Ooops! Shoulda read it first....

[Tom]

No one read the Obama care bill.
Now, the stupidity of it is becoming a reality.
As the right has said all along, it is a job killer.
Now, dems are beginning to understand.

"While Washington talks about a fiscal cliff, this tax could push us off an innovation cliff, costing as many as 43,000 jobs and hurting the ability of medical technology companies to find tomorrow's treatments and cures
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/dems-join-in-calling-for-delay-to-obamacare-medical-device-tax/#ixzz2EqcZFglr

[NJ Stinks]

No one read the Obama care bill.
Now, the stupidity of it is becoming a reality.
As the right has said all along, it is a job killer.
Now, dems are beginning to understand.




This must be some kind of a joke. This tax is no different than many other manufacturers excise taxes. How this tax will effect export sales of U.S. manufactured medical devices is beyond me because export sales can be sold tax-free. And if a foreign made medical device is imported into the U.S., it is taxed on arrival and the importer pays the tax.


If you want to actually learn something about this medical device law, read this:

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Medical-Device-Excise-Tax:-Frequently-Asked-Questions

[Tom]

it is taxed on arrival and the importer pays the tax.

No, the end customer pays it.
The manufacturers themselves are telling everyone they WILL be laying off people.

Perhaps you read too much crap and should get out in the real work more often.

You saying those 17 den senators don't know their arses from a hole in the ground? :lol::lol:

Facts of life do not follow a dem agenda.

[NJ Stinks]

No, the end customer pays it.
The manufacturers themselves are telling everyone they WILL be laying off people.

Perhaps you read too much crap and should get out in the real work more often.

You saying those 17 den senators don't know their arses from a hole in the ground? :lol::lol:

Facts of life do not follow a dem agenda.

Facts of life means these senators have medical device manufacturers in their states who don't want any tax imposed.

Of course, the end user winds up paying the tax. But the end user does not report and pay the tax to the government.

[Tom]

So you admit your dem senators are corrupt?

And the end user pays a higher price - which, in case you have not hears, increases the cost of health care. Duh. Give it up - no way you spin this into anything good. It costs more money to all and cuts jobs. End of fantasy.

[NJ Stinks]

So you admit your dem senators are corrupt?

And the end user pays a higher price - which, in case you have not hears, increases the cost of health care. Duh. Give it up - no way you spin this into anything good. It costs more money to all and cuts jobs. End of fantasy.

Not spinning anything. If this country is serious about giving the Affordable Care Act a go, we can't back off something like this.

When somebody explains how this tax actually hurts U.S. manufacturers of medical devices, I'll be interested in reading the reason(s).

[Saratoga_Mike]

Not spinning anything. If this country is serious about giving the Affordable Care Act a go, we can't back off something like this.

When somebody explains how this tax actually hurts U.S. manufacturers of medical devices, I'll be interested in reading the reason(s).

Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren, patron saint of the left-wing of your party, has lobbied to have this tax repealed. Isn't her word good enough for you?

[JustRalph]

Not spinning anything. If this country is serious about giving the Affordable Care Act a go, we can't back off something like this.

When somebody explains how this tax actually hurts U.S. manufacturers of medical devices, I'll be interested in reading the reason(s).

This covers it pretty well?


http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/28/800-companies-groups-demand-repeal-medical-device-tax/

[ElKabong]

This covers it pretty well?


http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/28/800-companies-groups-demand-repeal-medical-device-tax/

Sounds about Par for the course in the Obama administration...(why is this administration hurting the little guy with these taxes of his????)
-Already technology companies are announcing job cuts, reductions in R&D budgets and are canceling plans to build plants to pay for the tax. One study from trade association AdvaMed forecasts a huge 43,000 jobs lost due to the new tax. And it's the little guy who will get hit hardest, since many of the novel, cutting-edge medical technology innovations come from small companies with few employees.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/11/28/800-companies-groups-demand-repeal-medical-device-tax/#ixzz2EtddKgaV

[Tom]

Cutting edge technology and new life saving techniques and devise do not come from state-run health mill, and it is the profit that drives their development. Whine all you want to, but that is the way life works. hcap likes to point out how deficient the USA is in health care and general quality of life, and this will not improve anything.

[NJ Stinks]

FYI, a stent sells for about $1,200. The medical device tax on a $1,200 stent is about $27 if sold by the manufacturer to a retailer.

Also a paste from an article at ABC News:

Industry-funded studies warn that the tax could lead to potential job losses in the medical device field, but critics argue that studies that show job losses are funded by industry groups and are therefore not credible.

“The argument about the medical device tax affecting jobs is greatly overblown,” said Paul N. Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. ”It’s just not big enough to have substantial adverse effect.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/why-elizabeth-warren-wants-to-repeal-part-of-obamacare/

______________________________

My thought is that we must fund ACA if it's going to have any chance at being effective. Is taxing medical devices - keeping in mind that the user of the medical device will ultimately pay the tax - the wrong way to raise revenue? I don't think so.

One other thought to toss out there is that I believe sales of medical devices to the U.S. Armed Forces will be made exempt from the medical device tax if these sales are not already specifically exempted in the current law.

[Tom]

Paul N. Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Translation - this guy has probably never held a real job in the real world.
You take his word for it over the people on the front lines inthe business?

Foolish choice.

[mostpost]

The original article states that over 400,000 people are employed by the medical device industry in this country. It goes on to say the new tax will cost 43,000 jobs. Why would a 2.3% tax cost a more than 10% job loss. Why would't it cost a 2.3% loss of jobs; if even that. Particularly when the manufacturer is going to pass all or part of the increase onto the consumer.

[mostpost]

Translation - this guy has probably never held a real job in the real world.
You take his word for it over the people on the front lines inthe business?

Foolish choice.

Excellent choice actually. People on the front line in a business are the last people you should believe in a case like this. They LIE. Their profits depend on their lying. They will obfuscate, they will misrepresent, they will misinterpret, they will do anything to protect those profits. Combine that with the phobia for any kind of tax in the conservative world and you have a perfect storm for perfidy

[mostpost]

FYI, a stent sells for about $1,200. The medical device tax on a $1,200 stent is about $27 if sold by the manufacturer to a retailer.

Also a paste from an article at ABC News:

Industry-funded studies warn that the tax could lead to potential job losses in the medical device field, but critics argue that studies that show job losses are funded by industry groups and are therefore not credible.

“The argument about the medical device tax affecting jobs is greatly overblown,” said Paul N. Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. ”It’s just not big enough to have substantial adverse effect.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/why-elizabeth-warren-wants-to-repeal-part-of-obamacare/

______________________________

My thought is that we must fund ACA if it's going to have any chance at being effective. Is taxing medical devices - keeping in mind that the user of the medical device will ultimately pay the tax - the wrong way to raise revenue? I don't think so.

One other thought to toss out there is that I believe sales of medical devices to the U.S. Armed Forces will be made exempt from the medical device tax if these sales are not already specifically exempted in the current law.
Mr. Stinks,
I know you worked for the IRS, but let us pretend that you are a stent manufacturer and use that as a teaching tool for our conservative friends.

As owner of the Stinky Stent Store, you learn that you will be facing a new tax which adds $27 to the sale price of one of your stents-2.3%.

What do you do.
A. You shut down your factory and buy a seven-eleven.
B. You fire four times as many employees as would be required to offset the tax. (of course this means that you have to curtail production by an equal amount.)
C. You absorb part of the tax increase; pass part on to your customers and look forward to the new customers who will be coming your way due to the 30 million people that Obamacare has added to the ranks of the insured.

Of course since you are only a government worker, you are probably going to get the answer wrong. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[newtothegame]

Mr. Stinks,
I know you worked for the IRS, but let us pretend that you are a stent manufacturer and use that as a teaching tool for our conservative friends.

As owner of the Stinky Stent Store, you learn that you will be facing a new tax which adds $27 to the sale price of one of your stents-2.3%.

What do you do.
A. You shut down your factory and buy a seven-eleven.
B. You fire four times as many employees as would be required to offset the tax. (of course this means that you have to curtail production by an equal amount.)
C. You absorb part of the tax increase; pass part on to your customers and look forward to the new customers who will be coming your way due to the 30 million people that Obamacare has added to the ranks of the insured.

Of course since you are only a government worker, you are probably going to get the answer wrong. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You are really showing your lack of knowledge in the business world. please stop before you hurt yourself!
You are making it sound as though its just a mere 2-3% based on the 1200.00 it sells for.
Do you understand the 1200 is not PROFIT?
Now I do not pretend to know how much this particuliar items cost to manufacture but, the who argument of yours is just completely false without this information being provided.
Lets assume for a second its manufactured and retailed at a 20% markup. A "mere" 2% loss in that profit would be a 10% reduction in profits...now are you understanding how they may arrive at ten percent reduction in workforce???

[NJ Stinks]

Of course since you are only a government worker, you are probably going to get the answer wrong. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well, as a Republican ;) in good standing, the first thing I do is issue a public release saying that even though the stents only cost 98 cents each to manufacture, I'm going to have to terminate half of my research and development team due to Obama's onerous tax burden known as ACA. Then I'm going to raise the sales price of stents a couple hundred bucks in spite for a few months so I can blame the medical device tax for the decrease in sales. Naturally, the last step is to move to a Right To Work state because workers expect less and earn it in those states. :cool:

(Newt, I read a stent sells for about $1,200 and costs 98 cents to make. Don't know if what I read is true.)

[newtothegame]

Well, as a Republican ;) in good standing, the first thing I do is issue a public release saying that even though the stents only cost 98 cents each to manufacture, I'm going to have to terminate half of my research and development team due to Obama's onerous tax burden known as ACA. Then I'm going to raise the sales price of stents a couple hundred bucks in spite for a few months so I can blame the medical device tax for the decrease in sales. Naturally, the last step is to move to a Right To Work state because workers expect less and earn it in those states. :cool:

(Newt, I read a stent sells for about $1,200 and costs 98 cents to make. Don't know if what I read is true.)
If THIS stent cost .98 to produce, then I would be alot more open to the argument. But, as I said , without knowing this information it is hard to understand the true effect on the business. As I am sure you are aware, you can never look at the retail price without knowing the cost of manufacture. There are numerous cost to a business and without looking at the ENTIRETY of the picture, it is hard to make assumptions based on a "mere" 2-3%.

[mostpost]

You are really showing your lack of knowledge in the business world. please stop before you hurt yourself!
You are making it sound as though its just a mere 2-3% based on the 1200.00 it sells for.
Do you understand the 1200 is not PROFIT?
Now I do not pretend to know how much this particuliar items cost to manufacture but, the who argument of yours is just completely false without this information being provided.
Lets assume for a second its manufactured and retailed at a 20% markup. A "mere" 2% loss in that profit would be a 10% reduction in profits...now are you understanding how they may arrive at ten percent reduction in workforce???
Is it not in the conservative bible that a business will always pass any increase in cost along to the ultimate consumer. If that is the case, why would any tax increase cause any reduction in profit?

But let's assume that part of the conservative bible is as accurate as the part of the Christian bible which says the universe appeared fully formed six thousand years ago. Let's say that the 2% increase in taxes does mean a 10% reduction in profits. Is reducing a workforce by 10% a good way to gain back that profit?

First of all labor is only a small part of the cost of any product. In the auto industry it is 10%. In housing it is 50%, but building houses is not usually an assembly line process. Also, reducing your workforce, reduces the product you can build. Is a 20% profit on 900 units better than an 18% profit on 1,000 units NO.

Would higher prices cause consumers to not buy the product. Highly doubtful. These are devices that people need for their health. Furthermore the price is divided among all the insurance holders.

[mostpost]

Well, as a Republican ;) in good standing, the first thing I do is issue a public release saying that even though the stents only cost 98 cents each to manufacture, I'm going to have to terminate half of my research and development team due to Obama's onerous tax burden known as ACA. Then I'm going to raise the sales price of stents a couple hundred bucks in spite for a few months so I can blame the medical device tax for the decrease in sales. Naturally, the last step is to move to a Right To Work state because workers expect less and earn it in those states. :cool:

(Newt, I read a stent sells for about $1,200 and costs 98 cents to make. Don't know if what I read is true.)
I find it difficult to believe that a stent costs only 98 cents to make. I find it even more difficult to believe it costs $1000. I would also bet that the profit margin on medical devices is exponentially above 20%. A can of Campbell's Soup maybe; a medical device no way.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Is it not in the conservative bible that a business will always pass any increase in cost along to the ultimate consumer. If that is the case, why would any tax increase cause any reduction in profit?

...

Not to go too far off on a tangent, but isn't that funny when you think about it? You're going to rein in costs on medical care, and part of the enactment is to raise money to spend on covering more people using this tax. It gets passed on to the end consumer, of which there are now more of. Interesting alternative view to make your point that they won't be hurting on the deal, but of course, it also makes a clear case of how reining in health care costs through more coverage is a bit of a joke.

[newtothegame]

Is it not in the conservative bible that a business will always pass any increase in cost along to the ultimate consumer. If that is the case, why would any tax increase cause any reduction in profit?

But let's assume that part of the conservative bible is as accurate as the part of the Christian bible which says the universe appeared fully formed six thousand years ago. Let's say that the 2% increase in taxes does mean a 10% reduction in profits. Is reducing a workforce by 10% a good way to gain back that profit?

First of all labor is only a small part of the cost of any product. In the auto industry it is 10%. In housing it is 50%, but building houses is not usually an assembly line process. Also, reducing your workforce, reduces the product you can build. Is a 20% profit on 900 units better than an 18% profit on 1,000 units NO.

Would higher prices cause consumers to not buy the product. Highly doubtful. These are devices that people need for their health. Furthermore the price is divided among all the insurance holders.
Once a profit is lost, (in this case to taxation), there is NEVER a guarantee you will get it back. You dont run a business on hopes and dreams. You run a business on what you know to be true (or the best educated guesses you can make based on many surveys and studies). This is the exact reason taxation or the UNCERTAINTY of it has business unwilling to hire.......
This is something a union guy will NEVER understand.....

[Tom]

Is reducing a workforce by 10% a good way to gain back that profit?

Yes. And if that 10% is unionized, it is even better - closer to 20%.

I just love it when mostie tries to post about the real world, and the business world at that! :lol: