« 76 days, 56 lives | theCleverBulldog's Blog | Yet another example of why democrats can't be trusted »

Democrat economics


an excerpt from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20091029/pl_bloomberg/az8rxqejqhbu


"Leaders are also planning fees on medical-device makers that will add up to $20 billion over 10 years, according to another congressional aide. The Senate has proposed $40 billion in fees on device makers, as well as levies on drugmakers and insurers."

So, to lower the cost of insurance, drugs, and medical treatment, Democrats propose billions in new TAXES on medical devices, drugs, and insurance. Now, how is that going to lower costs? You think those companies might pass those new fees on to their customers? Care to bet on that? If it weren't so serious it would be funny. But it is serious, and it is not funny. It's just another example of why insurance and medical care are so expensive currently: government regulations, fees, taxes, and policies that prevent competition, drive up costs, and limit choices. Government is not the solution, as usual it is the problem.

3 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

The net cost of healthcare is dictated by the difference between money flowing into the system and money flowing out. In this case, the taxes will bring money in - to help subsidize premiums that would otherwise be fully paid by consumers. Any part of the tax increase passed on to consumers by the device manufacturers will increase money flowing out, but the net effect will be inward - i.e., a cost saving. The reason is that the higher cost to consumers will result in fewer purchases, and so to offset this, the device makers will swallow some of the tax increases in order to maintain a reasonable income. Finally, the tax increases are necessary to avoid increasing the federal deficit, which would add to interest on the national debt and therefore cost more.

These are small steps forward, but in the right direction. The healthcare system is enormously bloated with excessive expenditures on treatments, devices, drugs, etc., that contribute to costs but not to health. Even more than disincentivizing excess expenditures on devices will be the need to reduce expenditures on unnecessary or duplicate facilities, tests, and specialty referrals.

user-pic

This is an informative reply- I wonder what the Bulldog thinks?

user-pic

His answer shows what he thinks. He doesn't.

Leave a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address