Conquer Club

Not sure how many people know this, but Minnesota is the home of Medtronic, St. Jude, Boston Scientific, and 3M. Here, that little medical device tax you might have been warned about around the time OBamaCare was passed, but was mostly talked about for the tax code "redefining" a tooth brush as a "medical device".....

Anyhew, this medical device tax is a monster on Minnesota. Just wanted to remind you supporters out there of new entitlement programs based on need, that the "impossible to see outcome in the near future" is arriving for us this year. Millions of excellent paying, middle class supporting, high tech jobs are on the line. Your little feel good moment when Obamacare was passed is now about to start tearing families apart and costing people their pride and their jobs so you can get your warm fuzzies and stroke your egos about how good you are and how much you care. I know why you don't care right now, because these jobs I am talking about are just a bunch of rich bastards anyways, they can handle it!

Oh, but not until after the election



oh well, add it on the national debt!

I've never understood how medical costs could go down when taxes are being added to the actual tools being used in treatments.

Night Strike wrote:I've never understood how medical costs could go down when taxes are being added to the actual tools being used in treatments.

Yo will have to back that up with data.

but overall, taxes have very little to do with real medical costs.

Night Strike wrote:I've never understood how medical costs could go down when taxes are being added to the actual tools being used in treatments.

Clearly the medical supply companies bought... I mean supported... the wrong candidate.

The medical device excise tax is a major issue for a lot of companies and is going to increase costs significantly. I've already worked with a bunch of companies on it, and it is clear these costs will be passed through. So the costs get billed to the customers' insurances, the customers' insurances collect the money from the customers, employers, and/or the federal government. But they had to do something to pay for the extra 5 people that get health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I've never understood how medical costs could go down when taxes are being added to the actual tools being used in treatments.

Yo will have to back that up with data.

but overall, taxes have very little to do with real medical costs.

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

The government is directly adding 2.3% to the cost of medical devices, which is in addition to any inflation and other normal market forces. How will health care costs go down when the government is forcing suppliers to pay more?

its a great day in america

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I've never understood how medical costs could go down when taxes are being added to the actual tools being used in treatments.

Yo will have to back that up with data.

but overall, taxes have very little to do with real medical costs.

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

The government is directly adding 2.3% to the cost of medical devices, which is in addition to any inflation and other normal market forces. How will health care costs go down when the government is forcing suppliers to pay more?

You are quite right, the government tax on the medical devices is the only factor that will determine the change in health care costs.

I can't believe this thread has gone 289 pages of the same shit. Either you are a socialist or you understand economics. All of you could have made enough money to buy your own insurance had you only channeled this energy into something more productive.

jbrettlip wrote:I can't believe this thread has gone 289 pages of the same shit. Either you are a socialist or you understand economics. All of you could have made enough money to buy your own insurance had you only channeled this energy into something more productive.

now that is fuckin funny!

Cuz it's true

Im left leaning (what you would call socialist), I also understand economics... Probably better than you

Lootifer wrote:Im left leaning (what you would call socialist), I also understand economics... Probably better than you

Probably not...

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY, JUST GO SOMEWHERE WHERE GUNS AND RELIGIOUS FANATICS HAVE FREE REIGN.

I suggest Somalia.

jbrettlip wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Im left leaning (what you would call socialist), I also understand economics... Probably better than you

Probably not...

Oh do tell!

I know your chomping at the bit to whip out your masters degree in margin trading or something equally awesome.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I've never understood how medical costs could go down when taxes are being added to the actual tools being used in treatments.

Yo will have to back that up with data.

but overall, taxes have very little to do with real medical costs.

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

The government is directly adding 2.3% to the cost of medical devices, which is in addition to any inflation and other normal market forces. How will health care costs go down when the government is forcing suppliers to pay more?

Among the reasons for medical pricing, taxes are pretty low on the list.

jbrettlip wrote:I can't believe this thread has gone 289 pages of the same shit. Either you are a socialist or you understand economics. All of you could have made enough money to buy your own insurance had you only channeled this energy into something more productive.

Hmm.. because according to you economics dictates that there is plenty of work out there, plenty of people willing to pay a decent wage... and oh, yeah, who cares if we are stealing our children's future to support a fictitious growth model..

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I've never understood how medical costs could go down when taxes are being added to the actual tools being used in treatments.

Yo will have to back that up with data.

but overall, taxes have very little to do with real medical costs.

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

The government is directly adding 2.3% to the cost of medical devices, which is in addition to any inflation and other normal market forces. How will health care costs go down when the government is forcing suppliers to pay more?

Among the reasons for medical pricing, taxes are pretty low on the list.

So it's ok to add direct taxes because the amount they increase prices is less than the amount other factors add to the price? Is this really how the liberal mind "works"?

By the way, some of those "other factors" are themselves higher taxes on personal income, corporate income, property, capital gains, etc.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jbrettlip wrote:I can't believe this thread has gone 289 pages of the same shit. Either you are a socialist or you understand economics. All of you could have made enough money to buy your own insurance had you only channeled this energy into something more productive.

Hmm.. because according to you economics dictates that there is plenty of work out there, plenty of people willing to pay a decent wage... and oh, yeah, who cares if we are stealing our children's future to support a fictitious growth model..

But you're ok with stealing our children's future to fund our current big-government entitlement state?

What about today's current children?


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:What about today's current children?


--Andy

They all had access to medical care prior to the passing of the Affordable Care Act.

Night Strike's rhetoric notwithstanding, the correct way to do this was to go completely free market or completely socialist. The Affordable Care Act essentially requires people to pay for health insurance and the government pays if the people can't pay. So both a boondoggle for insurance companies and a boondoggle for those that cannot afford health insurance. It's the Republicans' plan from the 1990s.

thegreekdog wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:What about today's current children?


--Andy

They all had access to medical care prior to the passing of the Affordable Care Act.

Night Strike's rhetoric notwithstanding, the correct way to do this was to go completely free market or completely socialist. The Affordable Care Act essentially requires people to pay for health insurance and the government pays if the people can't pay. So both a boondoggle for insurance companies and a boondoggle for those that cannot afford health insurance. It's the Republicans' plan from the 1990s.

Thats what I dont understand about the whole trainwreck.

"Hey we've got a broken system; we need to fix it"

"Okie dokie; how about since the system is already complex and unoptimised, lets tack on a whole lot more complexity and a whole lot of "greater good", but untested and under researched, ideas in the hope that the resulting trainwreck solves all of americas healthcare woes!!"

"Ok but it might cost a bit more; thus we need to invent some matching wtf-taxes to go along with our nice new shiney wtf-healthcare system!"

Seriously I blame the democrats/left almost more than I do the opposition. If you are going to increase government funding of healthcare at least do it in a remotely sensible way...

Lootifer wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:What about today's current children?


--Andy

They all had access to medical care prior to the passing of the Affordable Care Act.

Night Strike's rhetoric notwithstanding, the correct way to do this was to go completely free market or completely socialist. The Affordable Care Act essentially requires people to pay for health insurance and the government pays if the people can't pay. So both a boondoggle for insurance companies and a boondoggle for those that cannot afford health insurance. It's the Republicans' plan from the 1990s.

Thats what I dont understand about the whole trainwreck.

"Hey we've got a broken system; we need to fix it"

"Okie dokie; how about since the system is already complex and unoptimised, lets tack on a whole lot more complexity and a whole lot of "greater good", but untested and under researched, ideas in the hope that the resulting trainwreck solves all of americas healthcare woes!!"

"Ok but it might cost a bit more; thus we need to invent some matching wtf-taxes to go along with our nice new shiney wtf-healthcare system!"

Seriously I blame the democrats/left almost more than I do the opposition. If you are going to increase government funding of healthcare at least do it in a remotely sensible way...

The easiest answer I can give you is that corporate lobbyists control the Democrats as much as the Republicans. It's just not widely accepted (in my opinion).

Yeh I can believe that. And thus I can see why some of the optics around big business repubs is far more convincing than big business democrats.

Sure both are trying to screw us, but at least the repubs are being somewhat honest about it lol.

Question: If you were faced with a choice between the new setup (which I dont fully understand, and cbf trying to) or a far more socialised/left setup (Norway/ NZ etc)? Those are your only two options.

Lootifer wrote:Yeh I can believe that. And thus I can see why some of the optics around big business repubs is far more convincing than big business democrats.

Sure both are trying to screw us, but at least the repubs are being somewhat honest about it lol.

Question: If you were faced with a choice between the new setup (which I dont fully understand, and cbf trying to) or a far more socialised/left setup (Norway/ NZ etc)? Those are your only two options.

If you're asking me, I would prefer fully socialized. I know a few doctors. They all would prefer either full socialization or the removal of all restrictions on medical care and the "ball cutting" (one of my friend's phrases) of the insurance industry. Basically, my friend's argument is that insurance companies control medical treatment, and not doctors (he says it's a product of government support of insurance companies). He said that 1930s medicine would be better than what is offered today.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I've never understood how medical costs could go down when taxes are being added to the actual tools being used in treatments.

Yo will have to back that up with data.

but overall, taxes have very little to do with real medical costs.

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

The government is directly adding 2.3% to the cost of medical devices, which is in addition to any inflation and other normal market forces. How will health care costs go down when the government is forcing suppliers to pay more?

Among the reasons for medical pricing, taxes are pretty low on the list.

So it's ok to add direct taxes because the amount they increase prices is less than the amount other factors add to the price? Is this really how the liberal mind "works"?
By the way, some of those "other factors" are themselves higher taxes on personal income, corporate income, property, capital gains, etc.

Uh, no. The primary reasons for rising cost is demand and need for profit. People will pay whatever they have to.. and so medical companies can charge what they wish, with few limits.

Also, a lot of those "excess taxes" you refer to support the research and development that ALLOW these companies to produce their products.. but it is done without recognition, by law. By law any patents, a lot of credit has to go to private corporations, though the research is done by the government.

On a related note, some pretty well known photographers took photos while on boats where I worked. They were contract, sometimes volunteers and got large sums, plus photo recognition for their published photos. Those working for the government got their basic pay, no mention. IF there was a mention, it was something like "ohoto courtesy of [government agency].

You have a LOT of distorted ideas about the government and how it works. Government SERVES us. Companies work for themselves.. solely. Government absolutely can be abusive, but abuse and claiming that any payment to and by the government is waste are two different things. Unless and until you actually pay attention to that difference, most of what you say will continue to be garbage.

You cannot make truth from garbage, no matter how much you try to repeat it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jbrettlip wrote:I can't believe this thread has gone 289 pages of the same shit. Either you are a socialist or you understand economics. All of you could have made enough money to buy your own insurance had you only channeled this energy into something more productive.

Hmm.. because according to you economics dictates that there is plenty of work out there, plenty of people willing to pay a decent wage... and oh, yeah, who cares if we are stealing our children's future to support a fictitious growth model..

But you're ok with stealing our children's future to fund our current big-government entitlement state?[/quote]
No. I am not. Nor is that the question. Stop trying to pretend that anyone not wanting to utterly GUT the government and all it does is somehow wanting to just increase taxes and waste.

You know something, it was not so long ago that words like yours would have you investigated for treasonous activity.. you might just think about that. amongst all your whining about "liberal" takeovers.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You know something, it was not so long ago that words like yours would have you investigated for treasonous activity.. you might just think about that. amongst all your whining about "liberal" takeovers.

So now wanting a federal government that actually balances their budget and doesn't regulate every minutia of individuals and businesses is treasonous?

PLAYER57832 wrote:You have a LOT of distorted ideas about the government and how it works. Government SERVES us. Companies work for themselves.. solely. Government absolutely can be abusive, but abuse and claiming that any payment to and by the government is waste are two different things. Unless and until you actually pay attention to that difference, most of what you say will continue to be garbage.

It's impossible for any entity to survive, no matter what service they provide, if they continue to run billions and trillions of dollars of debt annually. And the federal government's job is to protect our individual rights and national security, not to serve our every individual need or want. It's not the government's job to publish 68 notices of potential regulations every day or to provide funds for every single "need" of people who don't want to work. If a person wants something in life, they work for it. They don't get to be so greedy as to demand that the government take it away from someone else in order to give it to them.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You have a LOT of distorted ideas about the government and how it works. Government SERVES us. Companies work for themselves.. solely. Government absolutely can be abusive, but abuse and claiming that any payment to and by the government is waste are two different things. Unless and until you actually pay attention to that difference, most of what you say will continue to be garbage.

I'm just skimming through this thread (as I see you have set up a red herring fish farm to throw so many distractions that's it not even possible to physically respond to them all without getting banned for spamming) but this one takes the cake.

Government doesn't serve us. It should, but it then again a lot of things should. It serves itself. Your local congressman doesn't serve you. Your local congressman only wants to be reelected in two years. The legions regulations aren't really there to serve you; these people are getting paid to write, enforce, and judge these regulations and they want to keep that job going forever.

This is the utopian fallicy that is as old as Plato's Philosopher Kings. Government, in the end, is no better, and no worse than Companies; they are both run by flawed humans. Government has a major disadvantage in that they are in fact a default monopoly and therefore does not have to worry about out performing the competition. (As people acquire mobility this changes as people can move to another government next door. Generally this works with states - unless people are trapped by underwater mortgages - but less so with Federal governments.)