Healthcare Video

[JustRalph]

d7tdvr0FD5I

[witchdoctor]

I still haven't figured out how taxing medical device manufacturers will lower the cost of medical care. I guess the companies won't pass the extra cost off to consumers.

[highnote]

I still haven't figured out how taxing medical device manufacturers will lower the cost of medical care. I guess the companies won't pass the extra cost off to consumers.


I agree. Now if my understanding of economics is correct, then I would think taxes on medical devices would have a negative effect on demand for the product, which in turn would hurt sales of the product, which means less revenue for the company, which means smaller salaries for the employees, which means less spending by the employees, which means less demand for consumer goods, which means lower Gross Domestic Production, which means lower tax revenues for the gov, which means the gov will print more money to stimulate the economy, which will drive up demand, but also prices, which will cause inflation, which means money will be worth less, which means the price of gold will go even higher.

On the other hand, if the gov would cut taxes on medical devices it would increase demand, which would boost sales of the company, which would result in increased taxes for the gov and increased salaries for the employees which would lead to increased spending and an increase in GDP, which would increase tax revenue for the gov, which would lead to increased spending by the gov on infrastructure and social programs which would require hiring more people who would spend more and be taxed and an increase in GDP as manufacturers strive to meet demand, etc etc etc.

So while taxes may be necessary it is important to tax the correct items in optimal amounts.

[skate]

Welp, looks like the problem is in the High Cost of HC.

But where do they address the high cost?

Why is the cost too high? Mainly, State restrictions, litigation and free (to those not paying) care.


And and and man what a joke, they start collecting right away when (if) the bill passes, but the real problems (paying for the care) does not start until 2014, after BtheO is gone.

Yet , they claim, this bill is so important for those
in need Now.
Does this mean, i'll have to wait 4 years to have my tooth pulled?

[boxcar]

Welp, looks like the problem is in the High Cost of HC.

But where do they address the high cost?

Why is the cost too high? Mainly, State restrictions, litigation and free (to those not paying) care.


And and and man what a joke, they start collecting right away when (if) the bill passes, but the real problems (paying for the care) does not start until 2014, after BtheO is gone.

Yet , they claim, this bill is so important for those
in need Now.
Does this mean, i'll have to wait 4 years to have my tooth pulled?

If you're right about the long wait, imagine the outcry there would be if a company in the private sector insisted that you pay premiums for 4 years before being entitled to any benefits. In essence, this amounts to a tax increase on everyone!

Isn't it utterly amazing what crooked, thieving governments can get away with!? Yet, if this was done in the private sector, people's heads would be rolling and they'd be sent up the river with no return trip privileges. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

Why is the cost too high? Mainly, State restrictions, litigation and free (to those not paying) care.

BINGO!!!

And the dems do not address any of these.

[boxcar]

BINGO!!!

And the dems do not address any of these.

Nor will they because this "health care" reform bill is not really about health care. Thinking people know this. Only the naive don't.

Boxcar

[skate]

I've not yet read the bill, but i've heard from different sources "benifits do not start until 2014". Taxes go into effect, the year the bill (?) passes.

What does not make sense to me, why wouldn't others, make this a bigger issue?

The others are most likely being paid off also.

[highnote]

Proponents of tort reform say caps on liability will lower costs. That's probably true, but would justice be served or would this make acts of negligence more likely because the negligent party would have reduced incentive to practice good medicine?

For example, I thought about tort reform while I read this article in Time Magazine about Scientology:

See page five:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865-1,00.html

On page five the article describes Scientology in the medical profession. One dentist is under investigation in California for incompetence.

If a doctor is a Scientologist and he/she harms someone under the guidance of Scientology why should there be a cap on what the doctor or Scientology should pay to a victim?

CONSULTING. Sterling Management Systems, formed in 1983, has been ranked in recent years by Inc. magazine as one of America's fastest-growing private companies (estimated 1988 revenues: $20 million). Sterling regularly mails a free newsletter to more than 300,000 health-care professionals, mostly dentists, promising to increase their incomes dramatically. The firm offers seminars and courses that typically cost $10,000. But Sterling's true aim is to hook customers for Scientology. "The church has a rotten product, so they package it as something else," says Peter Georgiades, a Pittsburgh attorney who represents Sterling victims. "It's a kind of bait and switch." Sterling's founder, dentist Gregory Hughes, is now under investigation by California's Board of Dental Examiners for incompetence. Nine lawsuits are pending against him for malpractice (seven others have been settled), mostly for orthodontic work on children.


Many dentists who have unwittingly been drawn into the cult are filing or threatening lawsuits as well. Dentist Robert Geary of Medina, Ohio, who entered a Sterling seminar in 1988, endured "the most extreme high-pressure sales tactics I have ever faced." Sterling officials told Geary, 45, that their firm was not linked to Scientology, he says. But Geary claims they eventually convinced him that he and his wife Dorothy had personal problems that required auditing. Over five months, the Gearys say, they spent $130,000 for services, plus $50,000 for "gold-embossed, investment-grade" books signed by Hubbard. Geary contends that Scientologists not only called his bank to increase his credit-card limit but also forged his signature on a $20,000 loan application. "It was insane," he recalls. "I couldn't even get an accounting from them of what I was paying for." At one point, the Gearys claim, Scientologists held Dorothy hostage for two weeks in a mountain cabin, after which she was hospitalized for a nervous breakdown.

Last October, Sterling broke some bad news to another dentist, Glover Rowe of Gadsden, Ala., and his wife Dee. Tests showed that unless they signed up for auditing, Glover's practice would fail, and Dee would someday abuse their child. The next month the Rowes flew to Glendale, Calif., where they shuttled daily from a local hotel to a Dianetics center. "We thought they were brilliant people because they seemed to know so much about us," recalls Dee. "Then we realized our hotel room must have been bugged." After bolting from the center, $23,000 poorer, the Rowes say, they were chased repeatedly by Scientologists on foot and in cars. Dentists aren't the only ones at risk. Scientology also makes pitches to chiropractors, podiatrists and veterinarians.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865-5,00.html#ixzz0YIGOICI9

[skate]

tort reform...

I'm thinking, the cost to the doctor for insurance, i really have no idea, but i've heard figures from $30,000 to $500,000/year.

i think we could cut the cost in half.

Lines would be drawn and your example (Sterling Systems) would be a nice place to start.
I'd give them (jail time) 25 years.

Most of the money goes to lawyer.

It has really gotten to a joke.
I received a check for $27.00, some law suit, i have no idea what it was about.

Another joke, i got a check for .13, millions were involved, where did the money go?