The price any company can charge for its product is a function of both supply
and demand. While supply is determined largely by cost, which this tax will
raise, a relatively larger increase in demand can more than offset the cost
increase. Obamacare, like Medicare before it, will stimulate a huge increase in
demand.Also, since this tax will apply to all medical device
companies, no one company will suffer a competitive disadvantage, and in fact
that ones that continue to innovate will gain a competitive advantage.Given these facts, the conclusions drawn in this article appear dubious.
"Obamacare" is a hastily devised, poorly written, and very complex
package of provisions that will be subject to interpretation, arbitration,
discussion, and confusion for many years to come. This will be a good lesson
for all the dreamers who still believe that government intervention actually
improves a situation.
The President had this plan in his desire to be President but just as he
doesn't have a budget for 4 years, this bill was passed before anyone read
it. It should have gone through a process not the ramrod. The President had
his window of opportunity and 7 months later, it was gone as the Tea-Party and
just overall dissatisfied voters took the opportunity away from the engrained
Obama 47 percent of the voters took hold. This President
didn't want public comments and used the pressure on the elected officials
in Congress, especially with his thumb pressure on the Democrats. Some of those
fell in the next election because they didn't listen to the people in their
Districts or States. AARP was a big pusher for the Obamacare as
they are an insurance company that are wolves in sheeps' clothing. They
make their money on insurance programs and Obama had them in his back pocket.
Not all members of AARP concur or agree with the Obamacare plan but AARP used
all it's members as saying that their total number wanted that plan as they
represent their members.AARP may do 99 good things but this one was
Tyler D you sound like an economics student. Nothing wrong with that but
I'm sure things feel differently to the company paying the taxes. If the
companies are successful, Obama wants to strap on an additional 3.8% medicare
tax along with a 3-4% increase in income taxes. Try paying for those with an
increase in demand.
Dynatronic knew the first week of Nov. 2008 to get ready for change; the Mr.
Obama began campaigning for health care reform in the spring of 2007. The
stock market has doubled since March 2009 so this company has benefited from a
growing economy. Companies comes and companies go, and that is why we needed
the government when the recession began in December 2007. Mr. Bush was
brilliant to enact TARP; Mr. Obama was as well to enact what he did.
IDCBoise, ID“…Try paying for those with an increase in
demand.”Think about it this way – if your costs go up by
$0.10 per unit (due to the tax) and at the same time your revenue increases by
$0.25 per unit (due to increase in demand), are you (company X) worse off by 10
cents or better off by 15 cents? And given the increase in demand due to 30M+
more people in the insurance pool, my example is probably conservative. Obamacare might be bad policy for a whole lot of reasons – my only
point is that its potential for putting medical device companies out of business
is not one of them. So my beef with this article is the implication that he
(the CEO) is not satisfied with being 15 cents better off… he wants the
whole 25 cents (the increase in demand without bearing the tax that helps pay
for it). And given the fact that our politicians are bought and paid for by
Corporate America, he’ll likely get his wish.
What we need is a single payer system that removes any and all employers from
the process entirely. Health care is for and about people, not companies large
Hutterite is exactly right. People are afraid to leave or change their job
mainly because of the insurance. People that are layed off no longer have
coverage. Entrepreneurs often don't have coverage (preventing many would-be
entrepreneurs from taking the plunge). This is all a sham and will
not change until the process is divorced of anything to do with employment.
Whoever thought of that to begin with? That makes about as much sense as saying
that only people that own and live in their home can attend public school.
Utahns incomes can't keep up with insurance costsThe average
premium for employer-sponsored family health insurance rose 61 percent in Utah
from 2003 to 2011, taking a bigger bite out of household incomes, according to a
report from a nonprofit health care research group.But lets use the
republican model of doing nothing and it will just magically get better like
giving more money to the wealthy will create more jobs.