AT&T Will Take $1B Non-Cash Charge for Health Care

[willis03]

Glad i work for T-mobile

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Essential1

Wellllllllllllllll let's continue to trust Corporations because capitalism is the American way...

I know.  What alot of these free market Repubs don't realize is that if many of  these corporations weren't so greedy, this "expansion" of government wouldn't fly.  The greedier these corporations get, the more people are going to look for the government to pick up the slack.  (in healthcare, unemployment, social security, medicare, welfare, etc)

Capitalism + 0 Socialism = Totalitarian Government controlled by corporate bottom line watchers

Capitalism + Socialism =  A manageable and highly successful system

Once again you speak while having absolutely no knowledge of the subject that you speak of. You must love making yourself look like an idiot.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Essential1

Wellllllllllllllll let's continue to trust Corporations because capitalism is the American way...

I know.  What alot of these free market Repubs don't realize is that if many of  these corporations weren't so greedy, this "expansion" of government wouldn't fly.  The greedier these corporations get, the more people are going to look for the government to pick up the slack.  (in healthcare, unemployment, social security, medicare, welfare, etc)

Capitalism + 0 Socialism = Totalitarian Government controlled by corporate bottom line watchers

Capitalism + Socialism =  A manageable and highly successful system

Once again you speak while having absolutely no knowledge of the subject that you speak of. You must love making yourself look like an idiot.

Mhmm because everytime Government takes its hands off the economy and corporations with deregulation or lack there of in the first place we don't see a widespread economic downfall everytime.. Maybe not for the richest 20% but for the 80% that isn't making a sufficient amount they suffer. the Early 1900's  1920's 1980's, Late 1990's 2000's. Deregulation is the precursor for economic decline. Without Socialism or Government Intervention Capitalism fails.. And without a sense of Capitalism, Communism fails... Socialism your "danger word" is the thing that makes Capitalism from falling the way of communism on the other end of the spectrum.

Let me guess black people getting loans is the reason the economy collapsed...

 Not shady CDS, Naked CDS, Derivatives, Leverage going from 12 to 1   and then becoming 30 to 1... Repeal of Glass-Stegall (which allowed the creation of "Too Big To Fail".. Allowing of loan rating agencies to be paid off by the companies and loans they rate. Allowing Pensions and 401K's into the CDS.. Thank God we didn't allow Social Security become privatized...Would have went the way of many people's pensions... How about paying 100% of the dollar to money owed to other banks on faulty loans.. Billions going to people who crashed these banks... The systematic takeover of these Banks by the CEO's and bypassing of the primary shareholders.. All these things were created by DEREGULATION...

Regulations are the life line of Capitalism.. Regulations come from the government... These regulations serve as the referee for the game.. Without a referee there are no rules. Without rules the richest become more powerful..

 Hence have you noticed that since old ##%!-up Reagan came into office until 2009, Regulations have decreased and the disparity of income between middle and upper class has increased.. And in those 30 (minus 6 good years from Clinton where he increased regulation) the middle class has shrunk because people on a scale are becoming poorer... And as the middle class became poorer, the economy collapsed, and we are no longer the "best" economy...When the rich prosper, no one else does... Check the 1940's-1970's our best years, regulations increased, tax bracket for 250k+ was sky high. The middle class prospered, and the country prospered...

 

[thunderchunk69]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

You guys are hilarious.

you gottem good!

 

[chozin87]

Corporations don't force you to work for them. Most of you are hoping a corporation hires you and hating them at the same time.

You can actually start your own corporation if you want to receive the benefits of owning a corporation. Maybe you'll realize the purpose of a corporation is to drive profits.

If you're looking for corruption, the government is MORE to blame than corporations. The government is SUPPOSED to be there to help the people. The government shouldn't have a price for policy change.

The corporations are required to use the laws to their benefit to drive profits. This bill is going to leave more people without health care IMO.

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Essential1

Wellllllllllllllll let's continue to trust Corporations because capitalism is the American way...

I know.  What alot of these free market Repubs don't realize is that if many of  these corporations weren't so greedy, this "expansion" of government wouldn't fly.  The greedier these corporations get, the more people are going to look for the government to pick up the slack.  (in healthcare, unemployment, social security, medicare, welfare, etc)

Capitalism + 0 Socialism = Totalitarian Government controlled by corporate bottom line watchers

Capitalism + Socialism =  A manageable and highly successful system

Once again you speak while having absolutely no knowledge of the subject that you speak of. You must love making yourself look like an idiot.

Mhmm because everytime Government takes its hands off the economy and corporations with deregulation or lack there of in the first place we don't see a widespread economic downfall everytime.. Maybe not for the richest 20% but for the 80% that isn't making a sufficient amount they suffer. the Early 1900's  1920's 1980's, Late 1990's 2000's. Deregulation is the precursor for economic decline. Without Socialism or Government Intervention Capitalism fails.. And without a sense of Capitalism, Communism fails... Socialism your "danger word" is the thing that makes Capitalism from falling the way of communism on the other end of the spectrum.

Let me guess black people getting loans is the reason the economy collapsed...

 Not shady CDS, Naked CDS, Derivatives, Leverage going from 12 to 1   and then becoming 30 to 1... Repeal of Glass-Stegall (which allowed the creation of "Too Big To Fail".. Allowing of loan rating agencies to be paid off by the companies and loans they rate. Allowing Pensions and 401K's into the CDS.. Thank God we didn't allow Social Security become privatized...Would have went the way of many people's pensions... How about paying 100% of the dollar to money owed to other banks on faulty loans.. Billions going to people who crashed these banks... The systematic takeover of these Banks by the CEO's and bypassing of the primary shareholders.. All these things were created by DEREGULATION...

Regulations are the life line of Capitalism.. Regulations come from the government... These regulations serve as the referee for the game.. Without a referee there are no rules. Without rules the richest become more powerful..

 Hence have you noticed that since old ##%!-up Reagan came into office until 2009, Regulations have decreased and the disparity of income between middle and upper class has increased.. And in those 30 (minus 6 good years from Clinton where he increased regulation) the middle class has shrunk because people on a scale are becoming poorer... And as the middle class became poorer, the economy collapsed, and we are no longer the "best" economy...When the rich prosper, no one else does... Check the 1940's-1970's our best years, regulations increased, tax bracket for 250k+ was sky high. The middle class prospered, and the country prospered...

You're blabbering. Just because you make a long argument doesn't make what you said correct.Your statement about Capitalism + no Socialism = totalitarianism shows how little you know about this subject. I doubt you even know what actual totalitarianism even is.

If anything the only problem with American capitalism is that there is no distinction between corporations and individuals. Campaign donations alone have enabled our countries politicians to be bought and sold by the corporations they are supposed to be watching. Instead of regulations that enforce competitive business practices and punish unlawful business activities, our government has instead (under the direction of these same corporate entities) been in the business of picking winners and losers.

The regulation that you speak does little to benefit the people who actually are effected by it. The only way something gets regulated now a days is if an industry is behind it and has a tremendous amount of money to gain (i.e health care).

If you actually look back at the causes of the most recent recession you would see that the actions of our government facilitated the economic downturn. Not only did they turn their backs on blatantly fraudulent activities, they actually encouraged and legislated it. And these are the same people you wish to give more authority and power over your everyday life?

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Essential1

Wellllllllllllllll let's continue to trust Corporations because capitalism is the American way...

I know.  What alot of these free market Repubs don't realize is that if many of  these corporations weren't so greedy, this "expansion" of government wouldn't fly.  The greedier these corporations get, the more people are going to look for the government to pick up the slack.  (in healthcare, unemployment, social security, medicare, welfare, etc)

Capitalism + 0 Socialism = Totalitarian Government controlled by corporate bottom line watchers

Capitalism + Socialism =  A manageable and highly successful system

Once again you speak while having absolutely no knowledge of the subject that you speak of. You must love making yourself look like an idiot.

Mhmm because everytime Government takes its hands off the economy and corporations with deregulation or lack there of in the first place we don't see a widespread economic downfall everytime.. Maybe not for the richest 20% but for the 80% that isn't making a sufficient amount they suffer. the Early 1900's  1920's 1980's, Late 1990's 2000's. Deregulation is the precursor for economic decline. Without Socialism or Government Intervention Capitalism fails.. And without a sense of Capitalism, Communism fails... Socialism your "danger word" is the thing that makes Capitalism from falling the way of communism on the other end of the spectrum.

Let me guess black people getting loans is the reason the economy collapsed...

 Not shady CDS, Naked CDS, Derivatives, Leverage going from 12 to 1   and then becoming 30 to 1... Repeal of Glass-Stegall (which allowed the creation of "Too Big To Fail".. Allowing of loan rating agencies to be paid off by the companies and loans they rate. Allowing Pensions and 401K's into the CDS.. Thank God we didn't allow Social Security become privatized...Would have went the way of many people's pensions... How about paying 100% of the dollar to money owed to other banks on faulty loans.. Billions going to people who crashed these banks... The systematic takeover of these Banks by the CEO's and bypassing of the primary shareholders.. All these things were created by DEREGULATION...

Regulations are the life line of Capitalism.. Regulations come from the government... These regulations serve as the referee for the game.. Without a referee there are no rules. Without rules the richest become more powerful..

 Hence have you noticed that since old ##%!-up Reagan came into office until 2009, Regulations have decreased and the disparity of income between middle and upper class has increased.. And in those 30 (minus 6 good years from Clinton where he increased regulation) the middle class has shrunk because people on a scale are becoming poorer... And as the middle class became poorer, the economy collapsed, and we are no longer the "best" economy...When the rich prosper, no one else does... Check the 1940's-1970's our best years, regulations increased, tax bracket for 250k+ was sky high. The middle class prospered, and the country prospered...

You're blabbering. Just because you make a long argument doesn't make what you said correct.Your statement about Capitalism + no Socialism = totalitarianism shows how little you know about this subject. I doubt you even know what actual totalitarianism even is.

If anything the only problem with American capitalism is that there is no distinction between corporations and individuals. Campaign donations alone have enabled our countries politicians to be bought and sold by the corporations they are supposed to be watching. Instead of regulations that enforce competitive business practices and punish unlawful business activities, our government has instead (under the direction of these same corporate entities) been in the business of picking winners and losers.

The regulation that you speak does little to benefit the people who actually are effected by it. The only way something gets regulated now a days is if an industry is behind it and has a tremendous amount of money to gain (i.e health care).

If you actually look back at the causes of the most recent recession you would see that the actions of our government facilitated the economic downturn. Not only did they turn their backs on blatantly fraudulent activities, they actually encouraged and legislated it. And these are the same people you wish to give more authority and power over your everyday life?

Totalitarianism with corporations in control of our lives is what I was getting at with the equation.... It isn't as simple as the equation specifies butttttttttttttttttttttttt I assume you would take it at face value.

100% agree with the campaign donations..  But where we would disagree is what would happen if those donations were to go away. When they do regulations it is not picking winner and losers it is to keep from the unlawful actions of which you speak.. But without that regulation you think the corporations will just do it themselves? That is dangerous territory.. You can go back to the late 1800's early 1900's to see how it works when there are few to no regulations.. There is no competition (the basis of Capitalism) and regulation that is supposed to be enforced is ignored...No regulation = No capitalism... Capitalism needs Socialism to keep from becoming where corporations control individuals with individuals have little to no say..Not capitalism because again Consumer choice is a big part of capitalism..

Somewhat agree with the industry being behind something.. But that is because of deregulation of corporations and campaign finance....

And the financial crisis was cause by the government either looking the other way OR deregulating the hell out of the financial sector. Pushed by CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY (yes Clinton did deregulation also but look who were the ones pushing him to it) AND YES I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE THE GOVERNMENT DO THEIR JOB THAN TRUST THE CORPORATION TO DO IT. Because I know where trusting the corporations leads to, and I know where trusting the government when they are adequately doing their jobs leads me... And my life is much better under the government... And the government has controlled our everyday lives to some capacity for decades, and you should be happy they do because you wouldn't make it out the front door if they didn't... Do we have to go back to the guy and the story of his day and all the government programs that help his everyday life?

 

[rexanglorum]

You guys do not even know what capitalism is, yet you speak with so much authority about it.

Capitalism is a system of private property, profit/loss (that means no subsidies for failing firms, special taxes for successful firms or barriers to entry/competition) and floating prices. 

Just because something involves big business does not mean that capitalism is at work, in fact big financial firms, auto makers and public utilities have been subject to large doses of government help and harm.

If big business has actual power over you it is because it has colluded with government and when it does that it has long since ceased to be an example of capitalism in action.

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Essential1

Wellllllllllllllll let's continue to trust Corporations because capitalism is the American way...

I know.  What alot of these free market Repubs don't realize is that if many of  these corporations weren't so greedy, this "expansion" of government wouldn't fly.  The greedier these corporations get, the more people are going to look for the government to pick up the slack.  (in healthcare, unemployment, social security, medicare, welfare, etc)

Capitalism + 0 Socialism = Totalitarian Government controlled by corporate bottom line watchers

Capitalism + Socialism =  A manageable and highly successful system

Once again you speak while having absolutely no knowledge of the subject that you speak of. You must love making yourself look like an idiot.

Mhmm because everytime Government takes its hands off the economy and corporations with deregulation or lack there of in the first place we don't see a widespread economic downfall everytime.. Maybe not for the richest 20% but for the 80% that isn't making a sufficient amount they suffer. the Early 1900's  1920's 1980's, Late 1990's 2000's. Deregulation is the precursor for economic decline. Without Socialism or Government Intervention Capitalism fails.. And without a sense of Capitalism, Communism fails... Socialism your "danger word" is the thing that makes Capitalism from falling the way of communism on the other end of the spectrum.

Let me guess black people getting loans is the reason the economy collapsed...

 Not shady CDS, Naked CDS, Derivatives, Leverage going from 12 to 1   and then becoming 30 to 1... Repeal of Glass-Stegall (which allowed the creation of "Too Big To Fail".. Allowing of loan rating agencies to be paid off by the companies and loans they rate. Allowing Pensions and 401K's into the CDS.. Thank God we didn't allow Social Security become privatized...Would have went the way of many people's pensions... How about paying 100% of the dollar to money owed to other banks on faulty loans.. Billions going to people who crashed these banks... The systematic takeover of these Banks by the CEO's and bypassing of the primary shareholders.. All these things were created by DEREGULATION...

Regulations are the life line of Capitalism.. Regulations come from the government... These regulations serve as the referee for the game.. Without a referee there are no rules. Without rules the richest become more powerful..

 Hence have you noticed that since old ##%!-up Reagan came into office until 2009, Regulations have decreased and the disparity of income between middle and upper class has increased.. And in those 30 (minus 6 good years from Clinton where he increased regulation) the middle class has shrunk because people on a scale are becoming poorer... And as the middle class became poorer, the economy collapsed, and we are no longer the "best" economy...When the rich prosper, no one else does... Check the 1940's-1970's our best years, regulations increased, tax bracket for 250k+ was sky high. The middle class prospered, and the country prospered...

You're blabbering. Just because you make a long argument doesn't make what you said correct.Your statement about Capitalism + no Socialism = totalitarianism shows how little you know about this subject. I doubt you even know what actual totalitarianism even is.

If anything the only problem with American capitalism is that there is no distinction between corporations and individuals. Campaign donations alone have enabled our countries politicians to be bought and sold by the corporations they are supposed to be watching. Instead of regulations that enforce competitive business practices and punish unlawful business activities, our government has instead (under the direction of these same corporate entities) been in the business of picking winners and losers.

The regulation that you speak does little to benefit the people who actually are effected by it. The only way something gets regulated now a days is if an industry is behind it and has a tremendous amount of money to gain (i.e health care).

If you actually look back at the causes of the most recent recession you would see that the actions of our government facilitated the economic downturn. Not only did they turn their backs on blatantly fraudulent activities, they actually encouraged and legislated it. And these are the same people you wish to give more authority and power over your everyday life?

Totalitarianism with corporations in control of our lives is what I was getting at with the equation.... It isn't as simple as the equation specifies butttttttttttttttttttttttt I assume you would take it at face value.

100% agree with the campaign donations..  But where we would disagree is what would happen if those donations were to go away. When they do regulations it is not picking winner and losers it is to keep from the unlawful actions of which you speak.. But without that regulation you think the corporations will just do it themselves? That is dangerous territory.. You can go back to the late 1800's early 1900's to see how it works when there are few to no regulations.. There is no competition and regulation that is supposed to be enforced is ignored...

Somewhat agree with the industry being behind something

And the financial crisis was cause by the government either looking the other way OR deregulating the hell out of the financial sector. Pushed by CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY (yes Clinton did deregulation also but look who were the ones pushing him to it) AND YES I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE THE GOVERNMENT DO THEIR JOB THAN TRUST THE CORPORATION TO DO IT. Because I know where trusting the corporations leads to, and I know where trusting the government when they are adequately doing their jobs leads me... And my life is much better under the government... And the government has controlled our everyday lives to some capacity for decades, and you should be happy they do because you wouldn't make it out the front door if they didn't... Do we have to go back to the guy and the story of his day and all the government programs that help his everyday life?

The term you were looking for is corporatocracy. America hasn't been run as a capitalistic society in almost a century. America today resembles a corporatocracy more then it resembles capitalism.

And once again, regulations are necessary but not at the levels in which you suggest. Regulation actually hinders the level of competition within an industry because of the cost associated with complying with those regulations. Regulations are a tool used by corporations to make it harder to enter into certain industries. Take California for example. It is a prime example of a state that over regulates just for the sake of regulation. Look at where it's at right now.

I'm not saying all regulations are bad. I'm saying that regulating at the level where you start to exhibit socialist characteristics is bad. You would much rather trust the government over corporations to police itself and yet you admit that our government is basically owned by corporations.... That makes no sense. And lets not harp on Democrats and Republicans. Both of them are on the same team working towards the same goal. Politics now a days is strictly drama.

Instead of trusting the government or corporations to look out for you, why not trust yourself? your family? or trust your community? If you trust any thing besides yourself your asking to get exploited.

No one is asking for anarchy. It is obvious that the government is needed to provide basic essential services. However, sacrificing your basic human rights just so that the government can make your life easy is not a life I would like to live.

You have so much blind faith in the government. Can you name at least one socialist government that actually benefited their people? Oh and don't use Europe. They are in the process of transitioning into socialism. I would examples of full blown socialistic societies.

 

[cparkfresh]

Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program,companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits – including the subsidies – from their taxable income.

The new law allows companies to only deduct the 72 percent they spent.


For those of you who do not understand. The Government was paying 28 percent of the prescription costs under the BUSH plan. There was a loophole which allowed ATT to deduct the ENTIRE cost of prescription drugs even though they did not pay the entire cost. THEY CLOSED A LOOPHOLE that business were exploiting. ATT still made a 12 Billion dollar profit.

/Discussion

 

[23mcpizzle23]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Its 30 billion in revenue and 3 billion in profits. They just took a 33% hit to their profits.

As I said in the health care thread these corporations will not take a hit to their profit margins. This means they'll start scaling back certain aspects of your health care or drop it completely.

accounting profits this loss they will be able to write off and use as a tax shelter

 

[lazyj10]

How is it a loophole that's being exploited if it's a part of an Act that got passed? I'm seriously asking, I don't know the answer, and I'm not trying to be an %#$. I saw it on SFGate last week that they got the full taxable deduction.

So they incur a cost, which benefits their former employees, they get the full taxable benefit to offset corporate taxes...this is still being done to benefit employees. Whereas now, they're accruing for the tax change (and whatever FIN 48 implications, I'm betting?) and only getting a dollar for dollar deduction....If they didn't provide this benefit to so many people (ie - retirees, probably from all the baby bells, too?) it wouldn't even be as big of a deal?

Did they have provide this to retirees or was it optional (ie - not typically seen in most pensions)?

 

[that guy]

Originally Posted by Mangudai954

Originally Posted by Ouch my feet

Forget healthcare reform, the entire US is about to get reformed. Healthcare is just the tip, the US needs a lot of this blind eye crap to stop and get fixed. Businesses are going to try and push losses onto employees and employees are going to go ape.

Something's going to give and I doubt the little man (aka the hard working american) is going to take much more.

I agree.

I think there might be a revolution in America soon, I've been thinking about and it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 

[jking0821]

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by North Dade Represent

Basically, they were getting a tax deduction on spending money that wasn't theirs to begin with. It's like this - What if you wanted to donate to $400 to a charity, and the government said "Cool, that's a good idea, were going to give you another $100 to make the full donation $500." You shouldn't be able to claim a $500 dollar donation on your taxes, because in reality you only donated $400.

thanks for the explanation

What? Basiclly the charges these companies are taking is related to the  tax deduction they were able to take by providing prescription drug coverge to retired employees. These large companies were covering the cost of prescription drug coverage as a post-retirement benefit, costing the company money, but they were able to deduct this as an expense of doing business and therefore pay less taxes. The new law removes this tax benefit, so this will be a 1 billion dollar one-time charge for AT&T, going forward it is now known that these expenses are not tax deductible.

Politics aside retired employees from these large companies were receiving prescription drug coverage for free. After the law passed companies are now considering dropping this coverage and these retirees will have to rely on medicare or other health insurance coverage. This isn't about rich CEO's, wealthy investors, republicans... this is a benefit that companies voluntarly offered that they are now considering stopping due to the health care reform.

 

[tacc4]

This is a joke. There is no way AT&T spends $1 billion annually on health care insurance. Nor will they incur a one-time expense of $1 billion. Its just a convenient time to throw out a huge loss so that future quarters are protected. AT&T is 3x the size of Caterpillar, yet it is taking a writedown that is 10x the size of Caterpillar's. Please. Nobody is falling for this nonsense.

I personally don't agree w/the contents of the health care bill, or the means by which it was passed, but this just seems like a way to scare people into thinking that it is a bad idea. Somehow I don't foresee Americans feeling sorry for a company that makes close to $1 billion/month. AT&T needs to take their lumps and keep it moving.

 

[j23diego]

That's BS

 

[crazy dav0]

ok so it hits the P&L but it doesn't affect cash flows ... if i go off what cpark said ... then they're only able to reduce taxable income by the amount they should have been able to in the first place ...

i'll look into this more b4 i come to a conclusion

 

[tacc4]

Essential1 wrote:

Regulations are the life line of Capitalism.. Regulations come from the government... These regulations serve as the referee for the game.. Without a referee there are no rules. Without rules the richest become more powerful.. 

No, regulations are not the lifeline of capitalism. Intelligence is the lifeline of capitalism. And compassion is the lifeline for those who lack economic savvy. You ever played Monopoly? Has plenty of rules, and yet the rich always get richer and become more powerful. How is life any different from a painfully slow game of Monopoly w/billions of players and a huge board?

You argue that deregulation has caused every major financial crisis. Has it ever occurred to you that w/o regulation in the first place there would be no deregulation? And what would you say about the control that the Federal Reserve has over the global economy? Its relatively easy to build a case against the actions of the Fed over the past 20 years.

I agree that all large-scale economies need some degree of regulation. But I don't see a clear line of logic in your argument. 

chozin87 wrote:

---

This bill is going to leave more people without health care IMO.
How? Who? When? Why? Is your opinion based on ANY facts, or just speculation?
Don't get fooled into thinking that every AT&T employee already has health insurance through their employer. Even if AT&T and most major employers were to cut their health insurance offerings, its unlikely that this would outweigh the insurance mandates coming in 2014.

 

[esco51]

curious to see how this affects government motors......

 

[chozin87]

Originally Posted by TacC4

Essential1 wrote:

Regulations are the life line of Capitalism.. Regulations come from the government... These regulations serve as the referee for the game.. Without a referee there are no rules. Without rules the richest become more powerful.. 

No, regulations are not the lifeline of capitalism. Intelligence is the lifeline of capitalism. And compassion is the lifeline for those who lack economic savvy. You ever played Monopoly? Has plenty of rules, and yet the rich always get richer and become more powerful. How is life any different from a painfully slow game of Monopoly w/billions of players and a huge board?

You argue that deregulation has caused every major financial crisis. Has it ever occurred to you that w/o regulation in the first place there would be no deregulation? And what would you say about the control that the Federal Reserve has over the global economy? Its relatively easy to build a case against the actions of the Fed over the past 20 years.

I agree that all large-scale economies need some degree of regulation. But I don't see a clear line of logic in your argument. 

chozin87 wrote:

---

This bill is going to leave more people without health care IMO.
How? Who? When? Why? Is your opinion based on ANY facts, or just speculation?
Don't get fooled into thinking that every AT&T employee already has health insurance through their employer. Even if AT&T and most major employers were to cut their health insurance offerings, its unlikely that this would outweigh the insurance mandates coming in 2014.

My mother is likely going to lose her coverage as a result of this bill.  The coverage she receives through her company as a retiree will either be dropped or become more expensive.  
The biggest beneficiary of this bill is the insurance companies.  People are going to be forced to buy insurance.