[blwall1416]

I agree. 26 is completely asinine.

26 & still at home conjures up images of living in the basement, playing WOW, while your mom is yelling at you to come up for supper & your dad won't talk to you because you won't go out & get a job.

[ATrain]

When I said 26, I was thinking more along the lines of those that go straight through to a doctorate degree. I stayed on my dad's until December 2009 (as a 24 year old), and that was only b/c I was still in school. Sorry, I should've clarified.

Actually, the ability to stay on my dad's insurance was a major part of my decision to even attend grad school.

[El Scorcho]

When I said 26, I was thinking more along the lines of those that go straight through to a doctorate degree. I stayed on my dad's until December 2009 (as a 24 year old), and that was only b/c I was still in school. Sorry, I should've clarified.

Actually, the ability to stay on my dad's insurance was a major part of my decision to even attend grad school.

That's completely what that age limit is about. Not saying I support it, but graduate and post-graduate education was the aim there.

[El Scorcho]

And now the country starts to bleed...

AT&T to Book $1 Billion Cost on Health-Care Reform (Update3)

March 26, 2010, 4:37 PM EDT
By Amy Thomson and Ian King

March 26 (Bloomberg) -- AT&T Inc. will book $1 billion in first-quarter costs related to the health-care law signed this week by President Barack Obama, the most of any U.S. company so far.
A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing.

AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, joins Caterpillar Inc., AK Steel Holding Corp. and 3M Co. in recording non-cash expenses against earnings as a result of the law. Health-care costs may shave as much as $14 billion from U.S. corporate profits, according to an estimate by benefits consulting firm Towers Watson. AT&T employed about 281,000 people as of the end of January.

Full Article Here: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... ate1-.html

Choice quote...

“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

Every single one of these companies employing large numbers of people is now looking at immediately cutting medical benefits. All of them. I'd point to this as the kinds of unintended consequences that detractors were talking about, but I don't believe they were unintended. We all know this sort of thing was done purposefully to move us toward the single-payer system.

[LUconn]

I just read that article earlier this morning. The ironic (minus the humor) part is, these companies are required by the SEC to report those kinds of writedowns. The government is essentially forcing these companies to make this whole thing look like a disaster for business. Sometimes I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

[GoUNCA]

This is the same AT&T that posted a 3.01 Billion dollar quarterly profit during a recession, right? Yeah, sounds like they'll have to start cutting pretty heavily just to be able to make ends meet.

You wouldn't think that you guys would support subsidizing a private company's retirement benefits with tax payer dollars.

[El Scorcho]

This is the same AT&T that posted a 3.01 Billion dollar quarterly profit during a recession, right? Yeah, sounds like they'll have to start cutting pretty heavily just to be able to make ends meet.

That's just the point, smart aleck. They're going to try to protect profits. That's why companies exist. To make money. So now they'll cut benefits and jobs to protect the bottom line.

Don't make it sound like I'm boohoo'ing for the big bad evil corporation. Thousands of people work for AT&T. Those people, their existing benefits and their jobs were the point.

You wouldn't think that you guys would support subsidizing a private company's retirement benefits with tax payer dollars.

Who said we did?

[01LUGrad]

I would love for a liberal to explain how big a small business is allowed to get before it becomes evil for making a profit. They do realize the people who work for them share in the company's success, right? (ie: providing jobs for more people)

I'll agree with the above post when I say the point of having a business is to make money, duh!

[LUconn]

This is the same AT&T that posted a 3.01 Billion dollar quarterly profit during a recession, right? Yeah, sounds like they'll have to start cutting pretty heavily just to be able to make ends meet.

You wouldn't think that you guys would support subsidizing a private company's retirement benefits with tax payer dollars.

LOL. Do you know what happens when you tax a corporation? They just say "aw shucks" and take a portion of their profit and give it to the government, right? No. They're going to either cut benefits/jobs or pass it on to the consumer or most likely a combination. Because this entity exists solely to please it's shareholders.

[ATrain]

AT&T has every right to cut benefits to its employees. The corporation exists to make money, and while they can take the hit and still make a profit, investors are going to see less profit and most are probably not going to investigate that further, think the company is doing poorly, and sell their shares or demand a new board be put in place to increase profitability to its previous levels.

A company should not be taxed for trying to do the right thing. This takes away an incentive to do the right thing. I'm wondering if Starbucks, which provides health insurance to its part-time employees, will stop doing that or close up shop as a result of the new provision.

[ALUmnus]

I'd point to this as the kinds of unintended consequences that detractors were talking about, but I don't believe they were unintended. We all know this sort of thing was done purposefully to move us toward the single-payer system.

That's what we've all been screaming about, but the press pretends to be ignorant about it. It's just like Nancy Pelosi saying "We need to pass the bill to see what's in it". They've been devious about this whole thing from day 1, when it's been obvious what their dream has been for years now.

[UNCA Alum]

This is the same AT&T that posted a 3.01 Billion dollar quarterly profit during a recession, right? Yeah, sounds like they'll have to start cutting pretty heavily just to be able to make ends meet.

You wouldn't think that you guys would support subsidizing a private company's retirement benefits with tax payer dollars.

When President Obama was running around assuring us that our health care plans wouldn't change under his fantastic reform, he didn't qualify it by saying, "Unless you used to work for one of those big companies that make a lot of money. If that's the case, then yeah your plan is going to change because we are going to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts."

If your argument is that we shouldn't be subsidizing a private company's retirement benefits with taxpayer dollars, then Dems should have been saying that before the bill was passed and admitting that yes, some people's plans were going to change. Most notably older people who have retired.

Just like how when he was on the campaign, he said he wasn't for the insurance mandate. That was a key difference b/w him and Hillary on a key issue. Hillary was being realistic, Obama was trying to win votes. Yet now he has signed a mandate into the law.

Guy has a pretty bad habit of saying one thing and then doing something completely different. By defending his current actions, you are tacitly admitting that he was either wrong (mandate) or lying (your plan won't change) earlier.

[Covert Hawk]

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[Covert Hawk]

And now the country starts to bleed...

AT&T to Book $1 Billion Cost on Health-Care Reform (Update3)

March 26, 2010, 4:37 PM EDT
By Amy Thomson and Ian King

March 26 (Bloomberg) -- AT&T Inc. will book $1 billion in first-quarter costs related to the health-care law signed this week by President Barack Obama, the most of any U.S. company so far.
A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing.

AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, joins Caterpillar Inc., AK Steel Holding Corp. and 3M Co. in recording non-cash expenses against earnings as a result of the law. Health-care costs may shave as much as $14 billion from U.S. corporate profits, according to an estimate by benefits consulting firm Towers Watson. AT&T employed about 281,000 people as of the end of January.

Full Article Here: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... ate1-.html

Choice quote...

“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

Every single one of these companies employing large numbers of people is now looking at immediately cutting medical benefits. All of them. I'd point to this as the kinds of unintended consequences that detractors were talking about, but I don't believe they were unintended. We all know this sort of thing was done purposefully to move us toward the single-payer system.

There seems to be no good guys in this tangled web of the Obamacare write-downs