Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
And possibly put the brakes on worker bee mobility. But I would think the overall cost savings, millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours annually for my employer, would be their greatest concerns. But it mystifies me that we never hear a peep from American business about a topic that affects it hugely.
The bolded is really the point here. It makes no difference whether the medical device tax is on or off. It it's on, the costs get passed to consumers. If it's off, the costs get passed to the taxpayers. Either way, the people end up paying.So first Rx companies got off scot free, now medical device companies will as well. But not insurance companies....oh no. They can be taxed, and were tens of billions last year alone - and they passed it right onto the consumers.In a 280 to 140 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed the Protect Medical Innovation Act (HR 160), which would repeal the 2.3% medical device excise tax.
Good stuff.Soonerman said:The 140 votes were all Democrats.tommyGunZ said:I assume the 140 votes against were tea party Republicans who are upset that this would add to the budget deficit?ETA: actually, this adds 26 billion to the budget deficit over the next decade. http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/excise-tax-on-medical-devices-should-not-be-repealedmatuski said:In a 280 to 140 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed the Protect Medical Innovation Act (HR 160), which would repeal the 2.3% medical device excise tax.
In summary, the next time Tea Party Republicans talk about the deficit, remember that they only care about spending when it goes to poor people and minorities. Billion dollar giveaways to lucrative industries like the medical device business are A okay.
:whoosh:Soonerman said:The 140 votes were all Democrats.tommyGunZ said:I assume the 140 votes against were tea party Republicans who are upset that this would add to the budget deficit?matuski said:In a 280 to 140 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed the Protect Medical Innovation Act (HR 160), which would repeal the 2.3% medical device excise tax.
ETA: actually, this adds 26 billion to the budget deficit over the next decade. http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/excise-tax-on-medical-devices-should-not-be-repealed
In summary, the next time Tea Party Republicans talk about the deficit, remember that they only care about spending when it goes to poor people and minorities. Billion dollar giveaways to lucrative industries like the medical device business are A okay.
:whoosh:Just Win Baby said:
:whoosh:
It could be a solvency or competition issue. Those are the most common reasons for a over approved increase in auto.matttyl said:
That's money in the bank my friend. I believe TGunz owes you. How much did you bet? Do you remember?matttyl said:
Whats not to get?matttyl said:
So....the WH lied again? This is news? Obama is a serial liar. Not sure why anyone would believe what comes out of his mouth. He (and the rest of the Democrats) have shown that no level is too low for them to get what they want.
A few points in this....
What in the hell are you babbling about?I assume the 140 votes against were tea party Republicans who are upset that this would add to the budget deficit?ETA: actually, this adds 26 billion to the budget deficit over the next decade. http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/excise-tax-on-medical-devices-should-not-be-repealedIn a 280 to 140 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed the Protect Medical Innovation Act (HR 160), which would repeal the 2.3% medical device excise tax.
In summary, the next time Tea Party Republicans talk about the deficit, remember that they only care about spending when it goes to poor people and minorities. Billion dollar giveaways to lucrative industries like the medical device business are A okay.
Because apparently the vast majority of the $10B was needed to offset losses of ~7m people (the number that were on the exchanges last year). That means that on average carriers in the exchanges charged about 1,428 less than they should have per person (in order for the "reinsurance" to not be needed). Unless medical costs go down (unlikely), or the average health of those on the exchanges gets better (unlikely with the increased rates and more young/healthy people not signing up) - the average rates will either have to go up drastically (and we've seen that with the rate proposals) or there will continue to be major losses in this sector (or both). Why do you think Assurant was losing 80-90M each quarter? Why are the co-ops shutting down?
I don't keep up with the ever changing goal posts.. are we now trying to link Obama and Obamacare to a consultant we don't like now?
I think the "link" is that when Gruber first came out and said the things he did, the Administration kept repeating that he was a nobody and they didn't know who he was and that at most he was a low level consultant and yada yada yada. Turns out that might not be the case.
See this is why using your own private server is preferred.
Well, I thought you didn't get it, but apparently you do. You just ignore it...awesome
That doesn't answer the question at all. I'm asking with two years of claim data, three years of open enrollment data, and pretty much no more "buffers" to offset loses why would the carriers still price their products at a loss? And if they do, why should we care if they have flawed post ACA business models such as your new favorite - Assurant?
I'm find with the Supreme Court agreeing with Gruber's statement - at least one of them. That is the subsidies are only available to those states that set up exchanges, but all of the taxes (which would include the mandates since the Supreme Court called the mandates taxes...) would remain. That is likely the least likely decision, but since Gruber is the end all....
Kind of a bummer. I had reached the "if your state is stupid enough to vote into office people who cut off their nose to spite their face, you deserve what's coming to you" stage.wdcrob said:
I really dislike this type of interpretation in general. Attempting to determine "intent" rather than using the actual words written is a dangerous game. With 500+ legislators, it's likely that there were dozens, or even hundreds, of "intents", with each legislator possibly intending something different. Legislation should be judged by what is actually written, not by what we think the legislators might have meant.wdcrob said:
This is exactly what the judicial branch is supposed to do, when there is contradictory and/or vague language in legislation.
Yup. This is hardly groundbreaking.
Accepted or not, I'm not a fan. If Congress passed a bill that consisted entirely of the sentence "This bill authorizes whatever is deemed necessary to improve the economy.", I'd argue that the bill in fact authorizes nothing, because it doesn't specify what improves the economy and what doesn't.
I assume you're referring to Scalia? I'm generally not a Scalia fan, either. His preferred outcome-based style is exactly what I'm railing against here.
Welp, Rich, sorry your team didn't prevail on this one, but . . . interpretation of statutes in the way described above is pretty much how the American judicial system has functioned. For centuries.
Ah, the old "that's the way it's always been done" argument. Can't beat logic like that.
When dealing with concepts like judicial precedent and stare decisis, yeah, you're going to be exposed to just that sort of "logic."
