Healthcare Reform Bill Impacts Caterpillar’s Bottom Line In A Big Way
By Stephanie Robins on March 28, 2010, 9:25 am Posted in Economy NewsHealthcare Reform is being touted by President Obama and the Democrats as a method to lessen the cost to companies in supplying Healthcare for their employees. The jury is out on this. However, there are companies already claiming that the Healthcare Bill will do the opposite. It will lower the amount of coverage for the employees.
Caterpillar Comes Forward
Caterpillar (NYSE:CAT) is a well-known company that provides agricultural equipment, like bulldozers to countries around the world. The success of many agricultural enterprises depends on the financial condition of this company. Caterpillar has recently come forward with input, concerning the results that will be forthcoming due to the passage of the Healthcare Bill.
The company claims the Bill will raise its costs for healthcare by over $100 million in the first year. Before the Healthcare Bill was passed, Caterpillar was active in opposing the Bill because it suspected the costs would be too high. Caterpillar, based in Peoria, Illinois said that the added costs will hurt its ability to compete abroad. Caterpillar claims that its subsidies to retirees’ drug plans will no longer get the company tax advantages. This could result in a lessening of prescription coverage for the retirees. AT&T (NYSE:T) and Medtronic (NYSE:MDT) are making similar claims.
Countering Caterpillar Claims And Confusion About The Bill
Most Western countries have a single-payer system, which has far more government control than the Bill just passed. Caterpillar has failed to explain how competing against countries that already supply Healthcare to all their citizens will give then an advantage over American companies.
There is so much confusion about the Bill that the two other alternatives should have been carried out by the Obama administration. The first, with Republican support, would have been small changes in Healthcare requirements, pushed through a little at a time. The second, though opposed by many, is single-payer coverage. At least under the single-payer plan confusion would not reign.
Related posts:
- Government Healthcare Spending Continues To Grow Faster Than Economy
- Unemployment: Productivity Rising Slowing Employers From Hiring
- Unemployment: Several Options For Post-COBRA Health Insurance Plans
- Fox Poll: 54% Of Adults Oppose New Healthcare Bill
- Healthcare Bill: Abortion Inclusion Will Cost Hundreds Per Taxpayer
Yes, because “at least then we wouldn’t be confused” is an excellent argument for instituting a national health system.
“countering claims”? What? If Caterpillar can’t make a profit, they will FIRE all their US workers and move production overseas. That’s not a claim, that’s a fact!
How do other countries provide universal health care. Single payer with taxes based on income.
This bill is nothing but a transfer of wealth from productive sectors of the economy to the insurance companies which produce nothing.
Ironically part of the “funding” comes from reductions in “reimbursements” to those who actually produce the services and taxes on medical devices people actually use.
Do the democrats think the public are stupid. In ths day and age, when you add 35 million people to a plan that they were not involved in before, and say that ” its already paid for” C’on, who do they think they are fooling. Its time to get some common sense back and do what right for the hard working people of this country.
Dumb article showing you have no grasp of the issue. It’s just a headline to try to make Obama look bad. This paragraph makes now sense whatsoever. Do your homework for a change…
“Most Western countries have a single-payer system, which has far more government control than the Bill just passed. Caterpillar has failed to explain how competing against countries that already supply Healthcare to all their citizens will give then an advantage over American companies”
I think that confusion over issues such as this one could be reduced if articles like this one included an explanation that all of Caterpillars “extra costs” are due to this law causing them to no longer be allowed to right off from their taxes, the 28% of their benefits costs that the government has been paying since 2003 and will continue to pay under the new rules.
If the government passed a new law that required them to pay 28% of the interest on my home mortgage, for example, I would NOT complain if they turned around seven years later and decided that I could no longer take a tax right-off for the percentage that I was not paying.
Revised Please
Yes, this is definitely confusing. Accounting rules simply can’t be trusted to tell the whole story. Such rules are routinely used to downplay the bottom line. Why? The lower the net profit, the lower the taxes. There is really nothing that will satisfy companies in this regard. Health care reform has been a huge diversion from the real issue, i.e., taxes. The wealthy class and corporations (to include individual income, corporate profits and capital gains) are digging in their collective heels against returning to the top rate of 1980 (70%) and the bottom rate of 1980 (11%). Naturally, the bottom rate should be applied to the middle class and small businesses (to include individual income, small business profits and capital gains). Two pre-Reagan, pre-1981 rates will create jobs and health care reform in 75% of the economic base of the U.S., i.e., middle class and small businesses. Those two rates are staring everybody in the face, i.e., 70% and 10%. The question is where the line should be drawn between the two. Because such a mess has been made of the economy and the U.S. Public Debt…the threshold must be initially drawn at $350,000 (10% flat rate below this line, and 70% flat rate above this line). The result for those with taxable incomes of at least $1 million will be an effective rate of 49% in lieu of the present 32%. Naturally, the middle class and small businesses (and thus the United States) will receive the benefit, i.e., the effective rate of 10% below $350,000. That’s when the middle class can begin to produce multiple new jobs and small businesses. The higher rate will begin to reduce the U.S. Public Debt, now somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 trillion and growing.
Our latest government actions are the most brazen moves against the American people that I have ever witnessed. I am 85 years old and have lived through the actions of many political parties. My hopes and prayers are that we as Americans can together rid ourselves of this blight on our heritage.
who do the repubs want to deny coverage when can we have what they have
What the government failed to talk about, is it isn’t only insurance that drives the premiums up. Hospitals are what set the premiums by wages. How can a hospital charge $150.00 for a IV of saline, when it costs them 1.50. Doctor’s in other country’s pay their doctors $150,000/yr. Doctors in US make well over that. If hospitals charged a reasonable rate, more people could have insurance without government health care.