Posted on 11/09/2012 7:54:21 AM PST by Rio
The excise tax on medical devices, a controversial part of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, is now evolving from a medical reform issue to a tax reform issue. In a press conference in Boston last month, AdvaMed CEO Stephen J. Ubl said the group will seek to dramatically change the tax as part of the tax reform negotiations taking place to avert the "fiscal cliff" scheduled to occur when the Budget Control Act of 2011 goes into effect.
Even if the tax cannot be totally undone, it's hoped within the industry that some of its most onerous provisions could be changed. One goal, for example, is to exempt start-ups from the tax for a certain period of time.
That said, some of the staunchest opponents of the tax remain hopeful that it will be repealed, citing support from Democrats in the House and the Senate. Even liberal U.S. Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), mindful of medical device employment in Massachusetts, is opposed to the tax. Senior Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has also expressed concern about the tax. Even if the Senate can muster enough votes to support a House-initiated repeal, it's doubtful that Congress could overcome a presidential veto.
Significant change of the tax as part of a major tax overhaul seems very possible, however. The major obstacle will be getting on the radar screen given the enormity of the tax reform issues under consideration. Overall tax reform provides the opportunity to find other revenue sources for Obamacare that won't affect future medical device development in the United States.
Widespread cutbacks have already begun at some major medical device makers. Some are citing the new excise tax as the cause. Others are citing slowing demand coupled with growing pressures to reduce costs of medical devices. It will be interesting to see if jobs are reinstated if the device tax is fundamentally revised.
Not hidden.
We’ve known about it for months, and there are many more like it.
It’s not been hidden.
Maybe the damn liberals should have read the damn bill before voting to enact it. For $*%$* sake!
Republicans should not support fixing it. They bought it, they own it. Or if they must, amend the law as well to supprt religious exemptions.
Congress should not be trying to repeal it. The beneficiaries of a repeal are primarily in the blue states. Why are Kerry and Warren opposed to the tax? Probably because it affects people who vote for them and fund their campaigns. It is time they felt the effects of legislation from the politicians they finance and vote for.
How is Congress going to pay for reducing or repealing this tax?
bump
but Beohner will cave on everything
"Republicans should not support fixing it. They bought it, they own it. Or if they must, amend the law as well to supprt religious exemptions."
The Republicans have a good deal of leverage here for negotiating what they want in return for this. But of course, they will never realize this.
Republicans should not support fixing it. They bought it, they own it. Or if they must, amend the law as well to supprt religious exemptions.
Exactly. This would be a disaster if the GOP agrees to take some bad stuff out of o-care in exchange for K Street money. I got a bad feeling the Stupid Party would do this.
Yeah, don't pull down the cliff, just move it. That's gotta work!
The company for whom I work has been sending out petitions and has been part of a large lobbying group to try to get this repealed. going to cost my company over $40 million a year. “just pass it along to the consumers” we’ve been told.
Layoffs are on the horizon.
Too late. Companies have already laid off workers due to this upcoming tax.
Yes, one of very many. There's a new 4% sales tax on real estate sales, too.
0bama is no defender of the middle class, as he claims. He's trying to tax it into poverty, so we can all be "equal."
Didn't Kerry vote for the tax? I guess he was for it before he was against it.
I would imagine the tax would affect the consumer, and ultimately the insurance company because the tax would be passed along to the consumer, and/or then to insurance.
Can you explain about the layoffs, or a cutback in production? If the doctor says you need a pacemaker, and this year the pacemaker costs more than last year (because of this hidden tax.) Is the patient going to say, well since it’s going to cost me more out of pocket, I won’t get it. Or if the insurance company denies to cover the cost and the patient dies...instant lawsuit.
Or is it because some devices are considered optional?
I have an implanted medical device... a baclofen pump (made by Medtronics.) It the only reason I can still walk, so I’d beg, borrow, or steal (well probably not steal) in order to get the device.
But it would be one of the more “optional” choices in devices because I could resort to a wheelchair and lots of anti-spasticity meds and pain pills. Which in turn means I’d be so drugged up I probably wouldn’t be able to work, which means I’d go on disability and get SS disability, which means the gov’t would be paying me instead of me contributing to the tax revenue they get from my salary...oh what a tangled web, etc.
So I guess I can see where some devices might be considered optional. Is that why there’d be layoffs?
Too late. Companies have already laid off workers due to this upcoming tax.
Layoffs and full time jobs becoming part time. The joys of the Age of Obama. Btw, these are Obama donor CEOs doing much of this slash and burn but we will never hear that from the GOP.
I’m glad to hear your baclofen pump helps your condition as much as you say. Through my work I am also very involved with this product.
The idiocy of this tax has no limits. The tax is passed on to the consumer. The patients insurer pays the tax. It’s a way the government can get paid by private insurers. The coming deal will probably be that the tax will be forgiven if the patient has government insurance.
What most people do not know is that by law 75% of the costs for Medicare Parts B and D come from the General Fund ($222 billion this past fiscal year.) The premiums only pay for 25% of the costs. Eventually these programs will consume the entire federal budget if not reformed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.