Category: Companies

Companies say health care costs hard to swallow

Companies say health care costs hard to swallow

I really love this line:

Consumers Energy, a Michigan gas and electric company with 2.9 million customers, said it will not take a big first-quarter charge because, like most utility companies, it can try to recover the added costs from its customers through rate hikes.

I am sure the state with the highest unemployment in the country will LOVE having their energy rates increased to pay for medical costs!

I get it, health costs will go down because it will get subsidized by the taxes on energy! We can just rob Peter to pay Paul because Peter is too stupid to realize he got robbed.

The really good news in all that is we may get some more new jobs – the bill gives the IRS $1B a year to hire new employees to collect all of these new taxes – that is about 12,000 new jobs for the IRS! Obama has finally come up with a solution to unemployment – hire the entire US population so that no one is unemployed!

Wall Street Journal has an opinion on all of these charges. They quote:

Towers Watson estimates that the total hit this year will reach nearly $14 billion

This is after AT&T, Deere, Caterpillar, AK Steel, 3M, and Valero announced a total of about 1.4B in combined charges. Verizon has already said they will need to announce charges just not sure how much.

That is okay though – I am sure that these companies are really rich and they will just absorb the charges and they won’t pass them on to the consumers. In fact, I am sure that these companies will now accelerate their plans to hire more people.

Obviously, a lot of what I said above is sarcasm. Here is what really going to happen. The door is open by a bad bill. Now there will be a lot of little fix bills to cover these problems. These little bills won’t get a lot of media attention in fact many will just be amendments on other bills. It won’t matter who controls the legislative or executive branch, the amendments will happen. These and other taxes are going to get taken out because they are stupid and punitive but the promise of free health care will continue (and probably expand) until 20 years from now it is as bad of a monstrosity as Social Security – under-funded and over-extended.

Speaking of Social Security, did you see that Social Security is now paying out more than it brings in as of this year (NY Times – the bastion of socialistic thoughts). Of course this is 6 years earlier than CBO said it would happen. CBO must have made a mistake. Isn’t that the same CBO that said ObamaCare will slightly help the federal deficit? I sure hope that it wasn’t the same group of counters that analyzed both programs since the Social Security analysis sure wasn’t on target!

There is very little that a government can do better than private enterprise. Now we have just placed 1/8 or more of our economy into the hands of the incompetents that can’t get a job in private companies so they run for political jobs.

What in the world are we doing? Will our children curse this day 40 years from now?

Companies say health care costs hard to swallow
By JOSH FUNK
AP Business Writer

The health care overhaul will cost U.S. companies billions and make them more likely to drop prescription drug coverage for retirees because of a change in how the government subsidizes those benefits.

In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future.

With more than 3,500 companies now getting the tax break as an incentive to keep providing coverage, others are almost certain to announce similar cost increases in the weeks ahead as they sort out the impact of the change.

Figuring out what it will mean for retirees will take longer, but analysts said as many as 2 million could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers, leaving them to enroll in Medicare’s program.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs defended the tax law change Thursday, saying the original provision allowing companies to deduct the federal subsidies from their taxable income was a “loophole” that will be closed by the health care overhaul.

For the government, the tax changes are expected to raise roughly $4.5 billion over the next decade to help pay for the health overhaul. Some of the savings would be negated by retirees enrolling in the Medicare plans.

“You’re increasing the incentive for companies to say ‘We don’t want to be in the health care business any more,'” said James Gelfand, senior manager of health policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which fought the overhaul.

American industrial companies that are struggling to compete globally against companies with much lower labor costs are particularly likely to eventually drop retiree coverage, said Gene Imhoff, an accounting professor at the University of Michigan.

“Anything that they can use to justify pushing something away from the employees, pushing it back on the employees or the government, they’re going to do it,” Imhoff said. “I’m not sure you can really blame them for trying to do this.”

Caterpillar spokesman Jim Dugan said the company is still studying the health care law and doesn’t yet know what the full impact will be. But he acknowledged that benefit changes are possible.

“Obviously, there’s greater cost pressures on us that could drive changes to plans, but we haven’t made any decisions on that,” Dugan said.

Spokesmen for Deere and Valero said it was to soon to say how the change would affect the benefits they offer retirees.

When Congress approved the Medicare prescription drug program in 2003, it included government incentives for employers to provide drug benefits to retirees so the public system wouldn’t be overwhelmed. Employers that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees can receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs; those subsidies totaled $3.7 billion in 2008.

Under the 2003 law, companies could deduct the entire amount they spent on the drug benefits from their taxable income — including the government subsidy, an average of $665 per retiree.

The health care law signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday prohibits companies from writing off the subsidies starting in 2011, meaning they will no longer be able to deduct them from their taxable income.

For example, if a company spent $100 on benefits, including a $28 government subsidy, it could write off the full $100 on its taxes under the old rules. The new rules would allow the same company to write off only $72.

The follow-up health care bill to reshape parts of the overhaul would delay the changes until 2013.

As many as 1.5 million to 2 million retirees could lose the drug benefits provided by their former employer because of the tax changes, according to a study by the Moran Company, a health care consulting firm.

James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, said between 6 million and 7 million retirees currently get the benefits. But the number of companies offering them has been dwindling for years.

Generally, retirees would prefer to stay with prescription drug coverage provided by their companies as opposed to enrolling in a Medicare Part D plan, said Marilyn Moon, a health care economist with the nonpartisan American Institutes for Research.

She said most of the company-sponsored plans are more generous and almost none have the coverage gap that comes with Part D plans.

“That’s particularly painful and problematic for people who have substantial expenses at any one point in time,” she said.

Industry groups say they lobbied hard against the change in the tax rules before it was added to the health care law over the winter.

“It was in all of our letters and communications that went up to the Hill, and the companies were heavily involved in that,” said Dena Battle, a tax specialist with the National Association of Manufacturers.

Nationwide, companies would take a $14 billion hit on their financial statements if all of the roughly 3,500 companies receiving the subsidies continued to do so, according to a study by Towers Watson, a human resources consulting firm.

That financial hit will be a one-time cost as companies report a new cost estimate for the benefits over the life spans of all retirees.

Deere and Caterpillar were among a group of 10 companies that sent a letter to congressional leaders in December warning of the cost increases. The others were Boeing Co., Con-Way Inc., Exelon Corp., Navistar Inc., Verizon, Xerox Corp., Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. and MetLife Inc.

Most of the other companies that signed the letter said Thursday that it was too soon to estimate their costs. A number of other major U.S. companies also said they did not know how much the tax change would cost them. Some companies might wait until they release their earnings reports next quarter to address the costs so they have time to review the entire law.

The companies that signed the December letter warned that changing the way retiree drug benefits are subsidized would have a broad impact on the economy, and there are already indications that the effects will trickle down to individuals.

Consumers Energy, a Michigan gas and electric company with 2.9 million customers, said it will not take a big first-quarter charge because, like most utility companies, it can try to recover the added costs from its customers through rate hikes.

What is easy isn’t always what is right…

What is easy isn’t always what is right…

Scott McKain, an adviser to many on how to more effectively run a business, just did a great article on how NBC screwed up with this Leno at 10 problem.

What Scott doesn’t point out in his advice is that the change is not always necessary for the good of the company.  In this case, Conan was getting his butt kicked by the more experienced (and more entertaining) Letterman.

Scott’s article is excellent.  Jump over and read it.  Here is some of his advice:

1) Don’t EVER make the assumption that ANY productive employee is ready to be put out to pasture. We work for many reasons, and only ONE of them is money. Zucker’s assumption that Leno was wealthy enough and would want to ride off in the sunset started the disastrous chain of events.

2) Sometimes we have to allow good colleagues to depart. If NBC would have just allowed Conan to move on, instead of trying to sacrifice its business plan to keep him, they would have been in much better shape.

3) We must look to make the decisions that are best for the long-term…what fixes a short-term challenge may create lasting problems. That’s what happened here.

NBC to move Leno?

NBC to move Leno?

I am not a bit surprised that Leno is in trouble at NBC. Moving that format to 10P in the 21st century was foolish. It may have been okay in the 50s or 60s but that show was doomed the day that Jay Leno walked on to the stage.

Of course, it doesn’t help that Conan is a flop in the 11:30 time slot.

The executives that put this together should be fired. It should be the first thing that Comcast does now that they have control of the company from GE. Fire the buffoons that did this. Talk about destroying a valuable commodity! Warren Buffet says that you should only invest in companies that can be profitable even if idiots run them. I don’t know if I agree with that advice but I definitely don’t think you should invest in companies that are run by buffoons!

Why we shouldn’t regulate venture capitalists

Why we shouldn’t regulate venture capitalists

With any downturn in the economy, there are always new rules and regulations that are discussed or passed to prevent the previous calamity from occurring again. The same is true for this latest downturn with a variety of efforts and attention being shown to the banking and mortgage industries.

Now attention is also being shown to the venture capitalists. This is not necessary. Nothing in this current downturn can have VC activity pointed to as the cause. In fact, VCs are fairly well self-regulated by the activity of the stock market and they take a sizeable set-back when the tech bubble bursts (most notably in the early part of this decade).

No VC is too big to fail and no VC has a huge majority of the market. It simply doesn’t make sense to overly regulate this industry when so much of what we enjoy on a regular basis is the result of VC activity (nearly the entire IT industry including the technology that makes this blog possible and your ability to read it).

Here are a few thoughts taken from a column at the Wall Street Journal:

Just when the economy needs risk-taking the most, risk-takers are under the most threat. The Treasury now wants venture-capital firms declared as systemic risks and put under tight restrictions as part of the broader re-regulation of financial firms. Venture capitalists argue that since they don’t use debt and their firms are comparatively small, they shouldn’t come under rules designed for highly leveraged, too-big-to-fail banks.

How this debate turns out matters, because some 20% of U.S. gross national product is created by companies that were formed through venture backing. They include Intel, Apple and Google. How policy makers treat venture capital is a measure of the amount of innovation and enterprise that happens in an economy, with more regulation leading to less innovation.

This is a tough time for venture capital, with investments by firms falling more than 50% in the second quarter. The 700 or so venture-capital firms in the U.S. are mostly small partnerships, with a modest voice in Washington. They say the industry as we know it can’t survive if firms are regulated as investment advisers, which would mean complying with rules for disclosure, compliance, record keeping and privacy designed for huge firms.

Uncertainty about which regulations applied to early-stage investing slowed the growth of venture capital. It wasn’t until deregulation in the late 1970s that the industry took off. The capital gains tax rate was cut to 28% from nearly 50% in 1978, and for the first time pension funds and other fiduciaries could include venture capital as part of an overall portfolio. During this vital period venture firms began to nourish what are today’s high-tech leaders, from information technology and the Internet to genetic research and health care.

The proposal now to tighten how venture firms operate suggests that we are in a stage of the regulatory cycle closer to the New Deal than to the entrepreneurial era that followed. Adding regulatory burdens would do nothing to help the investors in venture funds who are willing to take the big risks, knowing that about half of venture-backed companies fail. It would only increase the costs of doing business and make risk-takers more risk-averse.

No venture capital firm has asked to be bailed out, and none are too big to fail. As hard as it is for regulators to understand, the nature of venture capital is such that it should not even aspire to be a low-risk enterprise.

RANT! No more faith in Microsoft

RANT! No more faith in Microsoft

After being on an iPhone for a year, I don’t think I could ever go back to a Windows Mobile phone.  I used the Windows Mobile platform for probably 11 years (including the original Windows CE non-phone devices) and it always seemed like the NEXT generation would solve all my problems. The next generation never did come and by the time I gave up, I was in the habit of restarting the phone every morning.

I recently tried to install the desktop search tool from Microsoft.  After several tries and lots of reading online, I couldn’t get the add-on installed that would allow this tool to search my Outlook 2003 files (let alone my Thunderbird personal email).  I gave up and installed Google desktop and was completely indexed on everything in one overnight session.

I have no faith in Microsoft anymore.  I have had to go back to Windows on my laptop rather than Ubuntu but that is just because my 2G RAM laptop was struggling with Ubuntu and a virtual machine with Windows so that I could use Outlook and Office.  If I didn’t have to be completely compatible with the rest of my company then I would likely not have a single Microsoft product on my computer or in my life.

I could survive without MS Office.  OpenOffice does everything that I ever need it to do.  I don’t need the extra functionality that overloads the MS Office product line.

The only product that Microsoft makes that I really like is Windows Live Writer (which I use for blog posts).  But when I was on Ubuntu, I found that Scribe on Firefox was perfectly adequate for my needs.

If I could get Evolution to really work well with our company Exchange server, I would be off of Windows.  I always struggle with the Calendar syncing, calendar invites, and the Global Address Book.  If someone could create a smooth interface to Exchange then it would be goodbye to Microsoft for me!

RANT! WHY CAN’T A DEVELOPER MAKE EVOLUTION WORK OFF OF EXCHANGE SO THAT I CAN DROP MICROSOFT!

I am done with this topic for now but I reserve the right to rant more on it someday.

Polaroid – a testimony to bad management

Polaroid – a testimony to bad management

Is there a brand name that is better than Polaroid?

I am sure that there is but not too many.  Coke and Pepsi come to mind.  Mac is probably more popular.  Perhaps Levi’s and Mercedes.  There may be a dozen or two others but to be honest, if someone says Polaroid you instantly know what it is: a camera that takes a picture and spits it out immediately to be enjoyed by you and others.  What a perfect idea for the US where we are known for our lack of patience and need for instant gratification.

Today, multimedia dominates the Internet and the computer industry.  The ability to interact with and use images and movies drives the sale of most computers.  In fact, a recent Apple v. PC discusses the ability of the Mac to manage volumes of digital images.

Mac VS PC Stacks

So how did a company that was synonymous with instant gratification and images fail so miserably?  Below, I have a Wall Street Journal article where the company was just auctioned off for a miserable $53M.  It was only a decade or so ago that this would have been about a week’s worth of sales!

I am sure the business schools of the world have case studies on Polaroid.  At least they should.  It is a testimony to a management that just plain messed up.  I sometimes wonder if some companies actually try to fail since they do it so well and convincingly.  GM would probably fall into this pool of companies!

I feel sorry for everyone that trusted this screwed up management.  I am sure that Mr. Land has been rolling over in his grave so much that his skeleton is likely is ground to dust.  Rest in peace, Mr. Land.  Hopefully the new owners of this icon will do better and preserve your legacy.

Private-equity firm Patriarch Partners LLC bested other bidders in a court auction to buy Polaroid Corp.’s assets out of bankruptcy for $52.7 million in cash and stock.

A Patriarch-controlled holding company will acquire Polaroid’s assets, including the Minnetonka, Minn., company’s intellectual property, name and brand, according to papers filed Thursday with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Minneapolis.

Patriarch offered $44.9 million in cash and a 12% stake in the newly formed company, which will hold Polaroid’s assets. That proposal topped lead bidder Genii Capital S.A., which offered $42 million for the company that invented instant photography.

“We look forward to reconnecting Polaroid with its history of innovation in photography,” Patriarch Chief Executive Lynn Tilton said in a statement. “We intend to continue rebuilding the brand of this great American company on a worldwide scale.”

Patriarch intends to position Polaroid as the “leading brand in digital instant photography,” and will continue to sell other consumer electronics under the brand name.

A hearing to approve the sale is scheduled for Monday.

, , , ,