• 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

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 isnt in full force

the employer mandate is still up in the air

and some are trying to hold it back yet again
 
the ACA isnt in full force

the employer mandate is still up in the air

and some are trying to hold it back yet again

The OP was about corporations that are part of the S&P 500. All of them already provide ACA-copliant insurance to their employees. In fact, mre than 2/3 of them provide such insurance to same-sex partners and partners in civil unions.

IOW, the employer mandate being delayed has no effect on the corps referred to in the OP.
 
Not even close. A lot of the costs that will be applied are still on the horizon.

Another prediction from the crowd that predicted "death spirals", "no one will sign up", "young people won't sign up", "the website will never be fixed", "it will be found unconstitutional", etc. :lamo
 
The OP was about corporations that are part of the S&P 500. All of them already provide ACA-copliant insurance to their employees. In fact, mre than 2/3 of them provide such insurance to same-sex partners and partners in civil unions.

IOW, the employer mandate being delayed has no effect on the corps referred to in the OP.


image made a statement

it was incorrect

i corrected it.....period
 
the ACA isnt in full force

the employer mandate is still up in the air

and some are trying to hold it back yet again

The employer mandate went into effect Jan 1st 2015 for all employers with more than 100 employees. That happens to be the exact same type of company that the OP is discussing.

Look it up.
 
Another prediction from the crowd that predicted "death spirals", "no one will sign up", "young people won't sign up", "the website will never be fixed", "it will be found unconstitutional", etc. :lamo

Who could have predicted how bad ObamaCare was going to be for Democrats in 2010 and 204 ?

Its made healthcare so " affordable " that the GOP wiped the floor with the Democrats in the Midterms....Lol

Its a albatross with Obama's name all over it
 
Who could have predicted how bad ObamaCare was going to be for Democrats in 2010 and 204 ?

Its made healthcare so " affordable " that the GOP wiped the floor with the Democrats in the Midterms....Lol

Its a albatross with Obama's name all over it

Guess its skipped 2012, huh?
 
Guess its skipped 2012, huh?

It just seems like if it was a good as you people say, Democrats like Mary Landrieu would still have a job.

But that wasn't the case.

And as for 2012, idiots who are drawn in by talking points and who equate Presidential qualifications to empty platitudes and bumper sticker slogans dont. really possess the ability to be objective and vote based on the issue's.

Apparently those people vote in Presidential elections and stay home for the Midterms

Its why Obama floated the mandatory voting ballon.
 
The OP was about corporations that are part of the S&P 500. All of them already provide ACA-copliant insurance to their employees. In fact, mre than 2/3 of them provide such insurance to same-sex partners and partners in civil unions.

IOW, the employer mandate being delayed has no effect on the corps referred to in the OP.


well....the OP was about the hoards of cash companies are sitting on

that money belongs to the companies....no one else

wish in one hand, **** in the other and see which one fills up faster

companies hoard funds for lots of reasons.....

today big deal of Heinz and Kraft is one such reason

you progressives/liberals can stop licking your chops.....the cash isnt yours.....and it wont be yours
 
image made a statement

it was incorrect

i corrected it.....period

image made that statement in response to an incorrect statement by CJ (and I noticed that your zeal to correct incorrect statements didn't extend to CJ's mistake)

And image wasn't wrong. The employer mandate is now in force.
 
well....the OP was about the hoards of cash companies are sitting on

that money belongs to the companies....no one else

wish in one hand, **** in the other and see which one fills up faster

companies hoard funds for lots of reasons.....

today big deal of Heinz and Kraft is one such reason

you progressives/liberals can stop licking your chops.....the cash isnt yours.....and it wont be yours

I was respondng to the incorrect statement that these corps were hoarding cash because of ACA. Surprisingly, your zeal to correct mistakes does not extend to that claim, and this post of yours says nothing that responds to any point that I have made.
 
I was respondng to the incorrect statement that these corps were hoarding cash because of ACA. Surprisingly, your zeal to correct mistakes does not extend to that claim, and this post of yours says nothing that responds to any point that I have made.

Who says ? Proponents of the Presidents Health Care law ?

Companies would rather put that stagnant capital to use rather than it sitting around earning nothing.

So something is up.

Also prior to 2008 Banks never let stagnant liquidity sit around earning nothing . But they are now

A record amount is sitting idle on the books of the FED earning nothing.
 
...

Companies would rather put that stagnant capital to use rather than it sitting around earning nothing.

So something is up. ...

Yup. They are already satisfying demand. No point in expanding when demand is already being satisfied. That would just be wasting money.

And with productivity (units of production per man hour) increasing, I wouldn't expect demand to exceed production any time soon, maybe never again. We are entering the age where scarcity isn't the issue, the issue is having an economic system that allows everyone to purchase good and services in an ample quantity for businesses to be able to expand. It's a paradigm shift in our economy.
 
Another prediction from the crowd that predicted "death spirals", "no one will sign up", "young people won't sign up", "the website will never be fixed", "it will be found unconstitutional", etc. :lamo

Sign ups are well under predictions. Oregon's website was a complete failure. Parts of it have been overturned in the courts with more decisions to come. Yeah, I know that giving you truth and facts will confuse you, but that's OK.
 
Sign ups are well under predictions. Oregon's website was a complete failure. Parts of it have been overturned in the courts with more decisions to come. Yeah, I know that giving you truth and facts will confuse you, but that's OK.

I know. I know

Next year will be a disaster
 
I know. I know

Next year will be a disaster

There is a bar at Myrtle Beach that has a sign that says "Free Beer Tomorrow".

Next year is a lot like tomorrow - it never gets here.
 
Guess its skipped 2012, huh?
Yes, it did, since the pubs ran someone who supported a similar program in MA. To paraphrase Truman, when voters are given a choice between a democrat and a republican acting like a democrat, they'll choose the real democrat. And despite his general unlikability, inability to win his home state and democratic tendencies, he still garnered just shy of 60 million votes in an election that saw a huge drop in participation compared to the previous. It also gave BO the distinction of being the first sitting president to win re-election with fewer votes than garnered in the initial election in over 70 years.
 
Yes, it did, since the pubs ran someone who supported a similar program in MA. To paraphrase Truman, when voters are given a choice between a democrat and a republican acting like a democrat, they'll choose the real democrat. And despite his general unlikability, inability to win his home state and democratic tendencies, he still garnered just shy of 60 million votes in an election that saw a huge drop in participation compared to the previous. It also gave BO the distinction of being the first sitting president to win re-election with fewer votes than garnered in the initial election in over 70 years.

I seem to remember the Senate election going extremely well for the Democrats, too, despite many of their seats being up.

But that's just reality.

Please, tell us more how a real Conservative would have a much better chance at reelection. It's such a well known fairy tale.
 
I know. I know

Next year will be a disaster

I never said that, I said that companies have to be ready for upcoming expenditures and this is part of the reason they are holding on to cash right now and the ACA is one of the biggest ones they are preparing for. No disasters on the horizon, just sound business practice.
 
i await the decision on this:


WASHINGTON -- Experts have a pretty good sense of what will happen if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell, cutting off Obamacare’s tax credits in roughly two-thirds of the states. Without that financial assistance, most of the people now buying insurance through healthcare.gov, the online marketplace run by the federal government, wouldn’t be able to pay for their coverage anymore.

A ruling wouldn’t affect people living in states like California and Kentucky, which operate their own insurance marketplaces. But the results in the rest of the country would be dramatic and visible. More than 8 million people would end up uninsured, according to estimates by the non-partisan Urban Institute. Economic disarray would follow, as panicked insurance companies hiked premiums and pulled out of markets suddenly bereft of customers.

What the experts can’t say is how people would feel about such a shock, because it’s hard to think of a time when government took away benefits from so many people, across such a large swath of the country, within such a short time. There just isn’t a great historical analogue for predicting how people would react -- or, for that matter, how that reaction would affect politics. Even veteran strategists seem stumped.

But one recent episode may offer some clues. It comes, ironically enough, from Obamacare’s own history.

In the fall of 2013, insurance companies canceled coverage for millions of Americans, either because the old policies weren’t up to Obamacare’s standards or because the insurers decided the old policies were no longer profitable to sell. The cancellations surprised most Americans, not least because President Barack Obama had famously promised that people who liked their old insurance plans could keep them. You couldn’t turn on the television without hearing from somebody dismayed, angry, or scared about what was happening. Looking back at 2013, it’s hard to remember a time when, for better or worse, a change in domestic policy created so much turmoil.

The Freakout From An Obamacare Ruling Could Be Unlike Anything We've Seen


this will kill the ACA completely if it goes against the administration

without the credits, people wouldnt be able to afford the plans
 
I never said that, I said that companies have to be ready for upcoming expenditures and this is part of the reason they are holding on to cash right now and the ACA is one of the biggest ones they are preparing for. No disasters on the horizon, just sound business practice.

Preparing for....what exactly?

The only piece that is not in place is an employer mandate that will only affect businesses under 100 and over 50 employees, and 95% of those already offer health care.
 
I never said that, I said that companies have to be ready for upcoming expenditures and this is part of the reason they are holding on to cash right now and the ACA is one of the biggest ones they are preparing for. No disasters on the horizon, just sound business practice.

Yeah, I know

Next year there will massive expense. So big that the 500 companies talked about in the OP will have to spend an average of $2.8 billion each ($1.4T divided by 500) to cover :roll:
 
Yeah, I know

Next year there will massive expense. So big that the 500 companies talked about in the OP will have to spend an average of $2.8 billion each ($1.4T divided by 500) to cover :roll:

Once again you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that it was the only cost, just that it was one of the biggest ones.
Integrity shouldn't just be the word of the day for November 17, 2012, it should be part of how you deal with other people..
 
Back
Top Bottom