Democratic Commerce Committee chair, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and former health care holdout, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) have ordered large businesses who say their health care costs will increase under Obamacare, to appear in front of the committee and prove their claims.
As the details of the health care costs trickle out, large companies like AT&T, Verizon, John Deere and Caterpillar began the process of alerting their shareholders of billions in added health care expenses that will affect their bottom line.
This small group of CEOs has been summoned by Democrats to appear in front of a Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on April 21, 2010. Democratic lawmakers are demanding these corporate CEOs gather their health care documents from this year and prove their “analysis related to the projected impact of health care reform.”
The business leaders are also expected to produce any emails or documents related to the impact of health care they circulated throughout their corporate hierarchy.
The inquisition into added health care costs came as a stunning revelation once the President signed the partisan legislation into law.
According to the Commerce Committee, “these assertions appear to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs.”
Each CEO received a letter from Waxman requesting the documents and their presence in Washington D.C. after the Easter recess.
The letter reads in part; “After the President signed the health care reform bill into law, your company announced that provisions in the law could adversely affect your ability to provide health insurance. AT&T stated in its March 26,2010, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to take a charge of approximately $1 billion in the first quarter of 2010.”
Many CEOs have implied companies may be forced to reevaluate its health care packages for retirees. Waxman further contends the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), costs were supposed to decrease, not increase costs as AT&T reports.
However AT&T stands by their claim and says they are filing the change in bottom line profits with the Securities and Exchange Commission because laws on the books require large companies inform investors of changes that directly affect the balance sheet.
A Business Week article reports “Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees,” said Chris Larsen, an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. in New York.
The fact that Congress has demanded CEOs who informed their shareholders of the upcoming changes to appear in front of committees is viewed as another form of intimidating businesses to go along with the Obama Administration health package.
According to a recent Bloomberg Poll, only four in 10 Americans support the new health care legislation Obama signed into law last week. These numbers prove that Democrats have an uphill battle ahead of them as the details of the health care plan continue to see the light of day.
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner
Comments
What I do not understand is how can Waxman be surprised by this? Unless he did not read the bill? Now they are going to get the CEO's and rake them over the coals?
What I don't understand is how pseudo-conservatives can be up in arms over closing a loophole that allowed these corporations to rip off the taxpayers for billions each year.
They get a SUBSIDY - taxpayer money - to pay for drug benefits for retirees. It's not considered INCOME for tax purposes - but before this bill they still could deduct it as an EXPENSE on their taxes - meaning the taxpayers got screwed TWICE.
It's as if the government paid 28 percent of your mortgage each year but let you deduct 100 percent on your taxes.
All the bill does is close the double-dip loophole on this corporate welfare.
Snark,
Please read up before making posts like that. Rip off taxpayers? Hmmm, the tax breaks were helping out the Gov so the corporations didn't dump 100,000's retirees on the Gov Medical plan which would have crushed taxpayers. Now, if this is shut down, the corporations are going to revert to their plans pre 2003 and dump the retirees on their pensions and then fire a solid percentage of their current workforce to make sure they are meeting market expectations. What they don't teach you in Socialism is that the reason why European countries like Germany works is due to their ability to export products made in their country. They have a low import percent...they also need to carry a balanced budget and it is very hard to get credit (credit cards). Our problems are not Dem vs Rep...you figure out what is really driving the mess...
As if giving 30 million people free health insurance wouldn't raise rates. Only in a liberal's world. The Democrats must feel as if they already own our money.
Sorry, Think but there are two problems with your analysis:
1) Most of those companies already have union contracts requiring them to provide drug benefits; the deal was done without any evidence they would or could dump their retirees into the Medicare pharmacy benefit.
2) The STILL GET THE SUBSIDY - TAX-FREE. All they are losing is the ability to ALSO take that subsidy as a tax DEDUCTION. Instead of deducting 100 percent of what they spend on drug benefits, they get to deduct 72 percent - the amount that actually comes out of corporate coffers. The subsidy becomes a pass-through.
And bill proponents argue that in the long run they will save more than the lost deduction will cost because of other changes in the bill - that point is certainly not clear, since no one is certain exactly what the results of the bill will be.
Bottom line, for all their crying, this one-time adjustment to their books is having minimal effect on their stock prices.
Waxman is an idiot. The CBO's analysis said that all in all, we can expect an INCREASE in the cost of premiums.
1. Premiums would be 27-30% higher because coverage would be better. The law, for example, requires that all policies cover maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health & substance abuse and no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
2. Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of changes to the way the individual market is structured.
3. Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of an influx of more people, many of them healthy, into the insurance market.
Anyone that can do simple math can see that it leads to an increase.
Those numbers and info came from ABC News's coverage of the Health Care bill back in February. I can't provide a link, but I can give the date it was posted. February 25, by John Karl.
Waxman is an idiot. The CBO's analysis said that all in all, we can expect an INCREASE in the cost of premiums.
1. Premiums would be 27-30% higher because coverage would be better. The law, for example, requires that all policies cover maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health & substance abuse and no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
2. Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of changes to the way the individual market is structured.
3. Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of an influx of more people, many of them healthy, into the insurance market.
Anyone that can do simple math can see that it leads to an increase.
Those numbers and info came from ABC News's coverage of the Health Care bill back in February. I can't provide a link, but I can give the date it was posted. February 25, by John Karl.
Who is John Galt?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!