Disclosure Statement Medical Form: Fill & Download for Free

They are not allowed to be honest about it. The fact is that trumps medical staff was required to sign non-disclosure statements before they were allowed to work on his case.Like his porn stars he even gags his doctors.

Thanks for the A2A but before I spout anything, my disclosure statement. I was born under Harry T, so I really don’t have any skin in the game WRT my benefits per Ryan’s proposal. That said….The fiscal problems are pretty obvious – too many people drawing money out with not enough money entering the system. There are many reasons why but I’ll just jump to Ryan’s proposal as a fix. So what do I think about raising retirement (meaning “full” SS benefits) to 70? It’s just what I expected from the GOP.Raising the age to 70 will definitely reduce the outflow of money. That’s always the GOP’s response to the SS gap. The Dems always look at the other side, increasing revenue. This is as assured as the sun rising. Raising the retirement age is going to be really ugly for the bottom tiers of our society. What would be passed is unknown but the proposal I most recently read said those drawing benefits at 62 would get 57% of full retirement, the age 70 amount. It’s not like everyone who draws at 62 does so because they just want to bag work and lie on the beach. Certainly a number don’t quite qualify for medical disability but aren’t very well. And then there are those who lose jobs, can’t get another, and this is their only lifeline. Recessions have happened in the past and again like the sun rising, will occur in the future. The last recession put a whole lot of folks out of work and you can bet a lot took early SS (or worse, burned through their savings trying to live until 62) as the only option. Lose your job and apply under the proposed change and you’d be looking at spending the rest of your life on 57%/70% (for those born after 1960) or about 80% of an already marginal amount. If you’re rich, you don’t care but if you depend substantially on SS for your existence, you’re pretty screwed. I might add there’s one additional consequence of raising the age that no one seems to address. Workers at 70 just aren’t as capable as those at 65 or 66. Forcing people to work longer is going to decrease productivity at companies or, if the companies lay off their older workers, give more food for the 1-800-SUIT commercials on TV. How many jobs can you come up with where you’d rather have a 70 year old employee over a younger one? Thought so.I find it interesting the Dems don’t make a bigger uproar about what has to be one of the most regressive taxes around, the SS tax. If you make $50K, everything is taxed. But if you make $1M, less than $130K is subject to withholding. Putting it in percentages, the lower income person puts 6.2% of his income into the pot; the millionaire puts away only .8% (6.2% x $128,400 / $1M). Tell me another tax where the poor pay 8x a millionaire. And it gets worse as the salary increases though truthfully, most really rich people don’t get their income primarily from salaries so they pretty much get a pass on paying into the pool.There is an iceberg on the horizon and the boat is heading towards it. The Democrats want to steer left and the Republicans, right. In the increasing hostile political climate we’re in, I’d have to put my money on the iceberg as having the best shot at coming out on top.

Some data in Hostess filings with the bankruptcy court does support your hypothesis. Specifically, the Disclosure Statement which Hostess filed (I've uploaded a copy to Scribd: Hostess Disclosure Statement) contains the following financial disclosures related to revenue from snack products:Net Revenues for the Last Three Years53 Weeks Ended June 2, 2012: $2.467 billion52 Weeks Ended May 28, 2011: $2.474 billion52 Weeks Ended May 29, 2010: $2.585 billionDisclosures Regarding Demand for Hostess ProductsFrom page 101 of the above-linked document ("Debtors" refers to Hostess):The Debtors have experienced a significant decline in the demand for their branded sweet goods and bread products. According to data from Information Resources Incorporated (the "IRI"), an independent market research concern that reports sales trends in most supermarkets (excluding mass merchandisers, club stores and discount stores), the Debtors' total unit volume of branded sweet goods declined by 4.3% during the latest 52 weeks ending September 5, 2012, and revenues from the Debtors' branded sweet good products declined 1.5% during the same period. The Debtors' total unit volume of branded bread products declined by 9.6% during the latest 52 weeks ending September 5, 2012. Revenues related to the Debtors' bread products declined 5.3% from the comparable period one year ago. Data from IRI also indicates that the declining unit trend in branded bread and sweet goods products was evident in the industry during the 52 week period ending September 5, 2012. The Debtors believe that they will continue to experience reduced demand for their products based on various factors, including some of the factors discussed in greater detail below.However, in court filings made at the time of the current bankruptcy filing (January 2012), Hostess Brands' CEO Brian Driscoll primarily blamed other factors for the chapter 11 filing. In a declaration filed with the bankruptcy court (again, I've uploaded a copy of the document to Scribd: Hostess First Day Declaration), he stated (pages 17-20):These chapter 11 cases were commenced to effect the fundamental operational and financial changes that the Debtors' businesses require in light of their declining performance, aging infrastructure, strained liquidity levels and excessive debt, and the significant challenges facing the Debtors, including, but not limited to, uncompetitive and unsustainable labor and legacy costs and an intensified competitive environment.Declining Financial PerformanceAs non-public companies, the Debtors are not required to file annual or quarterly reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Debtors do, however, prepare audited financial statements as one of the terms and conditions of their long-term debt agreements. The Debtors' audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended May 28, 2011 have not yet been finalized. According to the Debtors' most recent unaudited financial statements, for the 2011 fiscal year, the Debtors recorded annual net revenue of approximately $2.5 billion. As of May 28, 2011, utilizing book values, the Debtors had assets of approximately $1 billion and liabilities of approximately $1.4 billion.Since their February 2009 emergence from the IBC Bankruptcy, the Debtors' financial performance has not kept pace with the projections set forth as part of the 2008 IBC Plan and has deteriorated significantly in recent quarters. For the fiscal year ended May 29, 2010 — the first full year after emergence from chapter 11 — the Debtors' experienced a net loss of approximately $138 million. For the fiscal year ended May 28, 2011, the Debtors' unaudited books and records indicate that the Debtors' net loss was approximately $341 million, reflecting $132 million in write-off of deferred debt issuance costs and debt discount which occurred when long term debt was reclassified as current debt.Factors Responsible for Declining Financial PerformanceThe Debtors believe that three main factors are responsible for their recent economic troubles: (a) high legacy costs; (b) inflexible labor work rules and structures; and (c) unsustainable debt levels that prohibit the Debtors from adapting their business to current competitive conditions thereby increasing profitability. As a consequence, the Debtors do not have a competitive cost structure and cannot achieve viability on a long-term sustainable basis in their industry.Crippling Legacy Costs. As stated above, the Debtors participate in 40 Multiemployer Plans. The Multiemployer Plans are structured to place the financial burdens of all of the retirees under the plans upon the remaining companies in the plans that have active union employees. Over the last several decades, the number of companies supporting the Multiemployer Plans has shrunk significantly as a result of the voluntary and involuntary withdrawal of many employers and the fact that virtually no new employers join multiemployer plans today. This significantly increases the burden on the companies, such as the Debtors, that remain. The Debtors' annual cash pension contributions associated with the Multiemployer Plans is approximately $103 million. Additionally, the Debtors have annual retiree medical obligations of approximately $1.4 million.Inflexible and Uncompetitive Collective Bargaining Agreements. As stated above, the Debtors are party to 372 separate collective bargaining agreements (collectively, the "CBAs"). The CBAs collectively mandate maintenance of 80 different health and welfare benefit plans, the sheer number of which impose excessive administrative and cost burdens on the Debtors. The CBAs mandate increases in wages and medical and other benefits for the fiscal year ending June 2, 2012 that total an additional $31 million. In addition, the CBAs contain a variety of different work rules that hamstring operations and make the CBAs uncompetitive as well as extremely difficult to administer. For example, the Debtors often provide both bread and cake products to an individual customer location. The existing work rules require that, on many routes, separate trucks must deliver the bread and cake products to that single customer location. The work rules also require that, in some bakeries and distribution centers, a separate individual must be used to load the trucks (the Debtors' competitors have drivers who load their own trucks) and separate people must load either bread or cake onto a truck. Finally, work rules require that, in some instances even when a route representative is already visiting a customer location, that representative may not move product within that location; rather, a separate employee must visit the customer location to move product from the back room to the shelf. Often, this so-called "pull-up" employee cannot move both bread and cake and, thus, two "pull-up" employees must make this same trip. This multiplies the number of individuals necessary to deliver product to customers and doubles the costs associated with trucks and fuel. Finally, the work rules prevent the Debtors from implementing alternative distribution systems into new, currently unserved markets.Unsustainable Debt Levels. As set forth above, the Debtors have several tranches of secured debt totaling approximately $860 million. While the impact of this debt burden was somewhat ameliorated in the near term by the carefully constructed payment-in-kind features, it is incompatible with achieving a competitive cost structure, funding sorely needed capital improvements and long-term viability.In conclusion, I think that the best answer is, as with most large, complex corporate failures, Hostess is beset by a number of challenges which collectively have caused its business to be unable to compete. But changing consumer tastes certainly haven't helped, although the annual declines for the last several years are smaller than I had anticipated before I looked up the numbers for purposes of answering this question.