• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Real life obama care story

humbolt said:
Let's not get into the rate of increase. Rates increased rather dramatically before the ACA became law in anticipation of it. I saw it, and so did millions of others. I'm out. I'll check back later.
Click to expand...

I accept your surrender! :wink:
 
humbolt said:
That's because IBM is a business, and they aren't stupid.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But if you think future liabilities are driving this decision I'd argue that you're putting the cart before the horse.

If you ask yourself what has changed that may have required IBM to alter their insurance coverage, and you can't see the ACA as the the thing that forced the alteration, then you're wearing blinders. Willingly.
Click to expand...

I would actually ask myself two questions:

1. Did something occur that is requiring or forcing IBM to alter it's coverage?

2. Or did something occur that allowed IBM to to alter it's coverage (like a loophole opening) and IBM (because they're smart) jumped on it like a sterno bum on a nickle?

Let's, as they say, follow the money:

Take a look at IMB's OPEB/Nonpension Postretirement Benefit Plans information as reported for the year ending January 31, 2012.

As of that date IBM's OPEB plans were at a funded ratio of about 2% on projected benefit obligations of $6.2 billion with plan assets of $150 million.

So roughly a $6.05 billion deficit.

Now, there's no way those assets are going to cover even yearly expenses at IBM's assumed rate of return of 8.00%.

So....IBM is making contributions to it's OPEB plans at the rate of about $400 million a year just to cover the yearly expense (without making any contributions that would increase the funded status of their plans in order to make them more self sufficent/sustaining).

Also note that employees hired after January 1, 2004 are not eligible for any company subsidized non-pension postretirement benefits.

So IBM has a OPEB funding gap of roughly $6.05 billion that it can never realistically hope to close and out-of-pocket retiree healthcare expenses of $400 million a year (which will fluctuate yearly based on how much healthcare the retiree pool is actually consuming, could go down, could go WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY up).

Then the .gov comes along and provides a loophole whereby IBM can legally transfer that benefit risk onto the public by simply making an announcement and then, just like that, no more ugly benefit obligation hanging over the company's head and eating into profit.

IBM turned a profit last year somewheres north of $12 billion, so they can easily afford to maintain the current state of affairs without running a risk of investors fleeing. Even at the projected increased cost (which I can't find anywhere in any of their fed reporting, though it may have been mentioned on a call which I haven't checked) IBM would be doing okay.

So I can't see this as IBM being "forced" into anything.

My assessment as an investor is that IBM is making a smart move that's going to raise EPS and dividends by a couple points because they were provided with an opportunity upon which they've wisely capitalized.

My assessment as a retiree would be that Big Blue is a theiving back-stabber.

My assessment as a conservative who is looking for anything to pin on President Obama would be that this is the result of the socialist PPACA hamstringing big business and screwing hard-working Americans out of security in their retirement.
 
soot said:
transfer that benefit risk onto the public
Click to expand...
You seem like a bright guy.
Won't the ACA 'transfer that benefit risk onto the public' on such a mind boggling massively scale
that no one in their right minds can expect America to pay for it?
 
AngryOldGuy said:
You seem like a bright guy.
Won't the ACA 'transfer that benefit risk onto the public' on such a mind boggling massively scale
that no one in their right minds can expect America to pay for it?
Click to expand...

I think you'd have to qualify what you mean by "a mind bogglingly massive scale".

If you're talking about sheer number of people then the more massive the transfer onto the exchanges the better.

Massive in that sense is good; the more the merrier.

Ideally that massive pool with contain a minority of old, disabled, chronically ill members who consume a lot of healthcare and a majority of relatively young, relatively healthy members who consume a negligible amount of healthcare.

The concern is that ACA only results in the transfer of retirees and near retirees onto the exchanges and all the young people decided that they'd rather just pay their $150 fine (which will come out of tax returns so they'll never even see it in the first place) and go about their uninsured lives much as they are now.

If that's the result and we wind up with millions of voracious healthcare consumers whose premiums are subsidized as a result of their fixed incomes then yeah, the whole idea is pretty much ****ed.
 
soot said:
Agreed.

But if you think future liabilities are driving this decision I'd argue that you're putting the cart before the horse.



I would actually ask myself two questions:

1. Did something occur that is requiring or forcing IBM to alter it's coverage?

2. Or did something occur that allowed IBM to to alter it's coverage (like a loophole opening) and IBM (because they're smart) jumped on it like a sterno bum on a nickle?

.
Click to expand...

A little of both I suspect.
 
Two things:
One there's not enough funny money in the Cosmos to pay for any of this and
Two The cake is a lie, all this free stuff will never be delivered
Everyone but the silly Socialist Utopians knows that this is all boolshiite
what isn't a lie

iz464x.jpg


I don't care to try to convince a commie
just combat them at every turn
 
Wazzamatta Sawyer? don't you think that your parents future healthcare needs will be taken care of
by a government that is sixteen trillion bucks in the hole and diggin' deeper every day?

What's to worry about?

oqx2mo.jpg


at least the government has deeper pockets than IBM? ;)
 
Can I see some facts to back up your claim about the ACA?

AngryOldGuy said:
Two things:
One there's not enough funny money in the Cosmos to pay for any of this and
Two The cake is a lie, all this free stuff will never be delivered
Everyone but the silly Socialist Utopians knows that this is all boolshiite
what isn't a lie

iz464x.jpg


I don't care to try to convince a commie
just combat them at every turn
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
I accept your surrender! :wink:
Click to expand...
It's a violent surrender then. You're offering a moving window for comparison with the rate of increase business, without attributing increases to any particular thing. A fixed point from which to measure is required. Furthermore, we're supposed to be talking about decreases in insurance costs - not increases at all. Obama was going to bend the cost curve downward. Hasn't happened. Smells and looks like failure to me.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
The point of the OP was that Obama promised you could keep your insurance and your docs and that is not what is happening to my mom and dad.
Click to expand...

Obama or rather President is one branch of government, there are two other branches that may and often do have different agenda than the president.

Any person who understands American system of Democratic Republic understands promises comes with lot of Grain of Salts and only a total idiot would believe everything a politician promises.

Having Said that...my employer offers health insurance which actually meets the Standards set by ACA and therefore I am due for Tax Credit. I didn't know this until yesterday and I actually don't much care for ACA as it stands now, but like other programs before it, I'm sure it will get better, if politicians become more interested in improving welfare of the people rather than scoring political points that aligns with the dogma of their party....

So in a way Obama's promise did come true for me and I'm sure, millions like me which is actually lot to be said about politicians promise



Diving Mullah
 
soot said:
Agreed.

But if you think future liabilities are driving this decision I'd argue that you're putting the cart before the horse.



I would actually ask myself two questions:

1. Did something occur that is requiring or forcing IBM to alter it's coverage?

2. Or did something occur that allowed IBM to to alter it's coverage (like a loophole opening) and IBM (because they're smart) jumped on it like a sterno bum on a nickle?

Let's, as they say, follow the money:

Take a look at IMB's OPEB/Nonpension Postretirement Benefit Plans information as reported for the year ending January 31, 2012.

As of that date IBM's OPEB plans were at a funded ratio of about 2% on projected benefit obligations of $6.2 billion with plan assets of $150 million.

So roughly a $6.05 billion deficit.

Now, there's no way those assets are going to cover even yearly expenses at IBM's assumed rate of return of 8.00%.

So....IBM is making contributions to it's OPEB plans at the rate of about $400 million a year just to cover the yearly expense (without making any contributions that would increase the funded status of their plans in order to make them more self sufficent/sustaining).

Also note that employees hired after January 1, 2004 are not eligible for any company subsidized non-pension postretirement benefits.

So IBM has a OPEB funding gap of roughly $6.05 billion that it can never realistically hope to close and out-of-pocket retiree healthcare expenses of $400 million a year (which will fluctuate yearly based on how much healthcare the retiree pool is actually consuming, could go down, could go WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY up).

Then the .gov comes along and provides a loophole whereby IBM can legally transfer that benefit risk onto the public by simply making an announcement and then, just like that, no more ugly benefit obligation hanging over the company's head and eating into profit.

IBM turned a profit last year somewheres north of $12 billion, so they can easily afford to maintain the current state of affairs without running a risk of investors fleeing. Even at the projected increased cost (which I can't find anywhere in any of their fed reporting, though it may have been mentioned on a call which I haven't checked) IBM would be doing okay.

So I can't see this as IBM being "forced" into anything.

My assessment as an investor is that IBM is making a smart move that's going to raise EPS and dividends by a couple points because they were provided with an opportunity upon which they've wisely capitalized.

My assessment as a retiree would be that Big Blue is a theiving back-stabber.

My assessment as a conservative who is looking for anything to pin on President Obama would be that this is the result of the socialist PPACA hamstringing big business and screwing hard-working Americans out of security in their retirement.
Click to expand...
You're right. Forced is probably too strong - seriously incentivized is more applicable. My assessment remains unalterably the same regarding PPACA, and the reasons are on display for all to see. It's not my opinion - it's reality. Yeah, if I were an IBM retiree, I might be pissed, but IBM is doing what companies do. It's predictable, and the bottom line rules regardless of any former employee loyalty. Former employees will have access to some form of health insurance - the forcing comes into the picture in that IBM does not wish to make itself a target of this particular administration. They're some nasty-assed people.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Can I see some facts to back up your claim about the ACA?
Click to expand...
No! Because if you doubt me nothing I could type in here could ever change your mind.
Nancy told us we had to pass the bill to see what was in it, I guess some of you will have to wait till they begin removing the
bodies from the train wreck as it implements. No wait that won't even be enough to convince as you'll somehow blame Insurance companies
private enterprise or hell even Bush. Even when the effects of this and all the rest of the socialist policies smack you square in the face
you'll be forced to blame something else.
 
humbolt said:
It's a violent surrender then. You're offering a moving window for comparison with the rate of increase business, without attributing increases to any particular thing. A fixed point from which to measure is required. Furthermore, we're supposed to be talking about decreases in insurance costs - not increases at all. Obama was going to bend the cost curve downward. Hasn't happened. Smells and looks like failure to me.
Click to expand...

Why yes, a fixed point would be a good start, which is exactly why I'm not attributing increases to any one thing. Since we haven't established that fixed point, I don't know why you speak of my lack of attribution as a bad thing.

But maybe you should emulate that, and not attribute cost increases and decreases until you have established a fixed point at which to begin, or maybe even take the OP to task for not doing so.
 
Diving Mullah said:
welfare of the people
Click to expand...
yes more people on welfare is precisely what they are trying to achieve.
So you don't pay anything for your employer provided healthcare plan? If you do will the tax credit cover the inevitable increased costs you'll face?

Also you are getting a tax credit for a program that has yet to implement ?
 
How can one have a debate without knowing the facts the other is presenting?

Moving on I guess.


AngryOldGuy said:
No! Because if you doubt me nothing I could type in here could ever change your mind.
Nancy told us we had to pass the bill to see what was in it, I guess some of you will have to wait till they begin removing the
bodies from the train wreck as it implements. No wait that won't even be enough to convince as you'll somehow blame Insurance companies
private enterprise or hell even Bush. Even when the effects of this and all the rest of the socialist policies smack you square in the face
you'll be forced to blame something else.
Click to expand...
 
AngryOldGuy said:
yes more people on welfare is precisely what they are trying to achieve.
So you don't pay anything for your employer provided healthcare plan? If you do will the tax credit cover the inevitable increased costs you'll face?

Also you are getting a tax credit for a program that has yet to implement ?
Click to expand...

As I said...You seem to be very clueless about what ACA or as you know it Obamacare and how it works or what it does. So there is really no point having an discussion on a subject that you know nothing about other hyperbolicly "yelling it will ruin everything"

I suggest read about it preferably from independent and unbiased sources, then we can have a meaningful discussion.

Cheers

Diving Mullah
 
blah blah blah ya ya ya
Osamacare is the best thing since sliced bread
that is why the Unions, Congress and more than half the American population want to be exempted from it.
I can't wait for my free stuff

"So you don't pay anything for your employer provided healthcare plan?"
 
sangha said:
Why yes, a fixed point would be a good start, which is exactly why I'm not attributing increases to any one thing. Since we haven't established that fixed point, I don't know why you speak of my lack of attribution as a bad thing.

But maybe you should emulate that, and not attribute cost increases and decreases until you have established a fixed point at which to begin, or maybe even take the OP to task for not doing so.
Click to expand...
Yeah - all good points except that I'm not the one who started out with a comparison. It would seem the responsibility for establishing that fixed point would be you. I just pointed out the lack of a meaningful comparison unless a fixed point was employed. I didn't say what it might be.
 
humbolt said:
Yeah - all good points except that I'm not the one who started out with a comparison. It would seem the responsibility for establishing that fixed point would be you. I just pointed out the lack of a meaningful comparison unless a fixed point was employed. I didn't say what it might be.
Click to expand...

And neither did I start out with a comparison. All I did was point out some facts and instead of going after the OP and others (who did in fact make comparisons), you posted as though I posted something inappropriate.
 
zimmer said:
ObamaKare not in effect yet? Really? Is that why employers are reducing hours to less than 40 per week and not hiring? Is that why coverage is skyrocketing?

Just wait until we have to bend over and take The Full Monty.
Click to expand...

You must punish the slave for demanding human rights.

And they are avoiding the fine is all with 30 hr game. the people will STILL GET HC, even at 30 hrs the HC will still be affordable at 2 % fo pay.

Full monty is paying the POINT 9% tax. (.9%) on that $400 million per year your friends make.

Oh, and the big day is Jan 1, 2014.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom