Footwedge;1017443 wrote:We socialize the "breathe tax" as it stands today. On average, hospitals treat about 33% indogent patients. Who pays? Well, those that buy health insurance do.
First, it's not an automatic. Those that use the hospital for their sniffles get billed for their time. If they choose to not pay anything, then they have stolen services. There are free clinics for people that can't pay. Since the government has decreed that receipt of medical services without payment is how we want to live as a society, then in some cases where people decide somebody owes them a service merely because they breathe, their costs are spread amongst those that have health insurance. As you say, it isn't spread amongst all Americans, just those that have the ability to pay. You'll find that's kind of a theme in the statist utopian world.
Second, there are millions of Americans that don't want to pay for health insurance. Notably, the very wealthy and the very healthy. The very wealthy find that being self-insured actually saves them money as they pay their bills with cold hard cash at a discount. The very healthy don't want it because it's money they can save for trips to the gym...or vitamins...or maybe even a milkshake. The brand new breath tax attacks both these classes. Kind of like making a lactose-intollerant person buy a gallon of milk because it's needed for his neighbor that doesn't want to pay for his own milk.
Third.... one out of every three patients is indigent? Only 2/3 of Americans are covered by some health plan and the other third are under the poverty line? How bout a link please.
Footwedge;1017443 wrote:I wouldn't cry about this either. Medical devices for the most part are patent protected. Not that there is anything wrong with patents mind you. But for the most part, the selling prices are not tied to a free market, but to an artificially inflated one. I know a few device reps..they make on average of 250K. Are they good at what they do? Yes. Do they work hard? Yup. Are they worth 250K a year? Not in a free market system. So taxing virtual monopolies doesn't make me cry at all.
What in the world do patents have to do with taxing them? Your point is "you know a guy" that makes more than you deem worthy, so the fact that these devices are suddenly under assault is fine and dandy as "your guy" has more than enough money than he knows how to spend. Who deemed Footwedge as the determinant of what is fair? Are you the market-savant? Or is that the Harvard-educated fella currently in charge of all things American? Do you think "your guy" got to his exorbitant and way-out-of-line salary by being lucky or does he have some skills that will allow him to avoid paying anything out of his pocket? If you don't think "your guy" won't pass along an increased cost as part of his cost of doing business, you are sadly ostrich-like.
Footwedge;1017443 wrote:See my answer to point number one above. Obamacare is forcing the low enders to chip in a little. Isn't that what you want? As it stands today, the indogent pay nada..whereby the purchasers....i.e....working people...paying the medical premiums.... are paying for their care.
I agree...this is very stupid. Just raise the personal tax brackets of the 1% crowd and call it a day.
Raising taxes on millionaires making $200,000 cures every ill on the planet. Got it.
Footwedge;1017443 wrote:Not sure I understand exactly what a "new tax on investment" means. If you mean a hike in capital gains taxes...well it is long overdue. However, tax credits should be given to intra country investments...and penalties levied for building sweat shops in China....but that makes too much sense for it to ever be implemented,
As a former drug rep...for 8 years, I can tell you that this is good legislation. Generic equivelents should be used at every opportunity. Only the uninformed public are so gullible to buy brand named drugs. There are a few rare exceptions, but I'm not gonna go there.
Huh, you are also smart enough to deem brand name drugs as unworthy and only the gullible buy them, so they should be taxed accordingly. I had no idea you were this intelligent. The market should be shut down and a similar smart guy, say a Harvard-educated man, should be put in charge of all drugs. Got it.
Footwedge;1017443 wrote:Again, if these companies were pricing their products at where "the free market would bear", there would be no reason to charge a surtax. So...I wouldn't lose any sleep over Merck, Pfizer, GSK, or Novartis paying the government a few extra billion.
Yes, these companies will certainly not pass any costs due to tax increases onto their customers because they love socialism and feel they should be forced to pay more. :rolleyes: Let me ask you this...if the gas tax goes up 20 cents per gallon tonight for all dealers, will the cost of a gallon of gas go up 0 cents or 20 cents tomorrow?
I found another more informative link to the increased taxes due to ObamaKare -
http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758
If nothing else, those that think Obama is only increasing taxes on those making more than $200,000 should have their eyes opened...if only slightly.