• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. companies hoard record amount of cash

yeah, i'm already aware that you think that the ACA is the worst. i don't like it either. i like single payer instead; you don't. perhaps we can skip three pages of sniping about it.

:mrgreen: My sniping overall will continue until Obamacare is repealed.
However single payer would be going from very very bad to much much worse. More government control of healthcare is not the solution. Healthcare in the private market was affordable once upon a time. In my 20s and early 30s, I barely noticed my payroll deduction for healthcare. There are market based solutions that can make it affordable again.
 
:mrgreen: My sniping overall will continue until Obamacare is repealed.
However single payer would be going from very very bad to much much worse. More government control of healthcare is not the solution. Healthcare in the private market was affordable once upon a time. In my 20s and early 30s, I barely noticed my payroll deduction for healthcare. There are market based solutions that can make it affordable again.

to provide an essential service with inelastic demand in which geographical immediacy is a crucial part of the formula? i'm skeptical about that. i also don't notice too many posters from single payer countries clamoring to trade health care systems with us. perhaps they don't like the prospect of going broke when their kid falls out of a tree.
 
Thank you for helping make my general point--demonstrating one's sense of conscience simply is not required in modern American life, no. We today do not need any sense of moral guidance. The bottom line is the only thing in life that is important.
Demonstrating is not the same as having. As long as both parties honor their agreements, everything is good. If one side wants more just cuz without offering anything in return, well, there are various unflattering terms for them.
 
Demonstrating is not the same as having. As long as both parties honor their agreements, everything is good. If one side wants more just cuz without offering anything in return, well, there are various unflattering terms for them.

OK, I get it. One can be a "good guy", but can keep that fact well-hidden by acting like a cruel tyrant in his business dealings. But certainly his wife will testify that he is a "good guy". Yeppir, that make a lot of sense in this day and age. Actions don't really speak louder than words these days. For the gullible, words alone are all that is necessary.
 
to provide an essential service with inelastic demand in which geographical immediacy is a crucial part of the formula? i'm skeptical about that. i also don't notice too many posters from single payer countries clamoring to trade health care systems with us. perhaps they don't like the prospect of going broke when their kid falls out of a tree.

But then people from most nations that have single payer do not know any better. They were born and raised on a nanny state healthcare system. And again, I not disagreeing that healthcare is prohibitively expensive. That is the point. If we go to a single payer system, healthcare will still be prohibitively expensive. The only difference is that the government will attempt to control the costs by rationing healthcare as well as how much they re-imburse doctors and hospitals. The result will be a much less profitable healthcare industry. That will in the long run result in less people getting into the medical system and less hospitals. Obamacare is already devastating small rural hospitals and clinics.
 
I think in this case it would be "thanks Congress". But presumably, from your chuckle, you believe there's no issue related to the ACA and businesses expanding and hiring during the uncertainty, nor any other chill related to the EPA, labour, and other issues directly affecting businesses. We'll see.

The ACA is already in full force, and our economy didn't collapse, if anything it seemed to have picked up a little steam as we approached full implimentation.

My best guess is that companies are hanging on to this money because they don't have anything better to do with it, they are already meeting demand, investors aren't clamoring for higher dividends, etc.
 
The ACA is already in full force, and our economy didn't collapse, if anything it seemed to have picked up a little steam as we approached full implimentation.

My best guess is that companies are hanging on to this money because they don't have anything better to do with it, they are already meeting demand, investors aren't clamoring for higher dividends, etc.

The employer mandate is fully enforced at this moment? I know it was delayed until after the 2014 election, but did it actually kick in?
 
Because that's a short term action that provides minimal benefit to the companies. Holding onto the money so that if the ACA rains on their parade they can cover the cost, can mean the difference between staying in business and closing the doors. I guess that you'd rather their employees have a small raise today and risk having no job next year....


I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that most of the companies that are holding tons of money already offered insurance before the ACA, so they don't really have a need to hold money due to concerns about the ACA.
 
The employer mandate is fully enforced at this moment? I know it was delayed until after the 2014 election, but did it actually kick in?

I am under the impression that it started Jan 1st of this year, but I may be wrong.

Why, were you expecting the economy to crash?
 
But then people from most nations that have single payer do not know any better. They were born and raised on a nanny state healthcare system. And again, I not disagreeing that healthcare is prohibitively expensive. That is the point. If we go to a single payer system, healthcare will still be prohibitively expensive. The only difference is that the government will attempt to control the costs by rationing healthcare as well as how much they re-imburse doctors and hospitals. The result will be a much less profitable healthcare industry. That will in the long run result in less people getting into the medical system and less hospitals. Obamacare is already devastating small rural hospitals and clinics.

Here in Ontario, Canada, almost 50% of every government revenue dollar is spent on healthcare services of some kind. However, even with that large outlay, the single payer system funds only about 40% of all pharmaceuticals, primarily for the very poor and through hospital care - the other 60% is paid for by the patient. As well, each year, more and more services are delisted from the program and become patient paid. Our single payer system doesn't cover dentistry, optometry, chiropractic, orthopedics, etc. This is why most working people have supplementary health insurance plans with their employer and many self employed and retired people purchase additional coverage themselves at significant individual cost.

But as you say, we here in Canada have known nothing else - the system has been in place for over half a century and very few Canadians would ever agree to give it up. But we are moving more and more towards a private supply system because the public system can't keep up with demand and cost pressures.
 
I am under the impression that it started Jan 1st of this year, but I may be wrong.

Why, were you expecting the economy to crash?

No, not at all - it's just that many companies may be holding off on investments in equipment and employment not knowing what the actual costs associated with such expansion may be. In addition, some smaller companies would hold off hiring and expanding if it would push them above the 50 full time level that triggers the mandate.

But let's not kid ourselves - the economy both in the US and worldwide is pretty fragile right now, growth is relative anemic, reflected in the deflated price of oil. No one should feel too confident right now, and that leads to caution.
 
All about that trickle down economics, am I right?
 
No, not at all - it's just that many companies may be holding off on investments in equipment and employment not knowing what the actual costs associated with such expansion may be. In addition, some smaller companies would hold off hiring and expanding if it would push them above the 50 full time level that triggers the mandate.

But let's not kid ourselves - the economy both in the US and worldwide is pretty fragile right now, growth is relative anemic, reflected in the deflated price of oil. No one should feel too confident right now, and that leads to caution.

I can't imagine why a huge company couldn't estimate the cost of expansion. It's not like they don't already know how much labor is going to cost them or how much insurance cost.

My best guess is that companies are already satisfying demand, they they don't have a need to expand. Last time I checked, Walmart didn't have bare shelves, neither do our local car dealers or anyone else. I suspect we are going to be stuck were we are economically for a long long time because I'm not hearing anyone suggesting doing anything at all to increase demand. Maybe after we change presidents.
 
1) one time bonuses for employees
2) cut prices and see if sales increase and even more profits are made
3) give out raises
4) provide more benefits to employees
5) provide an actual and HONEST cost of living increase to employees

Considering that you added costs a few times here I'm curious if you calculated everything out or if you're just making a wish list.
 
The employer mandate went into effect for all companies with 100 or more employees, companies with 50-100 employees will be effected next year.

According to sources on Fox News, 98% of employers with 50 employees or more already provide insurance, so even though I'm not an Obamacare supporter, I don't think it's gonna make any measurable difference in our economy - not even next year.
 
The ACA is already in full force, and our economy didn't collapse, if anything it seemed to have picked up a little steam as we approached full implimentation.

My best guess is that companies are hanging on to this money because they don't have anything better to do with it, they are already meeting demand, investors aren't clamoring for higher dividends, etc.

I wonder how many people enjoyed being forced into commerce. There is a real thanks Obama moment.
 
No, not at all - it's just that many companies may be holding off on investments in equipment and employment not knowing what the actual costs associated with such expansion may be.

There is no expansion. 100% of the corps referred to in the OP already offer insurance to their employees.

The mountain of cash in corporate vaults climbed to a record-high of $1.4 trillion during the fourth quarter, according to a FactSet analysis of S&P 500 companies.
 
But then people from most nations that have single payer do not know any better. They were born and raised on a nanny state healthcare system. And again, I not disagreeing that healthcare is prohibitively expensive. That is the point. If we go to a single payer system, healthcare will still be prohibitively expensive. The only difference is that the government will attempt to control the costs by rationing healthcare as well as how much they re-imburse doctors and hospitals. The result will be a much less profitable healthcare industry. That will in the long run result in less people getting into the medical system and less hospitals. Obamacare is already devastating small rural hospitals and clinics.

and as i said, the ACA is not the solution i support. however, i still have yet to see a poster in a single payer country who would trade systems with us. and if there is one, let the stories begin, because i bet you that i can talk him or her out of it pretty quickly. episode one will be the case of the two thousand dollar cut thumb. episode two will be the COBRA mistake colonoscopy saga. that one had a happier ending, and only cost me eight hundred bucks.
 
The employer mandate is fully enforced at this moment? I know it was delayed until after the 2014 election, but did it actually kick in?

The Mandate will only affect about 2% of businesses over 50 employees and virtually all of those are under 100 employees.

And that's not why companies are hoarding cash.
 
I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that most of the companies that are holding tons of money already offered insurance before the ACA, so they don't really have a need to hold money due to concerns about the ACA.

Not every company offered health insurance and those that did are seeing the threat of rising costs looming on the horizon. My employer switched healthcare providers this year to protect themselves and the coverage is substantially reduced. For example, I just got a bill in the mail for my annual checkup that used to be paid for 100%, now it's paid at 75%. So my employer had to make a decision that many are making of either setting aside the funds to maintain the same coverage at increased costs or leave the costs the same, but offer less coverage. For those that chose (or were forced to choose by the requirements of the ACA) the option of maintaining coverage, they need to set aside the funds to cover those expenditures. For businesses that didn't offer health ins., they are now facing a substantial expenditure coming at them and need to protect themselves against it.
 
The Mandate will only affect about 2% of businesses over 50 employees and virtually all of those are under 100 employees.

And that's not why companies are hoarding cash.

They're hoarding cash because its too much of a risk to invest it in a Obama economy thats 6 years old.
 
Back
Top Bottom