Latest Breaking News

question everything

(47,600 posts) Mon Jan 1, 2018, 03:46 PM Jan 2018

Tax on medical devices to resume after 2-year suspension

Source: StarTribune (AP)

While much of corporate America will enjoy a tax cut in the new year, one industry is getting a tax increase it has fought hard but so far unsuccessfully to avoid.

A 2.3-percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers is set for reinstatement Monday after a two-year hiatus. It was originally imposed in 2013 as one of several taxes and fees in the Affordable Care Act that pay for expanded health insurance under the law.

The tax was strongly opposed by the $150 billion a year industry that produces everything from catheters to heart stents to artificial joints. In Congress, it was unpopular not only with Republicans but many Democrats from states like Massachusetts and Minnesota with large numbers of medical device companies.

Congress voted to suspend the tax for 2016 and 2017 with the widespread expectation it would be permanently abolished before 2018. But various GOP efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the taxes associated with it failed, and the sweeping federal tax overhaul recently signed by President Donald Trump didn't eliminate the medical device tax either.

Read more: http://www.startribune.com/tax-on-medical-devices-to-resume-after-2-year-suspension/467537213/

Take this, Eric Paulsen (R-MN) now you don't have anything of claim of accomplishment.

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Tax on medical devices to resume after 2-year suspension (Original Post) question everything Jan 2018 OP

Fuckers, squeeze the last penny from people's lives uppityperson Jan 2018 #1

The purpose of the tax, in Obamacare, was to fund Obamacare, not to squeeze people. Fred Sanders Jan 2018 #6

Thank you. Funding healthcare is good, I thought it was not about that uppityperson Jan 2018 #7

Since the 2.3% is passed along to the end buyer in reality. airplaneman Jan 2018 #2

Wish we could think this corporate tax was permanent, Hortensis Jan 2018 #3

It was a deal Obama made with them and other medical providers -- in return for more insured progree Jan 2018 #4

This is tax Elizabeth Warren fought to repeal because medical devices are big business in her state. Hoyt Jan 2018 #5

Hopefully the restored revenue from this will make up for some of the other torpedoed funding. nt BumRushDaShow Jan 2018 #8

How does adding taxes on medical devices make health care more affordable again? MichMan Jan 2018 #9

Not directly. But as metnioned above, another way to fund the ACA question everything Jan 2018 #10

Please see #4. It was something the industry agreed to, in return for 20 million additional progree Jan 2018 #11

uppityperson

(115,681 posts)

1. Fuckers, squeeze the last penny from people's lives

Reply to question everything (Original post)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 03:55 PM

Jan 2018

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)

6. The purpose of the tax, in Obamacare, was to fund Obamacare, not to squeeze people.

Reply to uppityperson (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 04:24 PM

Jan 2018

uppityperson

(115,681 posts)

7. Thank you. Funding healthcare is good, I thought it was not about that

Reply to Fred Sanders (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 05:06 PM

Jan 2018

I stand corrected.

airplaneman

(1,244 posts)

2. Since the 2.3% is passed along to the end buyer in reality.

Reply to question everything (Original post)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 04:04 PM

Jan 2018

I have no problem paying for this tax given that it help more people get health coverage.
-Airpalne

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)

3. Wish we could think this corporate tax was permanent,

Reply to question everything (Original post)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 04:07 PM

Jan 2018

but it won't be. It's a very wealthy and powerful smaller industry and didn't get there by letting Republicans keep them joining the crowds at the feeding trough.

Some while ago I read that there were about 5 prosthetic knee device manufacturers selling in the U.S. Surgeons doing knee replacements had to sign agreements not to disclose what they paid for the devices. And these prostheses passed through the hands of up to 13 middlemen, all adding on their charges of course, before getting to the surgeon.

progree

(10,950 posts)

4. It was a deal Obama made with them and other medical providers -- in return for more insured

Reply to question everything (Original post)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 04:11 PM

Jan 2018

patients and thus more customers for their products and services, the providers agreed to give some of the windfall back in higher fees or taxes to help fund the ACA. (P.S. contrary to right wing and Jeeper propaganda, emergency rooms don't provide much care -- only enough to stabilize the patient before throwing him/her back out on the street with a bunch of prescriptions and referrals that they can't afford to fill or follow up on).

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)

5. This is tax Elizabeth Warren fought to repeal because medical devices are big business in her state.

Reply to question everything (Original post)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 04:23 PM

Jan 2018

I don't think we can stick GOPers with this one completely.

BumRushDaShow

(130,060 posts)

8. Hopefully the restored revenue from this will make up for some of the other torpedoed funding. nt

Reply to question everything (Original post)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 05:38 PM

Jan 2018

MichMan

(12,002 posts)

9. How does adding taxes on medical devices make health care more affordable again?

Reply to question everything (Original post)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 07:02 PM

Jan 2018

Never understood how taxing medical devices was a part of the ACA in the first place? Seems counterintuitive to me.

question everything

(47,600 posts)

10. Not directly. But as metnioned above, another way to fund the ACA

Reply to MichMan (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 09:33 PM

Jan 2018

Just as I think that the 3.8% extra tax on investment stays. Again, part of the ACA to help Medicare.

progree

(10,950 posts)

11. Please see #4. It was something the industry agreed to, in return for 20 million additional

Reply to MichMan (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 1, 2018, 09:54 PM

Jan 2018

customers. They apparently figured the additional profit exceeded the cost of the 2.3% tax.

Reply to this discussion