Swing Votes
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 29 Mar 2010 23:57 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:32:02 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Mar 29, 1:49�pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:16:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Mar 29, 11:03�am, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:58:52 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> � � � � Exactly. �And now American industry is reacting to the effect >> >> >> on them, stating, like AT&T did ( and Caterpillar, and Verizon, and >> >> >> many others, even in the few days since it passed ) that they will be >> >> >> taking HUGE write-downs ( $ 1 BILLION for ATT ), laying people off, >> >> >> cutting health benefits for employees and retirees, etc, because of >> >> >> the expenses Brobama and the Dems have invented for them. >> >> >> >Note: That $1B AT&T charge is against this quarter's profits. �So, the >> >> >new, better health care is costing them $4B a year, to start. �The >> >> >costs scream skyward later, as the plans start paying benefits. >> >> >> >$4B, hmmm. �At $100K / per job, that's 40,000 jobs, destroyed. >> >> >> ><snip> >> >> >> Actually, as I heard it analyzed, the $1B was a total charge over 30 >> >> years of additional costs due to changes in the bill, and doesn't >> >> start till 2013 when those changes occur... >> >> >That doesn't add up either. �AT&T's health care costs are increased at >> >least $250M per year just for retirees (i.e., $1B every four years for >> >that one item alone). >> >> >AT&T will certainly have higher costs for their 283,000 employees too, >> >so $1B a year is entirely possible, or more. >> >> >We'll see. >> >> >So the good news is $1B AFA(we)CT, and that only destroys 10,000 >> >jobs. �That's 30,000 jobs created or saved, right? >> >> Ok, full explanation as I heard it... >> >> This charge is only for a change in the prescription drug benefits. >> Presently, the gov. lets them write off 100% of the cost of drugs by >> its employees, PLUS there is a 25% (exact percentage not in memory... >> ;-) ) subsidy payment from the gov. �What is changing is that they can >> have one, or the other, but not both. (in 2013!) �So, this is the >> charge that they can see now. �They don't know yet what other changes >> will happed... >> >> Charlie > >Yes, that's about right. Here's the footnote on pg. 82 of AT&T's 2009 >Annual Report: > > "1. During 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Medicare Prescription Drug, > Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 reduced > postretirement benefit cost by $255, $263 and $342. [...]" > (numbers are millions of dollars) > >That deduction is going away. It was meant as an incentive for >employers to continue offering Rx benefits for retirees, thus saving >Medicare from paying those same benefits. > >Getting rid of subsidies is fine with me. This change is, however, >part of the uncounted cost of Obamacare--they're shifting the full >retiree Rx cost to the private sector, who will now have to pay 100 >cents of every Rx benefit rather than the 70-odd cents they used to >pay. Not necessarily. Many employers will simply discontinue coverage and Obamacare will have to pick up the whole deal. >So, the cost of doing business is *higher*, but it counts as a >*savings* (to the government) in the CBO figure. > >One assumes that AT&T has to apply this to the pension funds of >current workers too, if Rx benefits are part of their retirement >packages, and set aside additional reserves for the increased future >cost anticipated. Or, just chop the benefit. ....or discontinue retirement benefits.
From: Hermann on 30 Mar 2010 00:32 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:00:15 -0500, "Steve" <jsteve_n(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >> news:gpb2r5dutgq62h5h8fq95c3nr6ggivf702(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:40:03 -0500, "Steve" <jsteve_n(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "Don Ocean" <ocean(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:81anasFk5tU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>> The King wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:04:53 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:00:11 -0400, The King >>>>>>> <Theking(a)homeonthethrone.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:58:42 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In reality, we right-wingers _will_ eventually tip over the edge. >>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>> this socialism goes too far we're going to round up all you leftist >>>>>>>>> weenies and have a big weenie roast :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>>> You have been tipped over the edge and were coming to get you. >>>>>>> Oh? Voluntarily coming to the weenie roast and pick-em-up truck >>>>>>> drag-behind ?:-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>> If you promise to wear your hood. >>>>> I thought only Union members were allowed to wear hoods? >>>> Guys, thats not something to even joke about.... they are alive and well >>>> in >>>> the *real* south. I was invited to attend another "headlight party" a week >>>> or so ago. Yes, I politely declined (again). >>> Bullshit. >> Before you call bullshit, maybe you should come see for yourself?? OTOH, >> never mind, we don't need another damn yankee in south Mississippi. > > You really are a fool. You sure don't want to be hanging around in Mississippi. They use real rope.
From: Steve on 30 Mar 2010 08:45 ...Jim Thompson >>>>>> >>>>>> If you promise to wear your hood. >>>>> >>>>> I thought only Union members were allowed to wear hoods? >>>> >>>>Guys, thats not something to even joke about.... they are alive and well >>>>in >>>>the *real* south. I was invited to attend another "headlight party" a >>>>week >>>>or so ago. Yes, I politely declined (again). >>> >>> Bullshit. >> >>Before you call bullshit, maybe you should come see for yourself?? OTOH, >>never mind, we don't need another damn yankee in south Mississippi. > > You really are a fool. You can say what you want about the south, but I have never heard of anybody retiring and moving north.
From: Jim Yanik on 30 Mar 2010 08:45 "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in news:bht2r5p2e8lq6iijf0krju6adonmtl18lc(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:32:02 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > >>That deduction is going away. It was meant as an incentive for >>employers to continue offering Rx benefits for retirees, thus saving >>Medicare from paying those same benefits. >> >>Getting rid of subsidies is fine with me. This change is, however, >>part of the uncounted cost of Obamacare--they're shifting the full >>retiree Rx cost to the private sector, who will now have to pay 100 >>cents of every Rx benefit rather than the 70-odd cents they used to >>pay. > > Not necessarily. Many employers will simply discontinue coverage and > Obamacare will have to pick up the whole deal. Which is exactly what Obama wants. it leads to "single payer";the gov't,and he knows it. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: krw on 30 Mar 2010 18:28
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:45:02 -0500, "Steve" <jsteve_n(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you promise to wear your hood. >>>>>> >>>>>> I thought only Union members were allowed to wear hoods? >>>>> >>>>>Guys, thats not something to even joke about.... they are alive and well >>>>>in >>>>>the *real* south. I was invited to attend another "headlight party" a >>>>>week >>>>>or so ago. Yes, I politely declined (again). >>>> >>>> Bullshit. >>> >>>Before you call bullshit, maybe you should come see for yourself?? OTOH, >>>never mind, we don't need another damn yankee in south Mississippi. >> >> You really are a fool. > >You can say what you want about the south, but I have never heard of anybody >retiring and moving north. I live in the South, you dimwitted liar. If you want a real bigot just look at your typical NE leftist weenie. |