Companies considered dropping Health Care?

[Paully_44]

Fall out of the major health care reform is that some major companies ATT, Verizon, Deere are considering or have considered dropping health care coverage now that the Reform has passed.

AT&T revealed that it spends $2.4 billion a year on coverage for its almost 300,000 active employees, a number that would fall to $600 million if AT&T stopped providing health care coverage and paid the penalty option instead. AT&T declined comment.

ugh...

[MacUser]

Apparently Obama wasn't clear on his CHANGE and what his idea of HOPE was?

[Shellie]

I said this was going to happen as soon as the bill was signed.

[dawgs10]

fine the companies that do this more than what they are saving. easy answer.

[RamboPreacher]

or get rid of obamacare as unconstitutional.

[Brian]

fine the companies that do this more than what they are saving. easy answer.

So you want to increase a fine that shouldn't be there in the first place?! What the?? So you think it's reasonable to force a private company owner to have health insurance on all it's employee's?

[Brian]

fine the companies that do this more than what they are saving. easy answer.

So you want to increase a fine that shouldn't be there in the first place?! What the?? So you think it's reasonable to force a private company owner to have health insurance on all it's employee's?

Just a little further with this thought.....as far as having some changes to the current health care situation, I'm all for some changes. Like allowing health insurance to follow the worker instead of being tied to the job. But I'm curious.....will the businesses have to pay only a base % for employee healthcare, or will it fluctuate from employee to employee depending on what plan the individual has? Like if I have top of the line health insurance that pays for dang near everything, or if I'm just a single guy who just wants to have enough coverage as to not be fined if I don't have coverage. Will companies have to pay more depending on what there employee's have?

[MacUser]

fine the companies that do this more than what they are saving. easy answer.

Now it's apparent... this IS Obama's idea also of Hope and Change. I just wish he was as honest as you are in disclosing agendas.

[dawgs10]

fine the companies that do this more than what they are saving. easy answer.

So you want to increase a fine that shouldn't be there in the first place?! What the?? So you think it's reasonable to force a private company owner to have health insurance on all it's employee's?

i think its reasonable to expect companies to do the right thing by their employees. but some will find loop holes to get away with little as possible. but if the fine is higher than the savings then this would not happen.

[dawgs10]

again to make things clear, i am not in favor of obama care. i am in favor of ceo's doing the right thing. so reverse obama care and do the right thing. i am fine with that.

[RamboPreacher]

but it was the company's option to provide anything at all. so if it becomes mandatory and more expensive, then the right thing to do for the shareholders is to remove the more expensive cost in lieu of the less expensive one - since it is a mandatory choice now. their choice to do what's best, isn't a moral or ethical decision, necessarily. Rather a cost to profit and risk analysis.

[dawgs10]

but it was the company's option to provide anything at all. so if it becomes mandatory and more expensive, then the right thing to do for the shareholders is to remove the more expensive cost in lieu of the less expensive one - since it is a mandatory choice now. their choice to do what's best, isn't a moral or ethical decision, necessarily. Rather a cost to profit and risk analysis.

it never fails to amaze me that when it comes to the bottom line all humanity can go to well, you know what i mean.

[CantBCoy]

dawgs wrote:

it never fails to amaze me that when it comes to the bottom line all humanity can go to well, you know what i mean.

I'm not sure you truly grasp why these companies would make a decision like this. Under Obamacare they are now forced to pay more than the 2.3 billion annually they are already paying. What would you like the company you work for do so that it doesn't have to cut your job or current salary in order to maintain a profit and stay in business?

Put yourself in the shoes of a small business owner that is barely staying afloat and trying to do what's right for your 5 employees. What would you do if the decision was yours to cut benefits, salaries or jobs because of a law that mandates you spend more than you can afford to spend? Which of these options are more humane?

[dawgs10]

a company that has 5 employees is not effected in any way. i am focusing on the companies that are listed on this thread. billion dollar companies with billions of dollars.

[RamboPreacher]

but it was the company's option to provide anything at all. so if it becomes mandatory and more expensive, then the right thing to do for the shareholders is to remove the more expensive cost in lieu of the less expensive one - since it is a mandatory choice now. their choice to do what's best, isn't a moral or ethical decision, necessarily. Rather a cost to profit and risk analysis.

it never fails to amaze me that when it comes to the bottom line all humanity can go to well, you know what i mean.

You assume much, and no I don't really know what you mean, because it appears as though you are saying that people will lose their salvation and go to hell if they don't get their health care benefits from their employer.

Has health care, specifically obamacare, now become a soteriological issue? guess I missed that part in the Bible somewhere (or even in any kind of tradition, or teaching). and if that's not what you are saying, is it something personal that you don't want to lose health care, so it must be wrong? sorry, can't figure it out, if you don't say it/spell it out.