• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamacare to hit sick children, wounded vets

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,613
Reaction score
33,489
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
yet more of the wonderful, wonderful things given to us by a 2,000 page monstrosity which no one read and which no one yet fully understands.

say it with me: Congress. Does. Not. Do. Comprehensive. Well.

Everyone agrees that the burden of dealing with escalating health-care costs should not fall on the most vulnerable, right? Democrats in particular are always at pains to convince us that they are sensitive to the needs of the less fortunate. Yet among the many new taxes Obamacare will impose is one that hits wounded veterans and sick children especially hard — the 2.3 percent annual tax on medical-device manufacturers set to begin in 2013.

All of those fantastic prosthetic limbs, powered wheelchairs, stents, pacemakers, artificial hips, and other miraculous technologies that improve the lives of maimed soldiers will now be more expensive. Some estimates suggest that the tax will siphon off 17 percent of profits for the industry. As Ed Morrissey reported last May, Massachusetts medical-device companies have already begun to plan layoffs to cope with the new tax. According to the Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council, “about 90 percent of the 100 medical-device firms said they would reduce costs due to the new tax tucked into the recently passed health-care reform bill.”

Almost certainly, this will mean reductions in research and development. As the maxim goes: If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, subsidize it. By taxing medical devices, Obamacare has probably postponed the day my 17-year-old, Type I–diabetic son is most looking forward to: the invention and marketing of an artificial pancreas...

Short of a cure, the great hope of Type I diabetics everywhere is the artificial pancreas. The insulin pump (or an improved model that can dispense glucagon as well as insulin) is half of the equation. The other half is the CGM, or continuous glucose monitor. The CGM measures blood sugar using a catheter under the skin, and has been available only since 2007. CGM is in its early stages and requires more work before it can completely supplant finger sticks (because it measures glucose in interstitial fluid, there is a lag time of up to 15 minutes). But the holy grail will be an integrated system consisting of a pump and CGM that talk to each other — amounting to an artificial pancreas. Such a system, while not without nuisance and discomfort, would solve two huge problems: (1) It would significantly reduce the danger of sudden death from extremely low blood sugar by warning the user about plunging glucose levels, and (2) it would reduce the incidence of diabetes complications — like blindness, heart disease, and amputations — to near zero for conscientious users.

But the three million Americans with Type I, including nearly 180,000 under the age of 20, will have to wait.

We have ensured, through Obamacare, that we will get less research and development of medical devices. We have also guaranteed that medical spending will increase dramatically. In Massachusetts, which passed a similar “reform” in 2006, health spending has increased by 8 to 10 percent per year, and is now double the national average...
 

Big

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
8
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Nice try....the sky is falling.....you did not explain how that relates to expenses for a patient....if everyone is 'insured' under the plan.....then either the insurance companies, Medi's or the VA would be paying the tax...wow a .023 federal excise is not going to shut down entire manufacturers....why would they not just add it to the cost like the rest of the taxes....

Thanks for wasting 3 minutes of my life reading that crap...
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Two quick questions:

1) How does a 2.5% tax translate into a 17% loss in profits?
2) How will it increase costs for soldiers when the government covers that cost to begin with?


Here's what makes no sense about Cp's arguments, not just here but anywhere for that matter, he opposes taxes in all forms AND opposes deficit spending. Yet he still expects Congress to make laws and spend money.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nice try....the sky is falling.....you did not explain how that relates to expenses for a patient....if everyone is 'insured' under the plan.....then either the insurance companies, Medi's or the VA would be paying the tax...wow a .023 federal excise is not going to shut down entire manufacturers....why would they not just add it to the cost like the rest of the taxes....

Thanks for wasting 3 minutes of my life reading that crap...

Maybe should have wasted time reading the bill before it was passed.
What he says is true. It's going to be costlier for everyone. It's a job killer and the health care we will get, will not be as good as before.
It was SO stupid of them to say in one breath "health care costs will come down" and the next breath "by the way, we are taxing medical devises"
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Maybe should have wasted time reading the bill before it was passed.
What he says is true. It's going to be costlier for everyone. It's a job killer and the health care we will get, will not be as good as before.
It was SO stupid of them to say in one breath "health care costs will come down" and the next breath "by the way, we are taxing medical devises"

All medical devices are part of health care costs, but not all health care costs are medical devices. The two statements aren't contradicting by themselves.

Since healthcare costs include just about everything, and medical devices are only a part of that overall cost, its increase(if there is an increase) could be off set by deductions in other areas.

Not that I'm defending the healthcare law, I'm not a fan of it either, but you're arguement has holes like swiss cheese.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,613
Reaction score
33,489
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nice try....the sky is falling.....you did not explain how that relates to expenses for a patient

oh, i'm sorry, i thought it was blindingly obvious.

when you increase the cost of producing something, the price of that something goes up and the people involved in producing it become less likely to do so.

:)

tune in later and i will be explaining how if you add 2 and 2, the result is larger than 3.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,613
Reaction score
33,489
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
1) How does a 2.5% tax translate into a 17% loss in profits?

figured statically, it would mean that their profit margin is around 14%; but i find it rather difficult to imagine it's that simplistic.

2) How will it increase costs for soldiers when the government covers that cost to begin with?

:) the government (this may shock you) does not always buy the best for it's military; much of what we use is selected more with an eye towards the lower bidder.

Here's what makes no sense about Cp's arguments, not just here but anywhere for that matter, he opposes taxes in all forms AND opposes deficit spending. Yet he still expects Congress to make laws and spend money.

i don't oppose taxes in all forms. given my choice, i'd rather see us move to the FairTax. moving to compromise, i think that the Debt Reduction Commission's idea to close the vast majority of tax credits and loopholes is a good one.

and there are two sides to deficit spending; there is the revenue, and the expenditures.

now; revenues tend to hover at around 18-19% of GDP irrespective of what the top rates are.

wsj-tax-revenue-chart-ed-ah556b_ranso_20080519194014.gif


assuming you aren't in the middle of a market crash who's recovery has been stalled by foolish government intervention (ie: us right now), you are going to get about 18-19% of GDP in tax revenue. if you want to get rid of deficit spending, therefore, you have to get federal expenditures UNDER 18% of GDP.

it's not a revenue problem. it's a spending problem.

here's a fun little exercise that demonstrates (though it, too, scores statically) how to go about such a thing.

I eliminated farm subsidies, cut foriegn aid, cut federal pay, cut the federal workforce, cut contractors, cut earmarks, cut discretionary funding, cut aid to the states, reduced the military to pre-Iraq size (we don't need a bigger land force, we need a deadlier better utilized land force), canceled the F-35 and Osprey, reduced noncombat compensation and overhead, enacted malpractice reform, raised medicare and social security ages to 70, capped medicare growth, reduced the employer health insurance tax benefit, reduced SS for the rich, and tightened SS growth and eligability. I didn't raise any of the tax rates, but I did go with the Bowles-Simpson plan which (since it reduces loopholes) increases revenues despite the fact that it lowers rates, and i reduced the mortgage interest credit. and hooray! i have a surplus by 2015!
 

Big

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
8
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
In fact I have read most of both of them....and your claim

"What he says is true. It's going to be costlier for everyone. It's a job killer and the health care we will get, will not be as good as before.
It was SO stupid of them to say in one breath "health care costs will come down" and the next breath "by the way, we are taxing medical devises"

is not in the Bill...you should read the Bill and understand how the costs are coming down...if you would like to continue this debate I will gladly explain the mechanics of the cost savings...
 

Big

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
8
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
CPwill...That makes about as much sense as Best Buy not opening a store within a city limit because of additional 'city tax'....the price is the price....the tax is the tax....if everyone is covered their insurance will be paying it...if you don't like HC that is one thing..if you are trying to find something to pick apart the Bill your argument is weak...

If you truly want to debate the Bill...Big Daddy is here to school you....
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
oh, i'm sorry, i thought it was blindingly obvious.

when you increase the cost of producing something, the price of that something goes up and the people involved in producing it become less likely to do so.

:)

tune in later and i will be explaining how if you add 2 and 2, the result is larger than 3.

They won't stop producing it. Like much from NRO, this is more scare than anything else.
 

Big

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
8
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cp...

it's nice to cut some of the programs you listed...i have not checked your math...but I disagree with your statement that

"it's not a revenue problem. it's a spending problem."

we are in a 'Trade Deficit' as well...I don't see you correcting that variable here either....we need to increase manufacturing/exports to increase GDP....yes pull back some spending, but increase GDP will increase 'your' 18% revenue(i disagree with 18%)....and we will overcome the deficit...



Clinton left a budget surplus....Bush decided the surplus meant the government had too much of the tax payers money...so he baited everyone with a 600 stimulus check and lowered cap gains down to 15% (that was the real reason)....the country has never been the same since...we would be out of debt right now if Clintons plan was followed...no...now we have 2 wars...and a recession....what does the GOP do...'nothing'
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,613
Reaction score
33,489
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In fact I have read most of both of them....and your claim

"What he says is true. It's going to be costlier for everyone. It's a job killer and the health care we will get, will not be as good as before.
It was SO stupid of them to say in one breath "health care costs will come down" and the next breath "by the way, we are taxing medical devises"

is not in the Bill...you should read the Bill and understand how the costs are coming down...if you would like to continue this debate I will gladly explain the mechanics of the cost savings...

Given that the CBO has announced that this is going to bend the cost-curve up; i would love to see how Obamacare, which makes our current problems in health insurance worse, actually magically manages to bring price down.

taxing medical devices is in the bill. along with that stupid filing on everything over $600, the mythical cuts to Medicare, and the tax on tanning booths; it's how they claimed (or, in laymans' terms: "Lied") to not be massively increasing the deficit.

along with 6 years of benefits matched to 10 years of taxation. mighty nice trick, that; too bad dimensional reality doesn't allow us to extend that beyond the 10-year horizon.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,613
Reaction score
33,489
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
it's nice to cut some of the programs you listed...i have not checked your math...but I disagree with your statement that

"it's not a revenue problem. it's a spending problem."

then you need to demonstrate how revenue has fallen so massively short over such a long period of time. in fact, revenue historically has (with the exception of the last couple of years) exceeded anticipations; yet still the deficits grow.

if you sit down with your spouse and devise a monthly budget based on your monthly income; and your spouse goes out and purchases an extra 15,000 worth of entertainment system on the credit card; then the problem isn't that you didn't magically get a 15K bonus this month, the problem is your spouse is spending too much.

we are in a 'Trade Deficit' as well

no, we don't. currently, for example, we are trading little pieces of green paper in return for consumer goods.

I don't see you correcting that variable here either

i don't see how it needs to be corrected; but if you wanted to increase exports, then the best answer to that solution is probably to get rid of the embedded taxes in the price of our goods; which currently compete at a disadvantage to goods which stem from nations that engage in consumption taxes. shift to a consumption tax system such as the Fair Tax and you'll see a boom in American exports of goods.

we need to increase manufacturing/exports to increase GDP

America is currently the largest manufacturer in the world. rumors of us ceasing to be a manufacturing nation are far exagerated.

that being said, there is nothing more problematic about moving from a manufacturing to a service economy than there was about moving from an agricultural to a manufacturing one a century ago. you might as well complain that "Americans don't grow stuff anymore" as "Americans don't make stuff anymore".

yes pull back some spending, but increase GDP will increase 'your' 18% revenue(i disagree with 18%)....and we will overcome the deficit...

18% isn't what i want Federal Spending to be (i would prefer much lower), it is simply the highest level that we can have while giving ourselves a good chance of not running a deficit. as demonstrated earlier, revenues are going to equal between 18 and 19% of GDP irrespective of tax rates. if spending is more than that, then we are going to go further into debt.

reducing the Government scope and size is also part of growing that economy so that 18% of GDP will help us pay down our debt.

Clinton left a budget surplus

no, he didn't. the Federal Debt went up every year that Clinton was in office. when he claimed to be running a "surplus", that's because he chose not to count huge amounts of governmental debt. take, for example, intragovernmental debt, such as that issued to the Social Security Trust Fund, which purchased bonds. now, these are treasury bonds, they Government is on the hook for them, they are debt that the government owes. but because the government owes it to retirees dependent on social seurity, it - for some reason - 'didn't count'. what DID count, however, was the funds received from the surplus of payroll taxes; those counted as "revenue" for the Federal Government.

Bush decided the surplus meant the government had too much of the tax payers money...so he baited everyone with a 600 stimulus check and lowered cap gains down to 15%

yeah, the tax credit was a dumb idea; lowering the tax rate was good one. significantly, it helped us recover from the crash of the tech bubble.

mind you, i'm not about to give Bush good marks when it comes to fiscal policy. but lowering capital gains tax rates was as good an idea for him as it was for Clinton, as it was for Kennedy, and as it was for Coolidge.

(that was the real reason)....the country has never been the same since...we would be out of debt right now if Clintons plan was followed

this would be the Clinton plan that assumed no tech bubble, no 9/11 attack, no war on terror, continued 3.5-4% growth, and that Social Security didn't exist as anything except a magical source of never-ending revenue?
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,613
Reaction score
33,489
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
They won't stop producing it. Like much from NRO, this is more scare than anything else.

the old adage is true: if you want less of something, tax it.

but then, it's a typical ad sourcinem from you :) :coffeepap
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
the old adage is true: if you want less of something, tax it.

but then, it's a typical ad sourcinem from you :) :coffeepap

Well, when you can't produce an argument, use a platitude. ;)

But the problems with what NRO is noted well above. You use sources that are less than accurate and honest. That's not my fault. That's your problem. But don't expect people to accept flawed argument as if they are the gospel. If you want a better response, use something that presents a valid argument, and actually reasons something out well.

:coffeepap
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,613
Reaction score
33,489
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, when you can't produce an argument, use a platitude

and steal your style? how rude would I be to take your signature response like that? :)
 

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,332
Reaction score
2,010
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
yet more of the wonderful, wonderful things given to us by a 2,000 page monstrosity which no one read and which no one yet fully understands.

say it with me: Congress. Does. Not. Do. Comprehensive. Well.

Everyone agrees that the burden of dealing with escalating health-care costs should not fall on the most vulnerable, right? Democrats in particular are always at pains to convince us that they are sensitive to the needs of the less fortunate. Yet among the many new taxes Obamacare will impose is one that hits wounded veterans and sick children especially hard — the 2.3 percent annual tax on medical-device manufacturers set to begin in 2013.

All of those fantastic prosthetic limbs, powered wheelchairs, stents, pacemakers, artificial hips, and other miraculous technologies that improve the lives of maimed soldiers will now be more expensive. Some estimates suggest that the tax will siphon off 17 percent of profits for the industry. As Ed Morrissey reported last May, Massachusetts medical-device companies have already begun to plan layoffs to cope with the new tax. According to the Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council, “about 90 percent of the 100 medical-device firms said they would reduce costs due to the new tax tucked into the recently passed health-care reform bill.”

Almost certainly, this will mean reductions in research and development. As the maxim goes: If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, subsidize it. By taxing medical devices, Obamacare has probably postponed the day my 17-year-old, Type I–diabetic son is most looking forward to: the invention and marketing of an artificial pancreas...

Short of a cure, the great hope of Type I diabetics everywhere is the artificial pancreas. The insulin pump (or an improved model that can dispense glucagon as well as insulin) is half of the equation. The other half is the CGM, or continuous glucose monitor. The CGM measures blood sugar using a catheter under the skin, and has been available only since 2007. CGM is in its early stages and requires more work before it can completely supplant finger sticks (because it measures glucose in interstitial fluid, there is a lag time of up to 15 minutes). But the holy grail will be an integrated system consisting of a pump and CGM that talk to each other — amounting to an artificial pancreas. Such a system, while not without nuisance and discomfort, would solve two huge problems: (1) It would significantly reduce the danger of sudden death from extremely low blood sugar by warning the user about plunging glucose levels, and (2) it would reduce the incidence of diabetes complications — like blindness, heart disease, and amputations — to near zero for conscientious users.

But the three million Americans with Type I, including nearly 180,000 under the age of 20, will have to wait.

We have ensured, through Obamacare, that we will get less research and development of medical devices. We have also guaranteed that medical spending will increase dramatically. In Massachusetts, which passed a similar “reform” in 2006, health spending has increased by 8 to 10 percent per year, and is now double the national average...

Hey CPwill where did you get this article?? :roll:
What reliable source did ya get this wonder nugget of information from? I Googled it and I didnt find a legit news source. national Review Online is a Republican website. So ANY information that comes out of there is not considered legit.
 
Last edited:

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Anything that is legit will be found on multiple sources, and not limited to only one ideaology.
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Go to the end of the article and you'll see a hyperlink Creators Syndicate, Inc. (or click on the one I just created) and you'll see she is a 'conservative opinion author' right along side of Pat Buchanan, Michelle Malkin, David Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, et. al.

Not to say you shouldn't read conservative opinion articles, but realize who and what you're reading.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,059
Reaction score
28,089
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
CPwill...That makes about as much sense as Best Buy not opening a store within a city limit because of additional 'city tax'....the price is the price....the tax is the tax....if everyone is covered their insurance will be paying it...if you don't like HC that is one thing..if you are trying to find something to pick apart the Bill your argument is weak...

If you truly want to debate the Bill...Big Daddy is here to school you....
This is precious, it's all covered, it's all free......fiddledeedee. Life if free. :monkey
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,613
Reaction score
33,489
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
what reliable source did ya get this wonder nugget of information from? I Googled it and I didnt find a legit news source. national Review Online is a Republican website. So ANY information that comes out of there is not considered legit.

:lamo

ad sourcinem much? cmon TGN: that kind of shallow psuedo intellectualism is Boo's weakness, let him keep it.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
:lamo

ad sourcinem much? cmon TGN: that kind of shallow psuedo intellectualism is Boo's weakness, let him keep it.

Like it or not, all sources are not created equal. And it is not a fallacy to properly note an inaccurate source. You seem to misunderstand that fallacy as well. You actually mean ad hominem, which includes attacking the source. And you will note:

But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question.

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

And I would include, those sources with a history of being factually inaccurate.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Other than finger pointing, what is the point of this thread? We all know that no one in congress read the new health care laws completely before passing it. This is partially due to it being incredibly overstuffed with pork, of course, and all of the amendments shoved in to pass it in the senate. I don't even know why we insist on calling it "Obamacare". He didn't write any of it, and it didn't end up looking anything like what he was pushing for. Obama supported comprehensive healthcare reform to ensure that every person would be covered. We didn't get that.

Nomenclature aside, if anyone wants to actually say, with any certainty, that the new law is good or bad, then it falls to you to read it. Become a truly informed citizen. I know it's on my reading list. Until then, stop speculating.
 
Top Bottom