Unintended Consequences of Obamacare

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by jwoodie, Sep 28, 2012.

  1. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,756
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,904
    The industry that gave us stents, replacement joints and defibrillators will get a dose of bad fiscal medicine.
    By EVAN BAYH

    The Supreme Court decision in June upholding the Affordable Care Act leaves in place a tax on medical devices that threatens thousands of American jobs and our global competitiveness. It will also stifle critical medical innovation in the industry that gave us defibrillators, pacemakers, artificial joints, stents, chemotherapy delivery systems and almost every device we depend on to save lives.

    The 2.3% tax will be charged to manufacturers on each sale and takes effect in January. Many U.S. device companies, in response, have already announced layoffs, canceled plans for domestic expansion and slashed research-and-development budgets. This month, Welch Allyn—a maker of stethoscopes and blood-pressure cuffs—announced that it will lay off 10% of its global workforce over the next three years, but all of the jobs being cut are in the U.S.

    Given the fragile state of the U.S. economy, Congress must move quickly to redress the harm from this tax before it becomes irreversible.

    The medical-device industry has been a great American success story. More than 400,000 U.S. workers are employed in this sector directly, and another two million, including those involved in supply and distribution, benefit indirectly. At a time when the economy struggles to produce good jobs, medical-device positions pay well. Average compensation is $58,188 annually compared with a national average of $41,673 annually for all employment, a 2010 Pew Foundation report found.

    While the U.S. overall imports far more products than it exports, America is a global leader in medical-device production and sales. Last year the U.S. device industry earned $5.4 billion more in exports than we spent on imports of such devices.

    Even more important to the average American is the industry's role in saving and sustaining life. Medical devices have contributed to remarkable advances in numerous areas: artificial hips and knees, and devices used in the treatment of cancer, and for angioplasty, vascular surgery and in-vitro fertilization, to name a few. Many of these devices have not only improved the quality of life for patients, but also produced health-care cost savings—for instance, each time an angioplastic balloon made open-heart surgery unnecessary.

    All of this is now threatened by the only law that is guaranteed to pass in Washington: the law of unintended consequences.

    A 2.3% tax on medical-device sales, not profits, was imposed under the theory that sales to medical-device companies would surge after patients newly insured by the Affordable Care Act poured into the system. What the industry lost in margins, it was supposed to make up in greater volume.

    That calculation ignored the fact that the vast majority of medical-device consumers already are covered by Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance. So there will be little or no increase in sales volume to offset the added cost of $30 billion—according to the Congressional Budget Office—to the industry. This tax comes straight out of a company's bottom line. Because many devices are sold to hospitals, physicians and other providers through multiyear contracts, the prices are already locked in, so the tax cannot be passed on to the buyer.

    The hit will be severe. For a typical company, a 2.3% tax on revenues equals a 15% tax on profits. When combined with a 35% corporate tax and state corporate taxes, the tax rate for the medical-device industry will exceed 50% in most jurisdictions. Many marginally profitable businesses will then hemorrhage red ink, since they'll have to pay the excise tax whether they are making money or not.

    Especially hard hit could be the hundreds of small companies developing medical software applications. These apps promise to revolutionize the practice of medicine—for instance, by delivering blood-sugar test results for diabetics. The IRS is deciding now whether to treat apps as medical devices subject to the tax.

    The adverse effect of this confiscatory level of taxation on traditional device makers is already clear. In my state of Indiana alone, Cook Medical has canceled plans to build one new U.S. facility annually in each of the next several years, and Zimmer plans to lay off 450 workers, while Hill-Rom expects to lay off 200. Stryker, based in Michigan, anticipates having to lay off 1,000 workers.

    As a result of the looming device tax, production is moving overseas, good jobs are going to Europe and Asia, and cutting-edge medical devices will now be produced elsewhere for import into the U.S.

    Meanwhile, the impact on the quality of care is incalculable but no less real. Thirty billion dollars must be taken out of operations or R&D. Who knows what lifesaving devices that might have been developed will fall victim to this tax?

    If Congress acts soon, however, most of the harm can be forestalled. There is hope. The House—233 Republicans, joined by 37 Democrats—voted in June to repeal the tax. In the Senate, 33 Republicans are on record in support of doing the same. While no Democrat has stepped up to co-sponsor the legislation, several speak favorably in private. Even Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic Senate candidate from Massachusetts and a staunch progressive, has now come out in favor of repeal.

    At a time when creating jobs, fostering innovation and competing globally are the pre-eminent challenges facing America, surely consensus can be reached to undo a provision that makes all three that much harder. As a Chinese proverb says: It is better that wisdom comes late than not at all.

    Mr. Bayh, a Democrat, is a former governor and U.S. senator from Indiana. He is a partner at the McGuireWoods law firm, which represents several medical-device companies.

    ----------



    This is an excellent example of one of Obama's main management weaknesses. He is dealing with a multiple component system, and he naively thinks that when he changes one parameter in the system, all of the other parameters will remain the same. He knows so little about business and the economy that he is not able to consider secondary effects. Calling it an "unintended consequence" is charitable; in fact it demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how people and businesses will react when he twiddles one of the dials.
     
  2. oldfart
    Offline

    oldfart Older than dirt

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,354
    Thanks Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Redneck Riviera
    Ratings:
    +527
    Mr. Bayh is a paid lobbyist for the industry and his argument is called "special pleading". Is ther anything in his argument that does not apply to all other health care sectors such as nursing homes, hospitals, doctors, and drug manuacturers, all of which like his industry negotiated the cost containment measures of the ACA? Should we not then repeal all taxes and limits on reimbursements for all industries?

    Could you provide me with some evidence that the administration did not utilize the resources available in estimating the economic impact of the ACA? Did not the Congressional Budget Office fulfill it's legal obligation and issue a report on the Act?
    Has the Council of Economic Advisors ceased issuing annual reports? Give me a break.

    And I will give you a good hint: in the future if you want to attack anyone's economic plan, from any part of the political spectrum, start by avoiding ad hominems and judge the proposals on their merits. It's classier and avoids embarrassing yourself.
     
  3. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,756
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,904
    1. Please point out the "ad hominems" in my post (assuming you understand the term).

    2. The CBO estimate of the cost of Obamacare was manipulated by balancing 10 years of savings against only five years of costs.

    3. Thanks for being so classy and not embarrassing yourself. :lol:
     

Share This Page