It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Medical Companies: Taxes In Healthcare Bill Will Kill Jobs, Businesses

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Absolutely! However, would add that we, the American consumer, shoulder some of the blame, as well. I know this will bring about the label of "Isolationalist", but...

BUY AMERICAN!

[edit on 28-3-2010 by WTFover]




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


And you're another misinformed brainwashed European/foreigner. Big Pharma? Haha......if it wasn't for big pharma reaping huge profits over here in a America your pathetic unemployment rate would be even worse. Most major pharmaceutical companies are FOREIGN owned companies. Also........nobody dies in the street in the US. In fact we have the best trauma medicine in the world. Much much better than anything you have in Europe or any other country. If someone is sick hospitals in the US HAVE to treat people. The uninsured might come out with a big bill but no one is dying in the street.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Once again, taxes will be for everybody, that means the working class be poor or rich.

Then we have to deal with the news that Obama is going to make Medicare the biggest insurer in the nation knowing very well the precarious financial situation of that same entitlement program.

We can not forget that so far is no regulations to the private insurance companies.

And that the bill that was passed one week ago is the Senate bill or Baucus bill that was actually written by private insurance lawyers.

While we have been talking, debating and trying to open the eyes of the people to the realities of what Socialized health care really means is starting to look like Medicare is going to become the public option.

But hey from where the money is going to come to do that? again the working class.

Also when it comes to quality of care we can not deny that while companies are letting employees go in order to preserve their profits so the same will happen with the mandatory health care, the cost will be passed to the employees.

In the way of higher premiums, more out of pocket expenses and higher deductibles.

So those that will be forced into paying health care by mandate will find themselves with insurance premiums too expensive to use like already happening in Massachusetts, the private insurances are getting their cut while the people can not use the insurance.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by rich23
 


And you're another misinformed brainwashed European/foreigner.


Who enjoys free health care, thanks!


Big Pharma? Haha......if it wasn't for big pharma reaping huge profits over here in a America your pathetic unemployment rate would be even worse.


This displays a woeful grasp of economics.


Also........nobody dies in the street in the US.


HMOs are known to put people out on the street because they can't pay their medical bills. A doctor, nearly in tears, testified before congress that she'd felt incredibly guilty because her success had rested on denying people health care and she knew people had died as a result.


In fact we have the best trauma medicine in the world. Much much better than anything you have in Europe or any other country.


More prejudice with no evidence to back it up.


If someone is sick hospitals in the US HAVE to treat people. The uninsured might come out with a big bill but no one is dying in the street.


Ever seen "Sicko"? Tell that to the guy who was given the choice of having his ring finger re-attached for $12,000 or his middle finger re-attached for $60,000. Tell that to the relatives of people who died because they were refused health care, who know that in the civilised world, their loved one would have got the treatment they needed.

One of my friends recently made a good recovery from leukaemia. He's been in remission for several years now, and he would be dead if he lived in the US. He got fantastic treatment in excellently appointed hospitals.

For free.

And, personally, I prefer a system in which, if I'm in hospital, I don't have to be desperately worried about being bankrupt for the rest of my life.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


What we keep trying to stress to Canadians and Europeans who are confused by what just passed and are in shock that we don't like it... it is NOT what you guys have (which I happen to personally envy).

This is an ENTIRELY different ballgame. It's not 'free/universal health care.' It's 'You will be forced to purchase private insurance and if you don't, you will be fined (and some say jailed but I'm not sure if that is true or is a scare tactic).

So basically the government is forcing us to purchase something and heaven help you if you can't afford it if your budget is already strained. Basically, taxes just went through the roof AND many have to still pay out of pocket. And these companies have to personally pay for insurance for their employees- it's not something the government is doing. And you know they'll be passing the buck to us.

At least in your case you get taxed and free health care. Here, many are taxed and still have to pay for private insurance. And to my knowledge, this bill does nothing to cap premiums although there is some talk that will be occurring (at least I hope it will).

It's going to be a mess. The only real good that came from his is that insurance companies can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. The rest is a nightmare.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


No, I absolutely understand what you're saying. Before the bill was even fully debated, my assessment of the situation was that lobbyists would ensure that anything that ultimately got through would, if anything, strengthen the position of HMOs and Big Pharma. They weren't going to give up their enormous profits without a fight, and ultimately the bill would be a hideous travesty (of a farrago of a sham of a mockery of a...).

I've heard that Obama, trying to be conciliatory, let loads of Republican amendments get through, and then the Reps didn't vote for the bill anyway. I always thought it was going to be an utter dog's breakfast.

And according to Michael Moore, the fine for denying healthcare is $100/day, which is what, $36,500/year... so it'll still be cost-effective to deny any treatment that's going to cost more than that... and when you factor in actuarial notions of how many people will actually bother to sue, and how many will die relatively quickly, the "deny limit" figure is probably a lot lower.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 





And according to Michael Moore, the fine for denying healthcare is $100/day, which is what, $36,500/year... so it'll still be cost-effective to deny any treatment that's going to cost more than that... and when you factor in actuarial notions of how many people will actually bother to sue, and how many will die relatively quickly, the "deny limit" figure is probably a lot lower.


Why even bother to bring this up? These denials of health coverage are by the same HMOs and insurance companies that Americans are now going to be forced to buy their healthcare insurance from...

So you are saying that it is a good thing for more Americans to buy into health coverage that will be denied to them anyway?

This healthcare bill has FAIL written all over it.


[edit on 29-3-2010 by BomSquad]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Take a good look at Detroit and you'll see the future the government will create by their corrupt legislation and agendas.

It is a job killer, and will deliver a death blow to an already extremely fragile economy.

The new taxes alone will take billions from the economy. And they plan to rake it in before they implement this monster fully in 2014.

If employers are faced with higher taxes, higher costs as a result of this plan, then you don't need to be an economist to see how that can prevent businesses from hiring new employees.

Get ready for a very stormy and destructive few years as this all plays out.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 




If employers are faced with higher taxes, higher costs as a result of this plan, then you don't need to be an economist to see how that can prevent businesses from hiring new employees.


I could not agree more. I would take it one step further. Once an employee costs a business more than the employee makes for a business, they will be laid off.

As you add more taxes and benefits that a company is required to pay per employee you dis-incentify the hiring/retaining of employees. What you end up with is a business with fewer employees asking those fewer employees to work harder/longer to maintain productivity.

This bill will put more people out of work, and the ones left working will be expected to work even harder to maintain production.

Government always forgets that when it makes it harder for businesses to make money, it is not the businesses that suffer, it is the employees and consumers. The business will always take care of itself first.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Are you familiar with the universal, mandate health insurance in the State of Massachusetts? well is not universal is private health care mandate like the now National HCR, but a study done back in 2009 shows that most people that has been forced to buy mandatory health care insurance including those that are subsidized by the government are now facing the problem that the private care doesn't cover, out of pocket expenses, medications and the deductibles are too high, meaning that people are covered but unable to afford to use the insurances, this put a steady income into the pockets of the private health care industry but fail to help with health care needs, the government doesn't cover or subsidizes your deductibles, a 5,000 deductible is too much money for somebody in the poverty level, still the waiting for those that can afford deductables are still undesirable



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by BomSquad
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


Government always forgets that when it makes it harder for businesses to make money, it is not the businesses that suffer, it is the employees and consumers. The business will always take care of itself first.


And they forget that higher taxes along with much higher health care costs for individuals will mean less money to spend in the private sector, at least for those of us still working. Those costs will grow as more and more people lose jobs because those who can pay will have to pay for those who can't.

It can only get worse as time goes by.

If this isn't somehow stopped we are faced with a very gloomy future that can only get worse as time passes.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinveezy
Zoll, the leading manufacturer of heart defibrillators, employs around 650 people at its manufacturing facility in Massachusetts, and a further 1000 across the country.

"We believe that the tax will cost us somewhere between $5 million and $10 million a year," Richard Packer, Zoll's chairman and chief executive officer told The Washington Examiner this week. "Our profit in 2009 was $9.5 million."


Zoll made 9.5 Million in profits last year on something like 300 Million in revenues....while at the same time having their defibulator recalled.

www.fda.gov...

I am no Medical Device executive, but just thinking here....maybe if they made a device that people rely on to save lives that actually worked they would have larger profits? It seems a reasonable place to focus your energies rather than complaining about taxes.

They made 9.5 million during a near economic collapse by selling a defibulator that was recalled...not bad. I am having a hard time working up my "glen beck" tears for them.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BomSquad
So you are saying that it is a good thing for more Americans to buy into health coverage that will be denied to them anyway?


For people who can't read, I'll just quote the relevant parts of my previous posts...

From my first post:


Reality check: the HMOs are making obscene profits, likewise Big Pharma, under the US system. And of course by the time any act gets passed, their lobbyists will have ensured that that state of affairs will continue.


then...


Before the bill was even fully debated, my assessment of the situation was that lobbyists would ensure that anything that ultimately got through would, if anything, strengthen the position of HMOs and Big Pharma.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
If employers are faced with higher taxes, higher costs as a result of this plan, then you don't need to be an economist to see how that can prevent businesses from hiring new employees.


But the costs of the US health care system are artificially inflated, as I've tried to point out. Watch "Sicko". Prescription costs in the US are much, much higher than anyone esle in the world, simply because a lot of other governments realise the absurd profits that Big Pharma tries to ensure... and acts accordingly to stop the gouging.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Ashley,

Your posts are spot on. I am an American health professional who has been working in the United kingdom for the past 7 years. Even you, have no idea how bad it is going to get. I have seen more suffering and misery here than I ever saw in the United States. The system is completely stalinist. The government lies and so to the stats. The public has no idea how bad it is.

The nurses and doctors of america will not put up with the BS that nurses and doctors suffer here i.e. 80 work weeks and only paid for 40 hours etc etc. We are outnumbered by buearocrats (who freely admit that they get a big salary for bull#ting and falsifying data) and cannot care for our patients. No resources, no job options, just more government initiatives and pen pushers and higher taxes why are wages are frozen by the government.

I have seen more unecessary deaths here than I ever saw in the States. But it is swept under the carpet. When family members of patients complain they are rebuffed. Doctors and nurses are gagged for not toeing the party line.

When I came here I was very open to the idea of government run healthcare. Not. any.more.

Look up staffordshire hospital deaths. Hang on. I'll get some links.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Vinveezy
 


Consider the source.

Business says tax on business bad for business

Terrorists say bombing terrorists bad for terrorism.

Same thing.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   
So now we will go from having less industry to no industry. This was a well thought out strategy by the administration I am sure. Looks like a whole lot more people are gonna be dependent on the government for income in the future.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

The BBC's report is a conservative estimate. More people died, other hospitals are like this, and it is the direct result of wasteful and expensive government initiatives and top heavy management (managers outnumber docs and nurses)


news.bbc.co.uk...


www.guardian.co.uk...

www.telegraph.co.uk...


www.telegraph.co.uk...#

www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BomSquad
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 




If employers are faced with higher taxes, higher costs as a result of this plan, then you don't need to be an economist to see how that can prevent businesses from hiring new employees.


I could not agree more. I would take it one step further. Once an employee costs a business more than the employee makes for a business, they will be laid off.

As you add more taxes and benefits that a company is required to pay per employee you dis-incentify the hiring/retaining of employees. What you end up with is a business with fewer employees asking those fewer employees to work harder/longer to maintain productivity.

This bill will put more people out of work, and the ones left working will be expected to work even harder to maintain production.

Government always forgets that when it makes it harder for businesses to make money, it is not the businesses that suffer, it is the employees and consumers. The business will always take care of itself first.



Well said ! You have expressed my sentiments on this subject to a Tee .
It will be the Employees who will suffer the burden , not the Employers .



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
And it would appear that some of the Brits who are posting on this thread are not aware of the £20 billion in cuts that they are making to the NHS this year. But your taxes are still going to be so high that you have no other options.

We are already on our knees to do a lack of beds, trained staff, resources and facilities. And they are going to be cutting all that even more and then lying about all the deaths that will occur. The front line staff who is overwhelmed tend to shoulder the blame rather than a government who sees to it that money never manages to trickle down to the front lines.

The qualified nurse to patient ratios on NHS general wards would put Haiti to shame. The lack of doctors in hospital out of hours killed a few of my patients recently. The maternity ward is called the death unit staffed with one midwife to 30 women. But high paid managers who live and breathe government initiatives and cost cutting of frontline services are all over the place and will increase.

America, do NOT go down this road.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Mamie]




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join