Tag Archives: Health-care

News

Obamacare’s new tax on medical devices trickles down to hospitals and patients

Leave a comment

From the Wall Street Journal.

Excerpt:

Small medical-device makers have little choice but to pass their new 2.3% excise tax— meant to pay for the health law —on to hospitals and other customers, said the chief executive of one manufacturer that began surcharging hospitals for its wares on Jan. 1.

“The government thinks we’re just going to absorb these costs, but for a company like us, it’s a lot of money,” said Kevin Rudolph, the chief executive of the family-run respiratory valve maker, Hans Rudolph Inc. Instead, he said, device makers will be raising prices or adding surcharges to bills— just like other companies that faced excise taxes in the past.

In a December letter to several thousand hospital customers, Mr. Rudolph told hospitals his company would add a new line item for the tax beginning on Jan. 1. Hospitals and group-purchasing organizations began protesting last week as similar warnings from other device makers began piling up, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.

The tax is meant to raise $30 billion to help cover the health law. The device industry has lobbied to repeal the tax, which applies to sales, rather than profits. The recent clashes between hospitals and device makers underscores the breadth of the tax: It applies to companies that make big ticket items such as pacemakers and hip implants, as well as smaller firms selling surgical tools or making the plastic tubes, clips and valves that are ubiquitous in hospitals and nursing homes.

Mr. Rudolph said his firm had opted to tell hospitals upfront they’d be charged for the tax, rather than sneaking it into price increases. “I think it’s better for the customer to know what’s going on, even if they don’t like it,” he said Monday.

Hans Rudolph Inc. typically makes a 4% to 6% profit on about $5 million to $6 million in annual sales, Mr. Rudolph said. The 53-year-old Shawnee, Kan., company was founded by Mr. Rudolph’s father, and grandfather, Hans. The two elder Rudolphs built the company out of a Kansas City, Mo., basement, where Hans devised several respiratory devices. Key products still include spirometry components, for the common breath test in which patients are asked to exhale into plastic tubes.

Though the company has done well, Mr. Rudolph said, it can’t afford the tax. “We just like people to understand that the government is imposing this tax on us, so the cost of medical devices is going up,” he said.

I think that the lesson to learn here is that big government socialism doesn’t reduce the cost of anything by raising taxes on job creators. Those anti-business taxes just get passed onto consumers. In some cases, the business moves abroad or at least expands abroad, instead of staying in high tax environments. There was a plan put forward by the Republicans to reduce the costs of health care by introducing free market forces of choice and competition. Free market forces reduce the costs of all our other consumer goods, while improving the quality. Just think of computers and cell phones that are always getting better for less money. But Americans rejected that plan for Obama’s big government plan. We thought we would escape the costs of health care by taxing and regulating the providers of health care. But we were wrong. In the end, we’ll pay for it.

Related posts

News

Medical premiums will continue to rise as Obamacare is implemented

Leave a comment

The Wall Street Journal explains what will happen to medical insurance premiums as more of Obamacare is implemented in 2014.

Excerpt:

Central to ObamaCare are requirements that health insurers (1) accept everyone who applies (guaranteed issue), (2) cannot charge more based on serious medical conditions (modified community rating), and (3) include numerous coverage mandates that force insurance to pay for many often uncovered medical conditions.

[…]We compared the average premiums in states that already have ObamaCare-like provisions in their laws and found that consumers in New Jersey, New York and Vermont already pay well over twice what citizens in many other states pay. Consumers in Maine and Massachusetts aren’t far behind. Those states will likely see a small increase.

By contrast, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and Virginia will likely see the largest increases—somewhere between 65% and 100%. Another 18 states, including Texas and Michigan, could see their rates rise between 35% and 65%.

While ObamaCare won’t take full effect until 2014, health-insurance premiums in the individual market are already rising, and not just because of routine increases in medical costs. Insurers are adjusting premiums now in anticipation of the guaranteed-issue and community-rating mandates starting next year. There are newly imposed mandates, such as the coverage for children up to age 26, and what qualifies as coverage is much more comprehensive and expensive. Consolidation in the hospital system has been accelerated by ObamaCare and its push for Accountable Care Organizations. This means insurers must negotiate in a less competitive hospital market.

Although President Obama repeatedly claimed that health-insurance premiums for a family would be $2,500 lower by the end of his first term, they are actually about $3,000 higher—a spread of about $5,500 per family.

The big concern I have about all of these socialist schemes is that the public will not connect rising prices to Obama’s policies. We have been printing money (inflation), running huge deficits, imposing taxes and regulations on businesses, and so on. All of this will causes the prices that consumers pay for goods and services to go higher.

When the prices of goods and services go higher, the people who voted for Obama won’t make the connection between his policies and the rising prices. We have reached a point where a majority of the American public is as ignorant of basic economics as the peasant populations that elect communist governments. We are ready for government-controlled economy and central planning, because we can’t make the connection between cause and effect.

News

Obama rejects conscience protections for military chaplains

Leave a comment

From CNS News.

Excerpt:

President Obama issued a statement Wednesday rejecting several provisions of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), including a conscience protection for military chaplains that he called “ill-advised”.

“Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members,” he said in his signing statement.

Obama made clear that his administration would remain unmoved by the NDAA’s conscience provision, stating that the Department of Defense would continue to implement the repeal of the military’s ban on homosexual service members.

“My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that.”

The president said that the Secretary of Defense would ensure that no “discriminatory” actions result from Section 533’s conscience protections.

This is not the first time that Obama has trampled on freedom of conscience and religious liberty.

Here’s an article from Life Site News from back in 2011.

Excerpt:

The Obama Administration has rescinded a federal regulation from 2008 that protected the conscience rights of health care providers opposed to providing abortifacient contraception, such as the Plan-B “morning-after” pill.

The Health and Human Services Department under Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, issued the new “final rule,” which leaves health-care workers of federally funded entities a narrower conscience exemption that only protects them from having to participate in abortions or sterilizations.

The new regulation replaces the earlier one enacted in the waning days of the George W. Bush administration, which broadened the interpretation of existing federal conscience statutes related to abortion to include health professionals opposed to emergency contraception, such as Ella or Plan-B, drugs which pro-life advocates say also act as abortifacients.

Sebelius alleged in the promulgation of the new final rule that the Bush-era conscience regulations “instead led to greater confusion”, citing comments received by HHS. She said her department was changing the rule because it was “unclear and potentially over-broad in scope.”

The HHS Secretary said in her statement that her department did share the concern of those in favor of rescinding the rule that it had the “potential to negatively impact patient access to contraception and certain other medical services” esp. for certain sub-populations, such as “low income patients, minorities, the uninsured, patients in rural areas, Medicaid beneficiaries, or other medically under-served populations.”

The ruling is a victory for Planned Parenthood and other “family planning” groups that have insisted that drugs like Plan-B (taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse) and Ella (taken within five-days of intercourse) should be defined as “contraception.” Pro-life groups countered that pro-life health providers should be protected from discrimination under federal statutes, because these drugs could prevent a conceived human embryo from implanting in the mother’s womb, thereby aborting it.

[…]“Today’s erosion of conscience protections for medical professionals is a blow both to medicine and the right to practice one’s deeply-held convictions,” said Dr. J. Scott Ries, on behalf of the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA).

Ries said the new HHS final rule disregarded the findings of the previous HHS 2008 final rule which stated that allowing health professionals to practice according to their convictions would negatively impact patient services or create “new barriers.”

“Losing conscientious healthcare professionals and faith-based institutions to discrimination and job loss especially imperils the poor and patients in medically underserved areas,” said Ries. “We are already facing critical shortages of primary care physicians, and the Obama administration’s decision now threatens to make the situation far worse for patients across the country who depend on faith-based health care.”

If religious liberty is a concern, then you can’t be a liberal. They don’t support religious liberty.