Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Some taxes from Obamacare that affect ALL Americans:

Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News

Dear god. Fox news again? Sammy, for the love of god stop reading that crap.

As usual, they distort and exaggerate the truth. Let's start with that first point.

1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax

This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven’t turned a profit yet.

These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country’s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.

Read more: Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News

Plastics Today

An article authored by Paul N. Van de Water states: "The House will soon consider legislation to repeal the excise tax on medical devices that was enacted to help pay for health reform. The provision is sound, however, and the industry lobbying campaign aimed at repealing it is based on misinformation and exaggeration."

In a head-on attack on the main industry criticisms of the tax, Van de Water says: "The tax will not cause manufacturers to shift production overseas. The tax applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are tax-exempt. The tax will have little effect on innovation in the medical device industry. To the contrary, health reform may well spur medical device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care."

Excise Tax on Medical Devices Should Not Be Repealed — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

^^I suggest you all read that article in regards to the Medical Excise Tax.



At this point, Fox News should be treated much like The Onion when it comes to stories.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

snip

Those links really don't support your own positions very much:

From your own links:

All of that being said, there is room for improvement in how the medical device tax is assessed. Small companies that are often engines for important innovations need more protection from the tax. Any potential impact of the tax on R&D in the United States needs to be rethought and changed. Medical innovation is a powerful resource of the United States and a growing pillar of our economy.

Subsequent to posting this article, Thomas C. Novelli, VP Government Affairs of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association, pointed out to me: "There is no tiered-approach to the device tax and the tax applies to companies regardless to revenue. And since this tax is based purely on revenue, the smaller companies (which constitutes the majority of the industry) will bear the brunt of the tax. Many of these companies are either not profitable or have a very low profit margin. Both the Bloomberg article, and the corresponding articles that cite the Bloomberg article (including the CBPP) fail to consider this reality."

and

Tax Will Have Minimal Effect on Consumers

The effect of the excise tax on consumers’ costs for health care and health insurance will be minimal and will be swamped by other factors. Spending on taxable medical devices represents less than 1 percent of total personal health expenditures, so a small increase in their price would have an almost imperceptible effect on health insurance premiums.

"Swamped by other factors". Not very comforting. Especially since we all know out premiums are indeed going up, for all the "concessions" made by the health care industry to cover more people.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Those links really don't support your own positions very much:

"Swamped by other factors". Not very comforting. Especially since we all know out premiums are indeed going up, for all the "concessions" made by the health care industry to cover more people.

Not sure how they don't support my position when I didn't state a position. I stated that Fox News was exaggerating and distorting, which they were. They make it to seem that this tax is going to end jobs, stifle innovation, and make health care costs go up that much more. The stuff I posted (one being from somebody within the industry) says otherwise. Also, I really doubt companies are cutting back on R&D right now in response to any taxes. Many companies use stuff like this as a scapegoat so they can be cheap and make more money.

(articles on how employers use situations like these as a excuse)

Using the economy as an excuse to shortchange employees | Raoul Pop

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/fa...pagewanted=all

It's a cop out.

[NC_Skins]

In a perfect world, we would have a small government that had minimum regulations and restrictions on its people and its economy.

The sad reality of it, is that you have to hold people's hand in order to get them to do the right thing. Don't believe me, take away all laws and see what happens. It always is a double edge sword, but sometimes it is a necessary one.


Remove regulations from banks and corporations. They'll end up collapsing the economy and providing workers with unsafe conditions and petty pay.

Remove EPA regulations and the environment will be destroyed by corporations and businesses trying to make a buck.

Now, I would rather our government not be involved, but it's been proven time and time and time and TIME again that businesses (and people) have to be regulated.

The thing that kills me with most conservatives is that what do they actually think is going to happen when you deregulate? They are allowed to run wild, and that's exactly what they'll do. Why? Because their primary focus is to make as much as money as possible, even if that means using unethical means to do it.


Do we really want to go back to these days? I know the rich elites do.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

In a perfect world, we would have a small government that had minimum regulations and restrictions on its people and its economy.

The sad reality of it, is that you have to hold people's hand in order to get them to do the right thing. Don't believe me, take away all laws and see what happens. It always is a double edge sword, but sometimes it is a necessary one.


Remove regulations from banks and corporations. They'll end up collapsing the economy and providing workers with unsafe conditions and petty pay.

Remove EPA regulations and the environment will be destroyed by corporations and businesses trying to make a buck.

Now, I would rather our government not be involved, but it's been proven time and time and time and TIME again that businesses (and people) have to be regulated.

The thing that kills me with most conservatives is that what do they actually think is going to happen when you deregulate? They are allowed to run wild, and that's exactly what they'll do. Why? Because their primary focus is to make as much as money as possible, even if that means using unethical means to do it.


Do we really want to go back to these days? I know the rich elites do.

NC_SKINS:

I don't know of any true conservatives that are for taking away laws altogether. I do know of extremist libertarians who believe in some sort of utopia of sorts where the gov't is skin and bones and any rescue, fire, and police service is all privately ran. Most conservatives that I know realize there needs to be some regulation in terms of protection, but at the same time, too much regulation is detrimental, and I believe that we have way too much regulation in this country which is crippling job growth. for instance, in the state of VA, it is illegal to grow Hemp, but not illegal to sale or buy it. The gov't right now has it on the controlled substance list, but removing it from this list would allow farmers in VA to grow it and create about 10,000 jobs in southside VA. Hemp is used in just about everything nowadays. That's just a small case of regulation that does not need regulation.

As far as regulation of pay, I think that is one area where the government should stay out of the way and allow the free market to decide how much that job is worth. If Company A pays crap, and company B pays better, employees will go to company B. It should be just that simple, but instead, the gov't wants to step in and say company A should pay X amount no matter if they have to cut jobs and downsize to do it. What is worse, getting paid a crappy salary or having no jobs at all? Just ask Southside VA.

But anyways, assuming that conservatives feel there should be no regulation is just plain stupid to me, but there should be a lot of deregulation going on.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Not sure how they don't support my position when I didn't state a position. I stated that Fox News was exaggerating and distorting, which they were. They make it to seem that this tax is going to end jobs, stifle innovation, and make health care costs go up that much more. The stuff I posted (one being from somebody within the industry) says otherwise. Also, I really doubt companies are cutting back on R&D right now in response to any taxes. Many companies use stuff like this as a scapegoat so they can be cheap and make more money.

(articles on how employers use situations like these as a excuse)

Using the economy as an excuse to shortchange employees | Raoul Pop

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/fa...pagewanted=all

It's a cop out.

I love your links. The first one had an unnamed first example. The 2nd used Adobe saying it laid off employees and was not loosing business but the link showed their stock had gone from $40 some dollars to $20 some (that raking in the profits). The second uses a nanny who was not doing her job as an example. LMAO

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I love your links. The first one had an unnamed first example. The 2nd used Adobe saying it laid off employees and was not loosing business but the link showed their stock had gone from $40 some dollars to $20 some (that raking in the profits). The second uses a nanny who was not doing her job as an example. LMAO

Yes. They showed where Adobe reported record revenues and still laid off people.

Adobe registered fourth-quarter revenue of $915.3 million, up $4.1 million from Q4 2007 and up $23.9 million from last quarter. Net revenue was $245.9 million, working out to 46 cents / share. Annual revenues were also record-breaking -- $3.580 billion, for 13% year-over-year growth. That's in line with the company's targets at the start of the year.

It's not hard to figure this out. It's called PR. Why would a company take the negative PR hit on slashing jobs when they can just point at the economy and use that as an excuse? The point of the links was to show that instead of companies (small, big, etc) coming out and taking the negative PR hit, they just used the shitty economy as their excuse to lay off people(or fire nannies) even if the bad economy didn't affect them in any way. Politicians then piggy back off of the companies excuses to blame whoever is in office at the time for such job loss even though it had nothing to do with them.

Also, you do realize you can be highly productive and your stock still plummet right? You do realize that in 2008, the stock market and Wall Street took a huge dump? You remember, your good ole buddy GWB right? Those years!

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Not sure how they don't support my position when I didn't state a position. I stated that Fox News was exaggerating and distorting, which they were. They make it to seem that this tax is going to end jobs, stifle innovation, and make health care costs go up that much more. The stuff I posted (one being from somebody within the industry) says otherwise. Also, I really doubt companies are cutting back on R&D right now in response to any taxes. Many companies use stuff like this as a scapegoat so they can be cheap and make more money.

You said Fox was distorting and exaggerating on the effect of the increased tax on small medical device companies. Your first link: "Small companies that are often engines for important innovations need more protection from the tax. "

Your second link doesn't defend the tax, it just says everybody is getting hit. This is not a good defense of anything. The medical device industry is not being singled out. The excise tax is one of several new levies on sectors that will gain business due to health reform....

The tax will not cause manufacturers to shift production overseas. The tax applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are tax-exempt......

The tax will have little effect on innovation in the medical device industry. To the contrary, health reform may well spur medical device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care.....

The effect of the excise tax on consumers’ costs for health care and health insurance will be minimal and will be swamped by other factors.

Nevermind taxing and restricting something isn't going to "gain" anything in that field. Both links seem like more of a defense of the Fox story than a rebuttal.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Nevermind taxing and restricting something isn't going to "gain" anything in that field. Both links seem like more of a defense of the Fox story than a rebuttal.

Then you choose to see what you want to see. It's clearly not supporting some of the exaggerations that Fox was making, and it definitely doesn't "seem like more of a defense of the Fox story."

The spin is that there will be tremendous job loss and reduction in R&D despite the significant increase in numbers of people covered by healthcare in the United States.

Yet an analysis by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities takes a very different view. The Center is a think tank founded in 1981 to analyze federal budget priorities. It describes itself as nonpartisan, but it has a focus on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals. That probably constitutes a bias in today's red-hot partisan environment.

Tax Will Not Shift Employment Offshore

Despite claims to the contrary, the excise tax creates no incentive whatever for medical device manufacturers to move production overseas. The tax applies to imported as well as domestically produced devices. Thus, sales of medical devices in the United States will be equally subject to the tax whether they are produced here or abroad, and the tax will not make imported devices any more attractive to domestic purchasers.

In addition, devices produced in the United States for export are exempt from the tax, so it will not reduce the competitiveness of U.S.-made devices in international markets. Making a tax-free sale for export is straightforward, and the administrative burden of securing an exemption is small. The device manufacturer and the U.S. exporter will register with the IRS (foreign purchasers of articles for export need not register), and the U.S. exporter must simply provide its registration number to the manufacturer and certify that the devices will be exported.[9]

A much-cited 2011 study financed by AdvaMed, an industry trade association, alleges that the tax would cause 10 percent of device manufacturing to move offshore, leading to the loss of 43,000 U.S. jobs.[10] Analysis by Bloomberg Government, however, finds that the study “is not credible.” Its assumptions, Bloomberg concludes, “conflict with economic research, overstate companies’ incentives to move jobs offshore, and ignore the positive effect of new demand created by the [health reform] law.”[11]

Tax Will Have Little Effect on Innovation

The excise tax also will likely have very little effect on innovation in the medical device industry, despite claims to the contrary. The consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers has identified five pillars of medical technology innovation: financial incentives, human and physical resources, a favorable regulatory climate, demanding and price-insensitive patients, and a supportive investment community.[19] Each pillar comprises more than a dozen separate factors, and the tax rate is just one of the many factors affecting financial incentives.
The rate of innovation in medical technology has slowed in recent years for reasons entirely unrelated to the excise tax. “Like Big Pharma, which introduced many ‘me too’ drugs,” writes The Economist, “device companies have sustained themselves by making small improvements to existing products. Spending on R&D has so far failed to yield many truly innovative devices.”

Health reform may well spur medical-device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care. As PricewaterhouseCoopers observes:

Government pressure to lower healthcare costs could . . . forc[e] developed nations to turn to innovative technology to achieve better results at lower costs. In the United States, for example, the [ACA] calls for reduced annual payment updates for most Medicare services, substantial cuts to managed care plan payments, and the creation of an Independent Payment Advisory Board. These are small steps in what will be a prolonged and complex effort by Western nations to rein in healthcare costs.[20]

Sure, the author from the first link does express some concern for small businesses.

All of that being said, there is room for improvement in how the medical device tax is assessed. Small companies that are often engines for important innovations need more protection from the tax. Any potential impact of the tax on R&D in the United States needs to be rethought and changed. Medical innovation is a powerful resource of the United States and a growing pillar of our economy.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Then you choose to see what you want to see. It's clearly not supporting some of the exaggerations that Fox was making, and it definitely doesn't "seem like more of a defense of the Fox story."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the fox link doesn't talk about jobs going overseas, it talks about jobs lost, which your links don't refute.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Sure, the author from the first link does express some concern for small businesses.

Which agrees with the Fox article. What did they "distort" or "exaggerate" in this case?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the fox link doesn't talk about jobs going overseas, it talks about jobs lost, which your links don't refute.

Oh my god, are you really going to argue semantics now? Jobs being shipped overseas is jobs lost in America. They'd have to lay off people in America just to give jobs to somebody overseas. It's job loss.

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Which agrees with the Fox article. What did they "distort" or "exaggerate" in this case?

No, it doesn't. Him sharing a concern isn't him agreeing with Fox.

The spin is that there will be tremendous job loss and reduction in R&D despite the significant increase in numbers of people covered by healthcare in the United States.

In other words, he's saying that this tax isn't going to matter really because the number of people covered by the new health insurance which will ultimately increase revenues!!!! Significant increase is the actual word he used.


Here is exactly what Fox said.

Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.

No. No way companies are laying off people or cutting R&D due to the looming tax. If anything, they are using this as an excuse like many companies like to do. Hrmm...how do I cut my work force, and push the extra work onto others without looking like the bad guy? Oh, I know, I'll just claim this new tax is going to kill my profits!!


Since you want to argue semantics, Fox's title is this "Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013" is misleading and false as well. Notice the word WILL, and not the word COULD. Distorting? Yes. Misleading? Yes. False? Yes.

There are many medical devices that aren't being taxed. So this tax isn't going to affect everybody's wallet. Not everybody will need to buy a medical device that's being taxed. Hey, not according to Fox!!

Source2:

Spending on taxable medical devices represents less than 1 percent of total personal health expenditures, so a small increase in their price would have an almost imperceptible effect on health insurance premiums.

Listen, we aren't going to agree on this, so you keep believing Fox and I'll chose not to. That we can agree on.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Dear god. Fox news again? Sammy, for the love of god stop reading that crap.

As usual, they distort and exaggerate the truth. Let's start with that first point.

At this point, Fox News should be treated much like The Onion when it comes to stories.

As usual with you and 12th, you'll discount anything from Fox without reading/admiting the facts in their articles. I'm not going to comb through the actual Obamacare legislation to cite page/paragraph for the following points mentioned in the Fox link, but I'll cut out virtually all the commentary. Still leaves some pretty hefty tax increases that I noticed you couldn't/didn't address in your response:

- Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income. The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.

- The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit.......The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year......so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years......

- Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.

- The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase - This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.

When you can't counter the facts, try to disparage the source....must be straight from Rules for Radicals. If you guys discount Fox, I guess those on the right can discount CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

When you can't counter the facts, try to disparage the source....must be straight from Rules for Radicals. If you guys discount Fox, I guess those on the right can discount CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc.

I said they distorted and exaggerated, not that any of their information was incorrect. I used the first point as a example of them saying how the tax on prosthetic limbs was going to cost jobs/research in that area. It's hogwash, and it's simply not the case as noted from the articles I posted.


Isn't the WaPo more conservative leaning? Also, if you think all those media outlets are left leaning then you have no idea what unbiased or neutral is. I had this right winger (a friend at that) tell me that the BBC news was not only liberal, but also anti-american.

Just because they (media) point out Fox's slants and trashy news, doesn't mean they are liberal. It means they are setting the record straight.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Isn't the WaPo more conservative leaning? Also, if you think all those media outlets are left leaning then you have no idea what unbiased or neutral is. I had this right winger (a friend at that) tell me that the BBC news was not only liberal, but also anti-american.

WaPo is just as left as the NY Times. Wash Times is conservative leaning.

Just because they (media) point out Fox's slants and trashy news, doesn't mean they are liberal. It means they are setting the record straight.

Depends on perspective, you & 12th would consider Fox "slanted and trashy", me and those who are conservative would consider CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc. "slanted and trashy".

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income. The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.

.

...we are allowed but how many hit it?Point is if it 7.5 or 10% I haven't hit it or would have hit it in the last 10 years,THIS WILL NOT EFFECT ME.I am a pre retirment senior,these numbers are thrown out but in reality ....noone knows.If I or the Mrs get sick (God forbid) then yes I might have a higher % to hit but the bill would be smaller and that is what all the anti Obama chicken littles are afraid of that Joe Public will find out.