Obamacare already causing healthcare price increases

...latest imposed govt mandate even more burdensome. It seems Congress is determined to drive us from Recession into Depression quick as they can.

No problem, all Obama has to do is declare Caterpillar "too big to fail" and take over them - or should I say nationalize them - or should I say "transform" them.

.... it was done in anticipation of ("Just in case") a bill passed.

IMO, the same with Caterpillar.

The rising costs of health care is one of the major reasons so many moved factories and outsourced. It was done a good while before this administration. There were also good tax breads for off-shore.

Our school board is on the brink of turning over janitorial, groundskeepers, and bus drivers to private companies. Not having to provide those employees with health care will save a bundle.

These decisions were not triggered by the passage of the bill. They were because of a lack of funding due, in my area, to less sale tax revenues.

Angeline

with this:
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6130_102-0.html?messageID=3275403&tag=forums06;posts#3275403

" Heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar says the new health care reform law will create a $100 million drag on its first-quarter earnings because of tax law changes."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_caterpillar_health_care_1

So yes, OBAMACare will cause jobs to be lost and businesses will be hurt.

your gasoline dosen't cost more when the taxes go up !!

I did a couple of checks on profit margin. For health, I looked at WellPoint, who I think is the base for Blue Cross. Their profit margin was 7.30%.
Let's compare that to a couple of other well-known companies. General Mills had a profit margin of 8.90%
Since Josh mentioned working for Pepsi, their profit margin was 13.80%.

Where do figures like these fit in your "profit margin"?

Mr. Guloien earned $3.93-million in 2008 when he was in his prior role. Upon taking up the CEO post, his contract entitled him to a base salary of $1-million (U.S.), a target bonus of 200 per cent of base salary and a long-term incentive target of 550 per cent of base salary.

AND I realize Manulife isn't about healthcare, Corn Flakes or Pepsi.

What is it's stock ticker designation (example, Pepsi is PEP and Coke is KO)? What is its product, is it something like an investment holding company?

I found it. From their company web site:
Manulife Financial is a leading Canadian-based financial services group serving millions of customers in 22 countries and territories world-wide. We provide financial protection and wealth management products and services, to individual and group customers in Canada, the United States and Asia. These products and services include individual life insurance, group life and health insurance, long-term care services, pension products, annuities, mutual funds and banking products. We offer reinsurance services, specializing in life retrocession and property and casualty reinsurance and provide investment management services with respect to the Company?s general fund and segregated fund assets and to mutual funds and institutional customers.
The Company operates in Canada and Asia through the brand name ?Manulife Financial? and in the United States primarily through the brand name ?John Hancock?.

You said Manulife isn't about healthcare, but the above seems to say that they deal in it, among other things.
Their profit margin is 3.50% A look at their holdings of investment securities shows holdings of over 119 billion dollars. Wow, that's quite a pile. I guess you were saying that the CEO of an outfit that big is not worth the salary he is paid.

Well, after you mentioned them not being about health care, and didn't help with locating their info I thought I'd take the time to search and check it out. It turned out that it is one of the things they handle. Before you mentioned them, did you even check them out, or was it just a story you grabbed and plugged into the thread without checking it out first?

BUT what about the CEO getting 200% and 550% bonuses....

IF it was about healthcare what do General mills and Pepsi (from YOUR posts) have to do with healthcare?

Thought

A lot of your posts seem to be heading "off topic" the last few days.

Good profit for selling sugar and water

I had a thought along that line. Did you notice the story that says they will no longer sell their drinks with sugar in schools. If they went to selling just bottled water in the machines and kept the same price, I would think that would increase their profit in those places. Water is cheaper to bottle than Pepsi.

We have magical devices in our house that dispense water for free. They're called faucets.

Free?...your tax dollars at work, IF you live in the city.


And it's not magic

That's what you consider massive profits?

you are in profound denial. Insurance company profits are modest, but may increase due to the passage of Obama's health care bill. That is because everyone will be forced to buy health insurance.

More people will have insurance and less people will visit the emergency room and the the Government (you) will pay less (taxes) to pay for emergency room visits by people with no insurance?

But if what you say here

"More people will have insurance and less people will visit the emergency room..."

is true, where do you think the money will come from that's going to move these people from ER to physician's offices?

Those who can or will, have always paid the medical expenses of those who can't or won't. The money that pays for those who who couldn't or wouldn't but who now join the ranks of those who "can or will", isn't going to appear in their pockets out of thin air. It's going to be taken from the pockets of those who are already willing or able to pay their own way. Fewer visiting ER and requiring less tax money going for that expense, isn't going to reduce anyone's tax liability. That money spent for emergency care only is going to shift to providing full service care which, to me, suggests a greater tax burden for the average citizen can be expected.

Those who can or will, have always paid the medical expenses of those who can't or won't.

there must be be some that "can but don't"

Doesn't it just make sense that the more people paying (bigger the pool) the smaller the amount each person pays for basic healthcare, and then the people that can afford, pay for their own "extras/frills", so your premiums should be reduced, since the insurance isn't paying for as much healthcare.

As you said....Now the people with insurance are paying for their insurance, then paying taxes to help the people that don't have insurance.

is probably going to come mainly from the same people who are already paying their way. The money isn't going to come from those unable to pay. They will be subsidized by those who can. I'm not saying that's not proper. I'm just saying it's reality. There are probably a few who have elected to go without insurance who are well off enough to do so. If you've ever seen the differential pricing from medical providers between "list" price and insurance contract price, you'd know it's substantial. If these wealthy individuals who are paying full freight are required to buy insurance and do need medical services, they could end up spending less which puts less money in the total pool. We just can't put numbers to the various possible scenarios.

One fact of life is that those who are able bodied and honest have always been expected to support those who are less able and those who are "ethically challenged". I don't think reasonable people have a fundamental problem with this notion and will volunteer time and assets to improving the lives of others. But I do think that those who would do such willingly don't care to be forced into contributing to a plan they don't support. They feel a right to some say-so into how the fruits of their labors will be spent. I don't see that happening here.

It appears to me that this administration sees the problem as one involving inadequate insurance coverage but is attacking insurance companies while, at the same time, wanting to expand coverage. At the root is the total cost of medical care. Insurance companies are but a layer of the larger medical system that, in reality, feeds on both medical providers and those who who need care. An insurance company has never cured a single disease. Adding another layer, that being government intervention, isn't going to decrease the total cost of medical care by one dime, IMO. It's going to increase that cost.