you are saying. Our employer based healthcare system is fraud beyond belief. It puts our corporations at a huge disadvantage in the global environment.

Therefore, I am a Universal Healthcare guy. Take healthcare out of our employer's hands. Take that burden off of them.

What this bill does is puts more of the healthcare burden on our businesses and that is unsustainable!

You have now joined the allegiance with the socialist if you want to take healthcare out of the hands of the capitalist.



For anyone looking at the numbers,

The 2010 Statistical Abstract: Health & Nutrition

Categorized and broken down into subcategories by,
Food Consumption and Nutrition
Health Care Resources
Health Care Utilization
Health Conditions, Diseases
Health Expenditures
Health Insurance
Health Risk Factors
Medicare, Medicaid

 

[GHook93]

I am a fiscal conservative in all instances but healthcare. Why?
(1) Until I see western capitalist country inhabitants of UK, Canada, Britian, Israel and especially German scream about healthcare in those countries, I will switch views. I see the contrary. I work for a British company and not one of my British counterparts states they don't like their system. They see flaws, but prefer it over ours (not the Brits that get relocated to the states are highly compensated employees)!
(2) Until medical bills stops being one of the leading causes of BK in America, then I might switch.
(3) People don't "choose" to go to the hospital or get sick. They just get sick and then they go to the hospital. Its not like buying a car or home. In many cases it picks you!
(4) The poor doctor argument is BULL SHIT. Sweden, Germany and Israel are all known to have some of the best doctors in the world, along with America!
(5) Lastly, I support it, because UHC is pro-business and pro-economic growth.

If supporting UHC makes me a socialist, then so be it!

I have been attacked in a similar way in the real world. I agree with EVERYTHING you are saying. Our employer based healthcare system is fraud beyond belief. It puts our corporations at a huge disadvantage in the global environment.

Therefore, I am a Universal Healthcare guy. Take healthcare out of our employer's hands. Take that burden off of them.

What this bill does is puts more of the healthcare burden on our businesses and that is unsustainable!

You have now joined the allegiance with the socialist if you want to take healthcare out of the hands of the capitalist.



For anyone looking at the numbers,

The 2010 Statistical Abstract: Health & Nutrition

Categorized and broken down into subcategories by,
Food Consumption and Nutrition
Health Care Resources
Health Care Utilization
Health Conditions, Diseases
Health Expenditures
Health Insurance
Health Risk Factors
Medicare, Medicaid

 

[Subhumus]

While there are problems with this bill, the end result has not yet been determined. I find it amuzing how everyone is so concerned about how many jobs will be lost, yet there is no discussion as to how many jobs have already been lost due to health insurance premiums increasing 130% in the past ten years under the wonderful system without these new reforms. On top of that, it has been projected that without any changes, healthcare costs will continue to increase at relatively the same rate as they have over the last decade.

If you think that the more than doubling of healthcare costs in the last ten years hasn't cost us millions of jobs, then you all are off your rockers. But the answer by so many of you here has been the same; nothing is wrong with the way things are. Maybe had so many not been sleeping at the wheel, there could have been more constructive discussion that may have led to a better plan. But instead of addressing the real problem, the only discussion was against making any real changes to the system.

This new legislation is a starting point. I'm sure that over time, it will be tweaked and changes made. In the end though, costs will continue to rise. However, the argument that it will now cost us more is not likely valid, as costs were going to continue increasing anyway. If we want to get serious about reducing costs, then we need to look at how healthcare is delivered in the US. That is where many changes need to be made. The entire system is inefficient and counterproductive.

Since the insurance companies found a way to deny me coverage after years of being insured, I have seen first hand how much money is wasted. Now that I am forced to pay cash for my healthcare, I'm paying less than half what the insurance companies paid for the same treatments and care. I keep asking myself "where was all that money going to in the past"?

Think about this for one minute. We are currently spending $8000 per year per person for healthcare. That equates to approximately $625,000 per person over their lifetime. With a median income of around $45,000 per year, this is 30% of the average person's lifetime earnings. Since other countries spend much less than this, it becomes obvious that even with higher tax rates, they end up with more disposable income. More disposable income leads to healthier economies and more people working.

We let this get out of control a long time ago. Fixing it is not going to be easy, but we must have a starting point. To me, this legislation is just that, a starting point. It is not the answer for cutting costs, but it is a start, and it sure as hell puts us in a better place than where we were.

It's already been established by admissions from the top of the present healthcare insurance companies that premiums are going up effective immediately. Proof once again that the Obmanator is just a liar plain and simple. However, voters are finding out fast unfortunately, that for the current POTUS, it's just business as usual.

 

[hboats]

Don't you realize that was the intent of this bill all along? They want to make it so that companies can't afford to carry their existing health care benefits. It's all about control. They wanted us to think it wasn't, but that was just for the short term. Long term, it's about controlling 1/6 of the U.S. economy.

Rick

I don't buy that, because if this bill does hurts the economy that way it appears it will, then the Democrats are setting up for a slaughter!

They want a country that it TOTALLY dependent on it's government. That is the goal of this administration. Make them depend on the government for all of their needs.

Rick

 

[WillowTree]

There's been no indication that the obamination gives a flying fuck about this country.

 

[Ravi]

I'm sorry, but anyone who supports Obamination care is well (OK I will be nice) uneducated on the importance of business to employment and America!

I don't know if I support it or not, it's too early to tell.

I do like the fact that we can finally offer health care to our employees and write some of it off.

 

[GHook93]

I'm sorry, but anyone who supports Obamination care is well (OK I will be nice) uneducated on the importance of business to employment and America!

I don't know if I support it or not, it's too early to tell.

I do like the fact that we can finally offer health care to our employees and write some of it off.

You were always able to write it off!

 

[WillowTree]

I'm sorry, but anyone who supports Obamination care is well (OK I will be nice) uneducated on the importance of business to employment and America!

I don't know if I support it or not, it's too early to tell.

I do like the fact that we can finally offer health care to our employees and write some of it off.

"write it off" simply put means someone else has to pay for it.. that's mighty big of you.

 

[boedicca]

As ObamaCare is just a maze of price controls (at bottom), being able to write off some of the health insurance for employees is just means writing off part of a tax. There supply disincentives will make that health insurance largely meaningless.

 

[RodISHI]

I am a fiscal conservative in all instances but healthcare. Why?
(1) Until I see western capitalist country inhabitants of UK, Canada, Britian, Israel and especially German scream about healthcare in those countries, I will switch views. I see the contrary. I work for a British company and not one of my British counterparts states they don't like their system. They see flaws, but prefer it over ours (not the Brits that get relocated to the states are highly compensated employees)!
(2) Until medical bills stops being one of the leading causes of BK in America, then I might switch.
(3) People don't "choose" to go to the hospital or get sick. They just get sick and then they go to the hospital. Its not like buying a car or home. In many cases it picks you!
(4) The poor doctor argument is BULL SHIT. Sweden, Germany and Israel are all known to have some of the best doctors in the world, along with America!
(5) Lastly, I support it, because UHC is pro-business and pro-economic growth.

If supporting UHC makes me a socialist, then so be it!

I have been attacked in a similar way in the real world. I agree with EVERYTHING you are saying. Our employer based healthcare system is fraud beyond belief. It puts our corporations at a huge disadvantage in the global environment.

Therefore, I am a Universal Healthcare guy. Take healthcare out of our employer's hands. Take that burden off of them.

What this bill does is puts more of the healthcare burden on our businesses and that is unsustainable!

You have now joined the allegiance with the socialist if you want to take healthcare out of the hands of the capitalist.



For anyone looking at the numbers,

The 2010 Statistical Abstract: Health & Nutrition

Categorized and broken down into subcategories by,
Food Consumption and Nutrition
Health Care Resources
Health Care Utilization
Health Conditions, Diseases
Health Expenditures
Health Insurance
Health Risk Factors
Medicare, Medicaid

Long term it is in the best interest of everyone to have adequate health care available. We all live in a society so there will be some social programs. Privatization of certain industries is not feasible. Neither is giving out handouts and freebies to large corporate entities that monopolize markets and stifle emerging enterprises. I believe everyone should be watchful and concerned with the corruption that could follow this with some companies getting a little too cozy with the medical bureaucracy though.