or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What an American Medical Device Co's CEO thinks of Obamacare
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What an American Medical Device Co's CEO thinks of Obamacare

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jun/06/medical-devices-tax-hinders-innovation/?page=2#article

 

 

This is an excellent article detailing exactly what kind of damage Obamacare is doing to our healthcare industry and economic recovery.  Interestingly, it's written by a lifelong friend of my uncle!

I actually looked into one of this company's products when I had my last back surgery, though fortunately I didn't need that much help.  In any case, here are some quotes...

 

 

 

Quote:
As the chairman and CEO of NuVasive, a medical device company based in San Diego, I want to share serious concerns I have about certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka Obamacare) and explain how it is destroying jobs, hindering innovation and slowing the economic recovery.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

The law places a new 2.3 percent tax on revenue – not on profit, but on revenue – generated by medical device companies. NuVasive is a profitable company, but we estimate this tax will force us to pay a tax rate on profits of approximately 60 percent next year. 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

I am also sad to say that as a result of the law, for the first time in our history we are being compelled to consider moving manufacturing, clinical trials and investment in new innovation to more business-friendly countries.

This is not something we want to do. Indeed, we are eager to avoid it.

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jun/06/medical-devices-tax-hinders-innovation/?page=2#article

 

 

This is an excellent article detailing exactly what kind of damage Obamacare is doing to our healthcare industry and economic recovery.  Interestingly, it's written by a lifelong friend of my uncle!

I actually looked into one of this company's products when I had my last back surgery, though fortunately I didn't need that much help.  In any case, here are some quotes...

 

 

I'm no fan of ObamaCare® either... especially knowing where it came from: very similar to Romney Care, with the original content straight from the Heritage Foundation -  one of America's extreme right wing think tanks. Socialism for sure, but the corporate welfare variety, where the beneficiaries are the parasites which get between doctor and patient, providing precisely nothing towards the wellness of the patient, except a hugely inflated bill.

 

 

In 2006, the Heritage Foundation said this about RomneyCare -  “…one that’s clearly consistent with conservative values.” And:  “Those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney’s plan as one of the most promising strategies out there.”

 

Once again, the Faux Socialist Obama taking his cues from his corporate masters, while abandoning the doe-eyed suckers who voted for him.

 

 

But wait... there's more: That pesky "socialist" took his cues from Big Pharma as well!!


Edited by sammi jo - 6/9/12 at 11:14am
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #3 of 13

It is disgusting how you and the other winner constantly tear down what Obama tried to do in this Obama Care Program he started. It helps women and other people and seniors to take advantage of this program in as where we had nothing we all be in lousy shape.Romney had a similar program in his home state and no0w when Obama recreated it suddenly it stinks.

post #4 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

I'm no fan of ObamaCare® either... especially knowing where it came from: very similar to Romney Care, with the original content straight from the Heritage Foundation -  one of America's extreme right wing think tanks. Socialism for sure, but the corporate welfare variety, where the beneficiaries are the parasites which get between doctor and patient, providing precisely nothing towards the wellness of the patient, except a hugely inflated bill.

 

 

In 2006, the Heritage Foundation said this about RomneyCare -  “…one that’s clearly consistent with conservative values.” And:  “Those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney’s plan as one of the most promising strategies out there.”

 

Once again, the Faux Socialist Obama taking his cues from his corporate masters, while abandoning the doe-eyed suckers who voted for him.

 

 

But wait... there's more: That pesky "socialist" took his cues from Big Pharma as well!!

 

 

Romeycare is not Obamacare.  It's got some similarities, of course.  But it's a totally different thing.  First, it's at the state level, which is perfectly constitutional.  Secondly, it's not a 2,700 page $2 Trillion takeover of the system.   

 

It's clear that you are avoiding the issue her by attempting to paint Romneycare and Obamacare as being virtually the same.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #5 of 13

That's weird to tax medical device companies on revenue, not through usual methods. If there were a tax for healthcare that should be a levy of a few percent on top of taxes currently paid. Eg. company tax 30% can be 32%, income tax could have 1.5% on top of your usual income. 

 

I understand Americans' frustration with federal government, it's like when I was in Malaysia and people see federal government as at best a pain in the ass, at worse, totally useless.

 

Trust and faith in the system in the US may be approaching that in Asian countries.

 

There are some troubling signs. 

 

Personally, I think Obama has tried to fix things as he came into office. However, as Einstein said,

"We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

post #6 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

I'm no fan of ObamaCare® either... especially knowing where it came from: very similar to Romney Care, with the original content straight from the Heritage Foundation -  one of America's extreme right wing think tanks. Socialism for sure, but the corporate welfare variety, where the beneficiaries are the parasites which get between doctor and patient, providing precisely nothing towards the wellness of the patient, except a hugely inflated bill.

 

 

 

This is because the US government is more and more (or for a long time already?) essentially a government run for the corporations with the heaviest "weight", ie. big oil, military-industrial, Wall Street and big medical. 

post #7 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

Romeycare is not Obamacare.  It's got some similarities, of course.  But it's a totally different thing.  First, it's at the state level, which is perfectly constitutional.  Secondly, it's not a 2,700 page $2 Trillion takeover of the system.   

 

It's clear that you are avoiding the issue her by attempting to paint Romneycare and Obamacare as being virtually the same.  

 

Of course there are differences in the cost - the Romney version applied to Massachusetts only, Obamacare is for/against the whole country. But to repeat, the Heritage Foundation had a large part to play in both plans. If Obama was the "socialist" that so many people claim, then it is quite remarkable that he took his cues from the hard right. And to echo that, if Obama was the "socialist" that so many claim, why was his cabinet drawn almost exclusively from Wall Street and the financial sector?

 

Some of the similarities and differences between Romneycare and Obamacare listed here:

 

 

• Individual mandate to buy health insurance. Everyone in Massachusetts must purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty; the same goes for the Senate plan, though the penalty structures vary between the two.

 

• Employer responsibilities for offering health insurance. Companies with more than 10 employees in Massachusetts need to offer health insurance or else pay a penalty. The Senate bill sets the bar for companies at 50 employees, though technically the bill falls short of a mandate.

 

• Health insurance exchanges. Both the Massachusetts and U.S. Senate plans involve the use of voluntary "exchanges" that individuals and small businesses can use to purchase private-sector health insurance. These exchanges are designed to offer a range of plans with different benefits and premium levels.

 

• Affordability subsidies. Under both plans, lower-income individuals and families can receive government subsidies to help them pay their health insurance premiums. In the Massachusetts plan, subsidies are allotted on a sliding scale up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Under the U.S. Senate plan, the sliding-scale subsidies go up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

 

• Expansion of Medicaid. The Massachusetts plan expands Medicaid to all children up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The U.S. Senate plan also expands Medicaid, but in a different fashion, offering it to all individuals (not just children) up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

 

• Insurance market regulation. Both plans restructure the insurance market, in similar but slightly different ways. In Massachusetts, the reform bill merged the individual and small-group markets (that is, it merged the market serving individuals not covered by their employer's plan with the market serving smaller employers). The U.S. Senate bill placed new regulations on those two markets but kept them separate. In Massachusetts, dependents up to age 25 can be covered on their parents' plan, while the U.S. Senate bill allows such dependent coverage up to age 26. And young adults in Massachusetts from age 19 to 26 can purchase a special lower-cost, lower-benefit plan through the exchange; the U.S. Senate bill creates a category of lower-cost, lower-benefit plan in the exchange for those up to age 30 who cannot find affordable coverage.

 

• Limits on the ratio between the highest and lowest premiums. In Massachusetts, the highest premiums can generally only be twice as high as the lowest premiums. The only factors that can be used to vary premiums are age, tobacco use, geographic area, the nature of the employee's industry, an unusually low participation rate (for group plans) and participation in a wellness plan. The U.S. Senate bill allows premiums in the individual and small-group market and on the exchange to vary based only on age (limited to a 3-to-1 ratio), geographic area, family composition and tobacco use (limited to 1.5 -to-1 ratio). Wellness programs do not factor into ratings variations under the Senate bill, but the bill does provide other incentives for such plans.

 

The bills differ more noticeably in several other areas.

 

• Cost containment. Critics of the Massachusetts plan have taken it to task for its lack of cost-containment provisions. The U.S. Senate bill makes changes to Medicare that are intended to lower program costs, such as restructuring how payments are made to Medicare Advantage plans -- the HMO option under Medicare. Since Medicare is a federal program, the Massachusetts plan does not address this issue. The U.S. Senate bill also authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic versions of certain drugs. This, too, is a federal rather than a state responsibility.

 

• Financing. Both the Massachusetts plan and the Senate bill are financed in part by revenue generated from the individual and employer mandates. But the Massachusetts plan's financing is heavily dependent on leveraging federal matching funds, while the Senate bill, in addition to cost savings from Medicare, imposes taxes on drugmakers, device manufacturers, health insurers and indoor tanning services. It also taxes high-cost ("Cadillac") health care plans. The Massachusetts plan does not do any of these things.

 

"The Senate probably has more cost containment," said John Holahan, a health expert at the Urban Institute who has studied the Massachusetts plan extensively. "And the financing is different. But the structure is the same."

 

So it seems that there's broad agreement that, despite some operational differences, the broad structure of the Massachusetts health care plan is quite similar to that in the U.S. Senate bill -- certainly more similar than either one is to, say, a single-payer health care plan or even to the current system.

 

(Paul) Krugman's comparison of the two plans is Mostly True.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #8 of 13

Here is what the gist of the problem is when bringing up Romneycare and Obamacare comparisons, we don't need the federal government to handle health care for the entire country. Even if Romneycare were the most incredibly expensive and damaging screw up a person could ever imagine, it is confined to Massachusettes and one of our other 49 laboratories can provide an alternative answer for them to look at instead.

 

The whole point about the appropriate role and level of government means certain things should just never be federalized. Once they are federalized there can be only one answer and one choice. Romney in no form or fashion is seeking to federalize health care delivery. Obama is quite the opposite. We can't ask what Obama would do at the state level because his thin resume consists of organizing the community, voting present and now trashing the country for almost four years.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #9 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

It is disgusting how you and the other winner constantly tear down what Obama tried to do in this Obama Care Program he started. It helps women and other people and seniors to take advantage of this program in as where we had nothing we all be in lousy shape.Romney had a similar program in his home state and no0w when Obama recreated it suddenly it stinks. The small mental capacity of the Conservative.
 

I think there were some cute puppies and a couple of kittens that were helped too. Why to the republicans continue their war on puppies and kittens!

post #10 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

Of course there are differences in the cost - the Romney version applied to Massachusetts only, Obamacare is for/against the whole country. But to repeat, the Heritage Foundation had a large part to play in both plans. If Obama was the "socialist" that so many people claim, then it is quite remarkable that he took his cues from the hard right. And to echo that, if Obama was the "socialist" that so many claim, why was his cabinet drawn almost exclusively from Wall Street and the financial sector?

 

Some of the similarities and differences between Romneycare and Obamacare listed here:

 

 

• Individual mandate to buy health insurance. Everyone in Massachusetts must purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty; the same goes for the Senate plan, though the penalty structures vary between the two.

 

• Employer responsibilities for offering health insurance. Companies with more than 10 employees in Massachusetts need to offer health insurance or else pay a penalty. The Senate bill sets the bar for companies at 50 employees, though technically the bill falls short of a mandate.

 

• Health insurance exchanges. Both the Massachusetts and U.S. Senate plans involve the use of voluntary "exchanges" that individuals and small businesses can use to purchase private-sector health insurance. These exchanges are designed to offer a range of plans with different benefits and premium levels.

 

• Affordability subsidies. Under both plans, lower-income individuals and families can receive government subsidies to help them pay their health insurance premiums. In the Massachusetts plan, subsidies are allotted on a sliding scale up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Under the U.S. Senate plan, the sliding-scale subsidies go up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

 

• Expansion of Medicaid. The Massachusetts plan expands Medicaid to all children up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The U.S. Senate plan also expands Medicaid, but in a different fashion, offering it to all individuals (not just children) up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

 

• Insurance market regulation. Both plans restructure the insurance market, in similar but slightly different ways. In Massachusetts, the reform bill merged the individual and small-group markets (that is, it merged the market serving individuals not covered by their employer's plan with the market serving smaller employers). The U.S. Senate bill placed new regulations on those two markets but kept them separate. In Massachusetts, dependents up to age 25 can be covered on their parents' plan, while the U.S. Senate bill allows such dependent coverage up to age 26. And young adults in Massachusetts from age 19 to 26 can purchase a special lower-cost, lower-benefit plan through the exchange; the U.S. Senate bill creates a category of lower-cost, lower-benefit plan in the exchange for those up to age 30 who cannot find affordable coverage.

 

• Limits on the ratio between the highest and lowest premiums. In Massachusetts, the highest premiums can generally only be twice as high as the lowest premiums. The only factors that can be used to vary premiums are age, tobacco use, geographic area, the nature of the employee's industry, an unusually low participation rate (for group plans) and participation in a wellness plan. The U.S. Senate bill allows premiums in the individual and small-group market and on the exchange to vary based only on age (limited to a 3-to-1 ratio), geographic area, family composition and tobacco use (limited to 1.5 -to-1 ratio). Wellness programs do not factor into ratings variations under the Senate bill, but the bill does provide other incentives for such plans.

 

The bills differ more noticeably in several other areas.

 

• Cost containment. Critics of the Massachusetts plan have taken it to task for its lack of cost-containment provisions. The U.S. Senate bill makes changes to Medicare that are intended to lower program costs, such as restructuring how payments are made to Medicare Advantage plans -- the HMO option under Medicare. Since Medicare is a federal program, the Massachusetts plan does not address this issue. The U.S. Senate bill also authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic versions of certain drugs. This, too, is a federal rather than a state responsibility.

 

• Financing. Both the Massachusetts plan and the Senate bill are financed in part by revenue generated from the individual and employer mandates. But the Massachusetts plan's financing is heavily dependent on leveraging federal matching funds, while the Senate bill, in addition to cost savings from Medicare, imposes taxes on drugmakers, device manufacturers, health insurers and indoor tanning services. It also taxes high-cost ("Cadillac") health care plans. The Massachusetts plan does not do any of these things.

 

"The Senate probably has more cost containment," said John Holahan, a health expert at the Urban Institute who has studied the Massachusetts plan extensively. "And the financing is different. But the structure is the same."

 

So it seems that there's broad agreement that, despite some operational differences, the broad structure of the Massachusetts health care plan is quite similar to that in the U.S. Senate bill -- certainly more similar than either one is to, say, a single-payer health care plan or even to the current system.

 

(Paul) Krugman's comparison of the two plans is Mostly True.

 

We're not going to agree here.  It's moot anyway, because Romney does not want such a program nationally.  

 

(enter Youtube videos you claim prove he does). 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #11 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

We're not going to agree here.  It's moot anyway, because Romney does not want such a program nationally.  

 

(enter Youtube videos you claim prove he does). 

 

If all the 50 States took up a similar plan - individually  (ie not federalized), would this be a better bet, as far as conservatives are concerned? What, in your estimation, would be the overall difference between the two scenarios, when it comes down to the "patient in the street", as regards cost and accessibility of healthcare? 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #12 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

If all the 50 States took up a similar plan - individually  (ie not federalized), would this be a better bet, as far as conservatives are concerned? What, in your estimation, would be the overall difference between the two scenarios, when it comes down to the "patient in the street", as regards cost and accessibility of healthcare? 

 

I think the point it two-fold:

 

1. This is not something that is within the enumerated powers of the federal government but would be permissible for state governments. Whether that would make it a good and effective thing is a different matter.

 

2. By allowing things like this to operate at the state level it allows much greater degree of experimentation and tuning of policies closer to the people it affects. In a sense it create a form of competition. Now the ultimate form is to get the governments out of it altogether and push choices down to individuals.

 

Ultimately one of the best things the federal government could do here is to invoke the commerce clause to disallow state-level bans on interstate insurance contracts.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #13 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I think the point it two-fold:

 

1. This is not something that is within the enumerated powers of the federal government but would be permissible for state governments. Whether that would make it a good and effective thing is a different matter.

 

2. By allowing things like this to operate at the state level it allows much greater degree of experimentation and tuning of policies closer to the people it affects. In a sense it create a form of competition. Now the ultimate form is to get the governments out of it altogether and push choices down to individuals.

 

Ultimately one of the best things the federal government could do here is to invoke the commerce clause to disallow state-level bans on interstate insurance contracts.

 

Exactly.  I don't know that the effect would be, but at least it would be legal.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What an American Medical Device Co's CEO thinks of Obamacare