PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues CATERPILLAR: Health bill would cost company $100M -- in the first year alone!


petegz28
03-19-2010, 10:13 AM
http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/caterpillar-health-care-bill-would-cost-it-100m.html

Caterpillar: Health care bill would cost it $100M
Published on March 19, 2010 7:10 AM | Submit a comment
Dow Jones Newswires | Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."
Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.

The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.

"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."

Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation.

A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.

Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and the value of health care for patients as well as lower costs for employer-sponsored insurance coverage.

"Unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House and Senate, nor the president's proposal, meets these goals," the letter said.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2010, 10:41 AM
Maybe they will cut profits and hire people as a social good....

Or...

Build stuff elsewhere?

jjjayb
03-19-2010, 10:44 AM
[banyon,orange, etc]Who cares, they're just an evil corporation. They shouldn't make profit anyway. Profit is evil. Tax them more until they break even![/banyone,orange, etc]

bkkcoh
03-19-2010, 10:49 AM
Maybe they will cut profits and hire people as a social good....

Or...

Build stuff elsewhere?

Build stuff else where.

Isn't already taken place and the reasons listed, it is cheaper, there isn't the environmental issues in country xxx and etc....

HonestChieffan
03-19-2010, 10:54 AM
Maybe we could raise their corp tax rate to punish them for not being part of the peoples party. Or maybe just take them over.

banyon
03-19-2010, 10:54 AM
Maybe they will cut profits and hire people as a social good....

Or...

Build stuff elsewhere?

They've been doing that. CAT is one of the biggest outsourcers of labor for industrial production already. This is why, perversely, its stock trades inversely with the dollar.

DJ's left nut
03-19-2010, 10:57 AM
Shocker.

Even if you buy the idea that this healthcare legislation will 'trim the defecit' (I don't, moral hazard is never included in the gov't calculus); it's clear that the government intends to take the entire cost of this from the private sector.

There's no 'savings' to be had here, it's all re-distribution.

petegz28
03-19-2010, 10:57 AM
They've been doing that. CAT is one of the biggest outsourcers of labor for industrial production already. This is why, perversely, its stock trades inversely with the dollar.

So lets pass laws that encourage them to do it more. That's a great plan. And to be a little more accurate, most global companies trade inversely to the dollar.

Taco John
03-19-2010, 11:06 AM
Shocker.

Even if you buy the idea that this healthcare legislation will 'trim the defecit' (I don't, moral hazard is never included in the gov't calculus); it's clear that the government intends to take the entire cost of this from the private sector.

There's no 'savings' to be had here, it's all re-distribution.

This is worse than shuffling deck chairs on the titanic. It's pulling sheet metal from the hull to build a rain shelter on the top deck.

petegz28
03-19-2010, 11:07 AM
This is worse than shuffling deck chairs on the titanic. It's pulling sheet metal from the hull to build a rain shelter on the top deck.

Amazing how Obama just weeks ago was talking about jobs as his #1 priority and today he gave another rha-rha, campaign speech for health care which will kill jobs.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2010, 11:08 AM
They've been doing that. CAT is one of the biggest outsourcers of labor for industrial production already. This is why, perversely, its stock trades inversely with the dollar.

This wont be outsourcing, this will be move. Just move. Stupid bastards have no care what these policies will or could do to business. Serve them right if Cat leaves Peoria and the entire raft of union guys have to sit on their unemployed asses. Maybe they can get a job in Obama's Chicago or something.

petegz28
03-19-2010, 11:09 AM
This is why health insurance needs to be taken away from employers, PERIOD. It costs employers WAY too much to manage. They have groups of people in their company that do nothing but manage benefits and make $0 for the company and do 0 for improving productivity. Instead, Obama and Pelosi want to increase that burden.

bkkcoh
03-19-2010, 11:15 AM
This is why health insurance needs to be taken away from employers, PERIOD. It costs employers WAY too much to manage. They have groups of people in their company that do nothing but manage benefits and make $0 for the company and do 0 for improving productivity. Instead, Obama and Pelosi want to increase that burden.

And the responsibility of getting and maintaining insurance coverage is going to be on the individuals? government? or someone else?

I am pretty sure that the general population isn't responsible enough in order to ensure that takes place, it could already be done but isn't.

The government has proven with social security and medicare they can't run it without serious issues.

There is no easy answer for this, but I don't want the inept government, when it comes to management, to control my health care or my family's health care.

petegz28
03-19-2010, 11:18 AM
And the responsibility of getting and maintaining insurance coverage is going to be on the individuals? government? or someone else?

I am pretty sure that the general population isn't responsible enough in order to ensure that takes place, it could already be done but isn't.

The government has proven with social security and medicare they can't run it without serious issues.

There is no easy answer for this, but I don't want the inept government, when it comes to management, to control my health care or my family's health care.

Lets take one step at a time. Putting it at the individual level acomplishes two key things if not more.

1. It reduces a huge amount of overhead for companies to spend on hiring and retaining employees

2. It eliminates the obstacle of getting a new health insurance policy if you change or lose your job.

DJ's left nut
03-19-2010, 11:25 AM
Lets take one step at a time. Putting it at the individual level acomplishes two key things if not more.

1. It reduces a huge amount of overhead for companies to spend on hiring and retaining employees

2. It eliminates the obstacle of getting a new health insurance policy if you change or lose your job.

3. I believe it would actually create a cottage industry of it's own. If you could then form a business around creating cooperatives designed to facilitate group rates, you could make a killing. In the meantime, businesses whose primary field of expertise is certainly not healthcare would no longer have to worry about this burden.

If InsuranceCo (or whatever) isn't doing a good job of getting good rates for its customers, the customers go elsewhere. Suddenly InsuranceLLC will take the reigns. Sooner or later you will have businesses competing to provide competitive rates for their customers.

But no, we should just let the government do it. Afterall, the government is known for its efficiency.

petegz28
03-19-2010, 11:27 AM
3. I believe it would actually create a cottage industry of it's own. If you could then form a business around creating cooperatives designed to facilitate group rates, you could make a killing. In the meantime, businesses whose primary field of expertise is certainly not healthcare would no longer have to worry about this burden.

If InsuranceCo (or whatever) isn't doing a good job of getting good rates for its customers, the customers go elsewhere. Suddenly InsuranceLLC will take the reigns. Sooner or later you will have businesses competing to provide competitive rates for their customers.

But no, we should just let the government do it. Afterall, the government is known for its efficiency.

Sure it would. It would put them at the same level as State Farm and similar in competing for indiviuals' business. Or they can go out of business and someone else would pick up the business.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2010, 11:39 AM
This is why health insurance needs to be taken away from employers, PERIOD. It costs employers WAY too much to manage. They have groups of people in their company that do nothing but manage benefits and make $0 for the company and do 0 for improving productivity. Instead, Obama and Pelosi want to increase that burden.

Why remove it? Business chooses to provide that benefit, no one forces them to. When did it become so evil to let people make their own decisions?

Otter
03-19-2010, 11:41 AM
They've been doing that. CAT is one of the biggest outsourcers of labor for industrial production already. This is why, perversely, its stock trades inversely with the dollar.

Well, there you go.

Can't argue with that.

petegz28
03-19-2010, 11:46 AM
Why remove it? Business chooses to provide that benefit, no one forces them to. When did it become so evil to let people make their own decisions?

Ture. But it has become a hinderence to companies. And if individuals could get coverage on their own at comparable prices it would be a win-win for both the companies and the individuals.

Calcountry
03-19-2010, 11:50 AM
Gee, I wonder what that is gonna do for jobs?

Obama singing that song/"I want, you to want me. I need you to need me...."

HonestChieffan
03-19-2010, 11:51 AM
Ture. But it has become a hinderence to companies. And if individuals could get coverage on their own at comparable prices it would be a win-win for both the companies and the individuals.

Its their decision. If its such a hindrence they will drop it. They have the right to make the decision and should be so allowed.

Hydrae
03-19-2010, 11:54 AM
Its their decision. If its such a hindrence they will drop it. They have the right to make the decision and should be so allowed.

Until it is something that happens across the board though it would put the company dropping insurance benefits at a disadvantage when trying to hire the best people.

Anyone remember why US companies provide insurance to begin with? Without looking, I believe it was related to government regulations of wages shortly after WWII. Can you say unintended consquences from decades ago that is leading to the current situation? What unintended consequences will we be dealing with down the road that will require yet more governmental interference?