[talaniman]

Smith & Nephew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In September 2007 Biomet Inc. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. (part of Johnson & Johnson), Smith & Nephew PLC and Zimmer Holdings Inc. entered into settlement agreements, under which they agree to pay $300 million in total, adopt industry overhauls and undertake corporate monitoring to avoid criminal charges of conspiracy.[10]

In February 2012, Smith & Nephew plc agreed to pay US$22.2 million to settle multiple US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) offenses committed by its US and German subsidiaries.[11] The company admitted to having bribed government-employed doctors in Greece to use its medical equipment over the past decade.[12] The company has entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and has agreed to retain a compliance monitor for 18 months.[13]

http://www.smith-nephew.com/about-us/at-a-glance/

We have almost 11,000 employees and a presence in more than 90 countries.

Annual sales in 2011 were nearly $4.3 billion.

I have my doubts about this being about paying taxes in America. Looks like a business down cycle. Running lean as you say, or reacting to its out of court settlements. Getting rid of redundant employees given the global scope of the company, and genrous compensation and job support doesn't sound like ordinay workers but corporate types.

I am at least sceptical seeing as they can be rather dubious about the way they have done buinessin the past.

[tomder55]

Yeah keep being a skeptic as one company after the other reduces staffing and blames it on Obamacare . They are all a bunch of greedy criminals after all.

[talaniman]

Come on Tom, businesses especially BIG business have used laying off parts of its work force due to changing business climate for YEARS, decades even, and you have advocated its legitimacy many times. I have been through this business cycle many times during my working years and am sure so have YOU.

So when you claim they do it now for Obamacare, should we at least look at those companies before we jump on that band wagon? The company you cited has been buying other companies for years, so of course there is redundancy and they cut it.

While you decry the causes, you fail to mention the offsets and tax breaks such companies get to lower their tax burden to very little or nothing. Like you say they do whatever they do to feed the profits. This is no different than business as usual.

Wonder what their generous severance package entails? I wonder if the parachute is gold, silver, or bronze? Most telling you didn't cry before when we had massive layoffs, so why cry now?

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

yeah keep being a skeptic as one company after the other reduces staffing and blames it on Obamacare . They are all a bunch of greedy criminals after all.

Count me as a skeptic. You right wingers have NEVER said ANYTHING truthful about Obamacare, so I don't know WHY you'd start now...

Nahhh, they're not greedy CRIMINALS, after all.. But, they ARE GREEDY bastards. Being a capitalist myself, I don't usually have a problem with GREED, but guys like Pappa John make Gordon Gekko look like a saint. Didn't HE lay off workers and blame it on Obamacare, REFUSING instead, to raise the price of his pizza's 11 CENTS?? Yup, he DID! Doesn't he live in a palatial zillion $$ mansion? He DOES!

Are there other GREEDY SOB's like him?? Uhhhh, YES!

Excon

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

oh I expect the cost of that pizza would have to go up much higher than 11 cents to cover a national chain's employes.

Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter said he plans on passing the costs of health care reform to his business onto his workers. Schnatter said he will likely reduce workers’ hours, as a result of President Obama's reelection, the Naples Daily News reports. Schnatter made headlines over the summer when he told shareholders that the cost of a Papa John’s pizza will increase by between 11 and 14 cents due to Obamacare.

"I got in a bunch of trouble for this," he said, referring to the comments he made in August, according to Naples News. "That's what you do, is you pass on costs. Unfortunately, I don't think people know what they're going to pay for this."

Schnatter went on to say he's neither in support of, nor against the Affordable Care Act, even admitting that "the good news is 100 percent of the population is going to have health insurance.” But he’s not the only one in the chain restaurant industry to admit that workers hours may be reduced, since Obamacare mandates that only employees that work more than 30 hours per week are covered under their employers health insurance plan. For example, Darden restaurants, the parent company of Olive Garden and Red Lobster, has already experimented with reducing workers hours in anticipation of the legislation.

Others have responded to the added costs of Obamacare more harshly, including Applebee's franchisee owner Zane Tankel who said his company won’t hire new workers because of the law. Just this week, a Georgia business owner also claimed he cut employees due to Obamacare and in fact had specifically laid off those who he thought had voted for President Obama.

Excon

[talaniman]

Back in my day we used to call such people reactionaries.

Reactionary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A reactionary is an individual that holds political viewpoints which cause them to seek to return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society.

The French Revolution gave the English language three politically descriptive words denoting anti-progressive politics: reactionary, conservative and right. Reactionary derives from the French word réactionnaire (an early nineteenth-century coinage), and conservative from conservateur, identifying monarchist parliamentarians opposed to the revolution.[4] In this French usage, reactionary denotes "a movement towards the reversal of an existing tendency or state" and a "return to a previous condition of affairs."

My point in all of this is that what we have is the second coming of Enlightrnment, and you guys are on the wrong side of it. Now get off that freaking sack of loot you stole from the people.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

Count me as a skeptic. You right wingers have NEVER said ANYTHING truthful about Obamacare, so I dunno WHY you'd start now...

Now that's a flat out lie.

[speechlesstx]

Catholic bishops are not impressed with mandate 3.0.

For almost a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have worked hard to support the right of every person to affordable, accessible, comprehensive, life-affirming healthcare. As we continue to do so, our changeless values remain the same. We promote the protection of the dignity of all human life and the innate rights that flow from it, including the right to life from conception to natural death; care for the poorest among us and the undocumented; the right of the Church to define itself, its ministries, and its ministers; and freedom of conscience.

Last Friday, the Administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the HHS mandate that requires coverage for sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortions. The Administration indicates that it has heard some previously expressed concerns and that it is open to dialogue. With release of the NPRM, the Administration seeks to offer a response to serious matters which have been raised throughout the past year. We look forward to engaging with the Administration, and all branches and levels of government, to continue to address serious issues that remain. Our efforts will require additional, careful study. Only in this way can we best assure that healthcare for every woman, man and child is achieved without harm to our first, most cherished freedom.

In evaluating Friday’s action regarding the HHS mandate, our reference remains the statement of our Administrative Committee made last March, United for Religious Freedom, and affirmed by the entire body of bishops in June 2012.

In that statement, we first expressed concern over the mandate’s “exceedingly narrow” four-part definition of “religious employer,” one that exempted our houses of worship, but left “our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need” subject to the mandate. This created “a ‘second class’ of citizenship within our religious community,” “weakening [federal law’s] healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity.” And the exemption effectuated this distinction by requiring “among other things, [that employers] must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith.”

On Friday, the Administration proposed to drop the first three parts of the four-part test. This might address the last of the concerns above, but it seems not to address the rest. The Administration’s proposal maintains its inaccurate distinction among religious ministries. It appears to offer second-class status to our first-class institutions in Catholic health care, Catholic education, and Catholic charities. HHS offers what it calls an “accommodation,” rather than accepting the fact that these ministries are integral to our Church and worthy of the same exemption as our Catholic churches. And finally, it seems to take away something that we had previously—the ability of an exempt employer (such as a diocese) to extend its coverage to the employees of a ministry outside the exemption.

Second, United for Religious Freedom explained that the religious ministries not deemed “religious employers” would suffer the severe consequence of “be[ing] forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions.” After Friday, it appears that the government would require all employees in our “accommodated” ministries to have the illicit coverage—they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children—under a separate policy. In part because of gaps in the proposed regulations, it is still unclear how directly these separate policies would be funded by objecting ministries, and what precise role those ministries would have in arranging for these separate policies. Thus, there remains the possibility that ministries may yet be forced to fund and facilitate such morally illicit activities. Here, too, we will continue to analyze the proposal and to advocate for changes to the final rule that reflect these concerns.

Third, the bishops explained that the “HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values.” This includes employers sponsoring and subsidizing the coverage, insurers writing it, and beneficiaries paying individual premiums for it. Friday’s action confirms that HHS has no intention to provide any exemption or accommodation at all to this “third class.” In obedience to our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have consistently taught our people to live their lives during the week to reflect the same beliefs that they proclaim on the Sabbath. We cannot now abandon them to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences.

Because the stakes are so high, we will not cease from our effort to assure that healthcare for all does not mean freedom for few. Throughout the past year, we have been assured by the Administration that we will not have to refer, pay for, or negotiate for the mandated coverage. We remain eager for the Administration to fulfill that pledge and to find acceptable solutions—we will affirm any genuine progress that is made, and we will redouble our efforts to overcome obstacles or setbacks. Thus, we welcome and will take seriously the Administration’s invitation to submit our concerns through formal comments, and we will do so in the hope that an acceptable solution can be found that respects the consciences of all. At the same time, we will continue to stand united with brother bishops, religious institutions, and individual citizens who seek redress in the courts for as long as this is necessary.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York

February 7, 2013

The mandate basically redefines the church, which is exactly what's been done by those of you insisting church ministries should be treated as a business, and I believe this is all intentional. Come on admit it libs, you don't want the church to live its faith and serve people, that's the government's job, right?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Come on admit it libs, you don't want the church to live its faith and serve people,

Would this be the SAME Catholic church that aided and abetted their priests in raping and molesting children the world over, and who then covered it up for DECADES, and is STILL covering it up?

THAT Catholic church?? We need to send drones to the Vatican.

Excon

[talaniman]

All due respect to the catholic church, but I find it expands the whole range of religious non profit organizations and allows contraceptive coverage to those that want it as a separate policy that the churches DOES NOT pay for.

Interesting Stuff I Found While Reading the New HHS Mandate Rules

The Departments propose two key changes to the preventive services coverage rules codified in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713T, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713, and 45 CFR 147.130 to meet these goals. First, the proposed rules would amend the criteria for the religious employer exemption to ensure that an otherwise exempt employer plan is not disqualified because the employer's purposes extend beyond the inculcation of religious values or because the employer serves or hires people of different religious faiths. Second, the proposed rules would establish accommodations for health coverage established or maintained by eligible organizations, or arranged by eligible organizations that are religious institutions of higher education, with religious objections to contraceptive coverage.

This proposed definition of eligible organization is intended to allow health coverage established or maintained or arranged by nonprofit religious organizations, including nonprofit religious institutional health care providers, educational institutions, and charities, with religious objections to contraceptive coverage to qualify for an accommodation. For this purpose, an organization that is organized and operated as a nonprofit entity is not limited to any particular form of entity under state law, but may include organizations such as trusts and unincorporated associations, as well as nonprofit, not-for-profit, non-stock, public benefit, and similar types of corporations. However, for this purpose an organization is not considered to be organized and operated as a nonprofit entity if its assets or income accrue to the benefit of private individuals or shareholders.

I see no class distinction in the church entities and cannot see what's wrong with a church employee essentially having a supplemental policy in addition to the church insurance. Its paid for by credits for the insurer of such policies, not the church so what's the real problem if its separate from the church?

The White House's contraceptives compromise

If the IRS can define a church why can't we use that since its been used for many decades now.

http://krestaintheafternoon.blogspot...-welcomed.html

While many aspects of the new proposal need to be examined before a final conclusion can be rendered, the decision to expand religious exemptions, and to adopt the IRS definition of a religious institution, is a sign of goodwill by the Obama administration toward the Catholic community.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Would this be the SAME Catholic church that aided and abetted their priests in raping and molesting children the world over, and who then covered it up for DECADES, and is STILL covering it up??

THAT Catholic church??? We need to send drones to the Vatican.

excon

THAT Catholic church that educates kids, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, heals the sick.

[speechlesstx]

All due respect to the catholic church, but I find it expands the whole range of religious non profit organizations and allows contraceptive coverage to those that want it as a separate policy that the churches DOES NOT pay for.

Interesting Stuff I Found While Reading the New HHS Mandate Rules



I see no class distinction in the church entities and cannot see what's wrong with a church employee essentially having a supplemental policy in addition to the church insurance. Its paid for by credits for the insurer of such policies, not the church so what's the real problem if its separate from the church?

The White House’s contraceptives compromise

All interesting twists on the truth. We weren't born yesterday, no amount of spin is going to change the facts.

If the IRS can define a church why can't we use that since its been used for many decades now.

Kresta In The Afternoon: Bill Donohue: New HHS Rules Welcomed

Perhaps Bill should speak with the bishops.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

THAT Catholic church that educates kids,

Would you put YOUR kid into their clutches?? Of course, you wouldn't. You KNOW, like I KNOW, they haven't cleaned up their mess... Your local priest might be a MONSTER.

If it were me, I'd REVOKE their tax exempt status. They're a CRIMINAL organization.. RICO would be TOO good for them.

Excon

[NeedKarma]

THAT Catholic church that educates kids, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, heals the sick.

The one that has ruined the lives of countless children... and they tried to cover it up. A sick organization.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Would you put YOUR kid into their clutches??? Of course, you wouldn't. You KNOW, like I KNOW, they haven't cleaned up their mess... Your local priest might be a MONSTER.

If it were me, I'd REVOKE their tax exempt status. They're a CRIMINAL organization.. RICO would be TOO good for them.

excon

I attended a Catholic school for a while actually and I see you've just abandoned first amendment deflections for downright attacks. You're just distracting again though, the priest scandal is irrelevant to the issue - our rights are at stake, Catholic or not.

The one that has ruined the lives of countless children...and they tried to cover it up. A sick organization.

Like I said, that's irrelevant to the issue. But this is what happens when you run out of defenses for taking away MY rights.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Are you talking about THIS Bill Donohue? The one who explains why victims of child abuse are a bunch of greedy, bigoted whiners?? He's an ENABLER. He should be LOCKED up!

excon

[NeedKarma]

Like I said, that's irrelevant to the issue. But this is what happens when you run out of defenses for taking away MY rights.

You know it's the same argument you use with Planned Parenthood.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I see you've just abandoned first amendment deflections for downright attacks.

Yeah, I'm pretty transparent, aren't I?

Look, BEFORE I saw the movie Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa, I was WILLING to treat the church like an honest broker seeking a finding that was consistent with their faith..

Having SEEN the movie, I see NOW that the COVERUP of child molestation, perpetrated on the world by the church, was ORCHESTRATED by the guy who is NOW Pope. The Catholic church is a CRIMINAL organization. Criminal organizations AREN'T entitled to 1st Amendment rights. I'm no longer going to treat them as I did before...

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Are you talking about THIS Bill Donohue? The one who explains why victims of child abuse are a bunch of greedy, bigoted whiners??? He's an ENABLER. He should be LOCKED up!

excon

Talk to Tal, he's the one using Donohue to defend the 'compromise.'

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I'm pretty transparent, aren't I?

Look, BEFORE I saw the movie Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa, I was WILLING to treat the church like an honest broker seeking a finding that was consistent with their faith..

Having SEEN the movie, I see NOW that the COVERUP of child molestation, perpetrated on the world by the church, was ORCHESTRATED by the guy who is NOW Pope. The Catholic church is a CRIMINAL organization. Criminal organizations AREN'T entitled to 1st Amendment rights. I'm no longer going to treat them as I did before...

excon

So you're willing to forsake the first amendment because of a movie? That's kind of ironic and weird.