- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
That's because IBM is a business, and they aren't stupid.
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.
You seem like a bright guy.transfer that benefit risk onto the public
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?
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?
.
The rate of increase in health care costs has gone down since it was passed
A little of both I suspect.
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
I don't care to try to convince a commie
just combat them at every turn
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.I accept your surrender! :wink:
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.
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.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.
No! Because if you doubt me nothing I could type in here could ever change your mind.Can I see some facts to back up your claim about the ACA?
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.
yes more people on welfare is precisely what they are trying to achieve.welfare of the people
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.
dot org?Moving on
I thought socialized healthcare was free? Like public education.a fixed point
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 ?
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.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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?