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"
Nice try....the sky is falling.....you did not explain how that relates to expenses for a patient
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.
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.
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...
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
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
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?
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...
This is precious, it's all covered, it's all free......fiddledeedee. Life if free. :monkeyCPwill...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....
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?