Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation's top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances -- a move one committee Republican describes as "an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation."
On Thursday and Friday, the companies -- so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M -- said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. Now, both retirees and current employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future.
The news is an embarrassment for Democrats. As President Obama and congressional leaders tout the purported benefits of the new health care law, some of the nation's biggest companies are saying it will mean higher costs and fewer benefits -- not exactly what Democrats want to hear in the days after their historic victory.
So Waxman has ordered the executives to explain themselves at an April 21 hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee's investigative subcommittee.I dunno about Mr. York's use of the term "demand". Waxman's letters use the term "request".
Public disclosure law REQUIRES that outfits like these discount their published worth, and publish the check-offs they have to take, in response to an altered business environment, so these companies are doing what the law requires of them.
Waxman's mau-mauing may get a lot more on record than he would like.
Regardless, and recognizing that I will never be the CEO of Caterpillar, my response to Waxman would be....
Posts
good point in this post, but i gotta put my two-cents out there-- i think throwing out names like "thugly" and "fat mikey" actually detract from your arguments. for people like me, emotional sucker-punches like that bring up red flags that usually indicate that someone has to resort to personal attacks to win an argument, and your arguments simply don't need to that as they hold water on their own just fine. i personally much prefer to see the issue ripped apart for what it is, with the fluff left out. but that's just one little reader's opinion....
ReplyDelete