Jump to content
Obama 2012

Obamacare Tax Could Lead To One Million Life-Years Lost Annually

 Share

17 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Don't blame our President. He doesn't know how to be a leader. He's still wearing Pampers and getting a feel for things. So if a few lives are lost along the way it's OK. He will get it right eventually.

Please relect our President Obama in 2012!!!

------------

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/06/06/obamacares-medical-device-tax-kills-patients-not-just-jobs/

My colleague Robert Book has written a compelling analysis of Obamacare’s medical-device tax, which concludes that it will destroy about 14,000 and perhaps up to 47,100 jobs. The 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices is a savage blow to innovation. Note that this tax is on sales, not profits. It cuts into the top line, not the bottom line. If not repealed, this tax will start hitting medical-device makers on January 1, 2013.

Another colleague, Benjamin Zycher, has come at the tax from a different angle: In an analysis that concludes that the tax will lead to a reduction in research and development by about $2 billion every year, Zycher estimates how many patients will suffer early deaths because of the throttling of innovation.

Reviewing peer-reviewed literature on the relationship between medical technology and improvements in life expectancies, Zycher estimates that the knock-on effect of the tax will be about one million life-years lost annually. (Due to limitations in applying the literature, it not possible to tell the degree to which this tilts towards one million people dying one year earlier, or a smaller number of people dying many years earlier. My own interpretation leans towards the latter.)

Such findings are both dramatic and timely. Recognizing their impact, the House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, has promised to schedule a vote on the repeal of the medical-devices tax. Many observers expect such a vote to be “symbolic,” noting that the Republicans have still not identified how to pay for the repeal. To be sure, Obamacare has proved resilient to Congressional assault since the Republicans took the gavels in January 2010. Only one piece has bitten the dust – the so-called “1099 provision,” which President Obama signed in April 2011.

The 1099 provision came into ridicule after citizens learned that any business which bought $600 or more worth of goods and services from any vendor would have had to issue a 1099 to the IRS. The provision was so obviously absurd that small-business lobbyists had little difficulty mobilizing a coalition to get the bill to the White House.

The medical-device industry has made repeal of the excise tax priority number one. And its success in getting it to the top of the agenda is quite a masterstroke. Although economically harmful and even deadly, the tax does not comprise a major part of Obamacare.

If we go back to March 2012, to the original Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score of Obamacare, we can see that the whole “reform” was going to cost just over $1 trillion over the decade 2010 though 2019. This was almost evenly split between expanding dependence on Medicaid and handing out tax credits for coverage via the Health Benefits Exchanges.

The legislation (which relied on faulty assumptions that have been discussed thoroughly over the past two years) was supposed to reduce the ten-year deficit by $142 billion. The funding, just under $1.2 trillion, came from a mix of cuts to Medicare and a menu of tax hikes. The tax on medical-device manufacturers was projected to raise $20 billion – less than 2 percent of Obamacare’s total revenue.

And yet the medical-device industry has managed to move this to the front of the queue of Obamacare repeal. I don’t think that Republicans will schedule a “symbolic” vote on repealing this excise tax. There’s a very good chance that they will work with Democrats to find a way to pay for the repeal with savings from another part of Obamacare, and that the President will sign it. Even pro-Obamacare Democrats like U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, and candidate Elizabeth Warren, advocate repealing this deadly tax.

Every industry in the health sector has something that they want rubbed out of Obamacare. The research-based pharmaceutical industry wants the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), the ”death panel” of fifteen presidential appointees that will limit seniors’ access to innovative prescription drugs. Make no mistake: IPAB needs to go. In this case, the Republicans did hold a “symbolic” vote to repeal, but there was no effort to bring Democratic legislators onside.

Why the difference? My guess is that it has to do with the way the two industries handled themselves during the debate and passage of Obamacare. The research-based drug makers were revealed early on to have been key players in passing the despised legislation. As late as last week, Republican legislators were digging out e-mails detailing the deal-making between them and the White House. It’s not surprising that those legislators are not investing seriously in executing the industry’s post-Obamacare agenda. (The Prescription Drug User Fee Act, PDUFA, which is sailing through Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, has nothing to do with Obamcare, but renews a twenty-year old law).

The medical-device industry, on the other hand, acted more carefully during the debate over Obamacare. It did the best it could to protect its members’ interests, but avoided the temptation to jump on the bandwagon and commit to promoting the terribly one-sided, partisan, uncompromising bill.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I suspect it’s an approach that leaders in other health-care sectors wish that they had taken.

er colleague, Benjamin Zycher, has come at the tax from a different angle: In an analysis that concludes that the tax will lead to a reduction in research and development by about $2 billion every year, Zycher estimates how many patients will suffer early deaths because of the throttling of innovation.

Reviewing peer-reviewed literature on the relationship between medical technology and improvements in life expectancies, Zycher estimates that the knock-on effect of the tax will be about one million life-years lost annually. (Due to limitations in applying the literature, it not possible to tell the degree to which this tilts towards one million people dying one year earlier, or a smaller number of people dying many years earlier. My own interpretation leans towards the latter.)

Such findings are both dramatic and timely. Recognizing their impact, the House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, has promised to schedule a vote on the repeal of the medical-devices tax. Many observers expect such a vote to be “symbolic,” noting that the Republicans have still not identified how to pay for the repeal. To be sure, Obamacare has proved resilient to Congressional assault since the Republicans took the gavels in January 2010. Only one piece has bitten the dust – the so-called “1099 provision,” which President Obama signed in April 2011.

The 1099 provision came into ridicule after citizens learned that any business which bought $600 or more worth of goods and services from any vendor would have had to issue a 1099 to the IRS. The provision was so obviously absurd that small-business lobbyists had little difficulty mobilizing a coalition to get the bill to the White House.

The medical-device industry has made repeal of the excise tax priority number one. And its success in getting it to the top of the agenda is quite a masterstroke. Although economically harmful and even deadly, the tax does not comprise a major part of Obamacare.

If we go back to March 2012, to the original Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score of Obamacare, we can see that the whole “reform” was going to cost just over $1 trillion over the decade 2010 though 2019. This was almost evenly split between expanding dependence on Medicaid and handing out tax credits for coverage via the Health Benefits Exchanges.

The legislation (which relied on faulty assumptions that have been discussed thoroughly over the past two years) was supposed to reduce the ten-year deficit by $142 billion. The funding, just under $1.2 trillion, came from a mix of cuts to Medicare and a menu of tax hikes. The tax on medical-device manufacturers was projected to raise $20 billion – less than 2 percent of Obamacare’s total revenue.

And yet the medical-device industry has managed to move this to the front of the queue of Obamacare repeal. I don’t think that Republicans will schedule a “symbolic” vote on repealing this excise tax. There’s a very good chance that they will work with Democrats to find a way to pay for the repeal with savings from another part of Obamacare, and that the President will sign it. Even pro-Obamacare Democrats like U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, and candidate Elizabeth Warren, advocate repealing this deadly tax.

Every industry in the health sector has something that they want rubbed out of Obamacare. The research-based pharmaceutical industry wants the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), the ”death panel” of fifteen presidential appointees that will limit seniors’ access to innovative prescription drugs. Make no mistake: IPAB needs to go. In this case, the Republicans did hold a “symbolic” vote to repeal, but there was no effort to bring Democratic legislators onside.

Why the difference? My guess is that it has to do with the way the two industries handled themselves during the debate and passage of Obamacare. The research-based drug makers were revealed early on to have been key players in passing the despised legislation. As late as last week, Republican legislators were digging out e-mails detailing the deal-making between them and the White House. It’s not surprising that those legislators are not investing seriously in executing the industry’s post-Obamacare agenda. (The Prescription Drug User Fee Act, PDUFA, which is sailing through Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, has nothing to do with Obamcare, but renews a twenty-year old law).

The medical-device industry, on the other hand, acted more carefully during the debate over Obamacare. It did the best it could to protect its members’ interests, but avoided the temptation to jump on the bandwagon and commit to promoting the terribly one-sided, partisan, uncompromising bill.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I suspect it’s an approach that leaders in other health-care sectors wish that they had taken.

nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Isle of Man
Timeline

Zycher estimates that the knock-on effect of the tax will be about one million life-years lost annually. (Due to limitations in applying the literature, it not possible to tell the degree to which this tilts towards one million people dying one year earlier, or a smaller number of people dying many years earlier. My own interpretation leans towards the latter.)

How did he come up with this number? What does it even mean?

India, gun buyback and steamroll.

qVVjt.jpg?3qVHRo.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

I do not believe any serious publication would be naive enough to blame the POTUS for a bi-partisan concocted Health Insurance Reform plan.

bi-partisan? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Country: United Kingdom
Timeline

How did he come up with this number? What does it even mean?

He pulled the number out of his ####, just like Obama did with the stimulus numbers when he claimed in 2009 that it would "create or save" 3,500,000 jobs.

biden_pinhead.jpgspace.gifrolling-stones-american-flag-tongue.jpgspace.gifinside-geico.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Isle of Man
Timeline

He pulled the number out of his ####, just like Obama did with the stimulus numbers when he claimed in 2009 that it would "create or save" 3,500,000 jobs.

I see. Can you explain what a million life years per year means? It sounds like a really big and concerning number. That is 100 million years gone over the next century all because of Obama! This is something every American should know.

India, gun buyback and steamroll.

qVVjt.jpg?3qVHRo.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
Can you explain what a million life years per year means?

Simple. If 50K people die 20 years prematurely each year, that would be 1MM life years lost annually. It could also be 100K people kicking the bucket 10 years too soon. Or 1MM people meeting their maker 1 year too soon. Many different combinations are possible. At the end of the day, it's the number of people times the years they have lost. Funny thing is that we're even debating this bullshite. The PRI has been a sure source for anti health care reform material. That doesn't change. In fact, they're gearing up their efforts once more. That's all that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Country: United Kingdom
Timeline

I see. Can you explain what a million life years per year means?

1,000,000 life-years lost is calculated by multiplying the 80 years of life lost by each of the 12,500 people who lost their lives.

biden_pinhead.jpgspace.gifrolling-stones-american-flag-tongue.jpgspace.gifinside-geico.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are cases where more technology does not improve outcomes, but it certainly improves the bottom line of the companies providing the technology, or the doctors providing it because they can charge more.

But this is kind of stupid and meaningless anyway. Its trying to measure the loss of life extension based on innovations that are not realized. Somehow this is more important than addressing care issues where a benefit can be realized (Providing better care to the currently uninsured).

keTiiDCjGVo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
1,000,000 life-years lost is calculated by multiplying the 80 years of life lost by each of the 12,500 people who lost their lives.

That would be an odd calculation since that would mean that those 12,500 people died at birth and had, for one reason or another, a higher than average life expectancy. But hey, it's the Pacific Research Institute we're talking about here so I wouldn't doubt that they'd make such ridiculous claims. These are the same guys who are also on record questioning the negative health impact of smoking. As the old saying goes, Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Country: Monaco
Timeline
1339013474[/url]' post='5424866']

bi-partisan? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Yep... Many of the aspects of the HCR were proposed by the GOP. Of course, at the time they proposed them they were for it, but that was before they were against it...

200px-FSM_Logo.svg.png


www.ffrf.org




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
Yep... Many of the aspects of the HCR were proposed by the GOP. Of course, at the time they proposed them they were for it, but that was before they were against it...

Valid point. PPACA is, in fact, the GOP's 1993 health care reform proposal. Very few variations between PPACA and the GOP's 1993 draft legislation. Interesting that the GOP designed such monstrous, job-killing, socialist legislation just 20 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...