As Obama Heads To NIH Today To Defend Failed Economic Experiment, His Health Care Experiment Will Hinder Search For Future Cures And Jobs
RNC CHAIRMAN MICHAEL STEELE: "It is the height of hypocrisy for the president to give himself a big pat on the back for funding government-run health innovations while he supports a huge tax on private-sector health innovations. There is certainly a role for the federal government in medical research. But government should not punish the private sector by taxing new medical innovations and tools that can help improve care and save lives. The private sector isn't a cash cow the president can use to finance his government-run health care experiment."
OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE INNOVATION TAX WILL STIFLE SEARCH FOR CURES
Obama-Reid Taxes On Medical Devices Will Make Health Care Services More Expensive. "The medical-device industry is organizing companies that make everything from CT scans to contact lenses to fight a proposed $4 billion annual fee on device makers, arguing that companies across the board could get hit with the fees ... 'They're going to get walloped upside the head with a new tax during a struggling economy,' he [Brett Loper of AdvaMed] said. 'Hopefully, we can convince enough people that a medical products tax will only increase the costs.'" (Chris Frates and Carrie Budoff Brown, "Medical-Device Makers Launch Blitz," Politico, 9/14/09)
Tax Would Stifle Medical "Research And Development" And "Jeopardize Thousands Of High-Paying" Jobs. "The proposed tax would have a significant and unfair impact on our industry, a worldwide leader in biomedical innovation ... Such a rate would dramatically increase our overall effective tax rate, and, in turn constrain resources used for research and development and investment in physical manufacturing capacity. In short, the tax would jeopardize thousands of high-paying scientific and engineering jobs, precisely the types of jobs we must keep and grow in the United States ..." (California Health Care Institute et. al., Letter To Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), 9/18/09)
Revenue From Tax Would Exceed Amount of Venture Capital Invested In "Life-Saving Medical Treatments." "In view of these changes, the proposed $40 billion tax [over ten years] on the medical device industry is particularly onerous. Such a tax will sharply cut the resources available for research and development of life-saving medical treatments ... The tax also exceeds the total amount of venture capital dollars invested in device companies in 2007 ($3.7B) and on an annual basis, is four times what device companies raised in 2007 for IPOs ($1B)." (Advanced Medical Technology Association, "AdvaMed Statement On Chairman's Mark," Press Release, 9/16/09)
WHILE HIS OTHER HEALTH CARE TAXES WILL HINDER AMERICAN JOB CREATION IN TOUGH ECONOMY
Obama's "Employer Mandate" To Buy Insurance Will Undermine Small Businesses' Ability To Create New Jobs. "The research and data on the devastating impact of an employer mandate is clear - it is a job killer ... hardly what this country needs in these challenging economic times ... Adding new, additional burdens to small business owners - especially in the form of an expensive mandate - is not an effective approach to reform. In fact, it burdens the very people we are supposed to be trying to help." (National Federation of Independent Business, "Health Reform Must Help, Not Harm Small Businesses," Press Release, 6/10/09)
And Harm Their Ability To Hire Low-Income Workers. "[E]mployers who do not offer 'affordable' coverage to employees would have to help pay the cost of such benefits for their low-income workers ...
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research and advocacy group, said this proposal 'could unintentionally discourage the hiring of lower-income people,' by adding a new 'health surcharge' to the cost of employing them." (Jeff Zeleny and Robert Pear, "Obama Says Government Health Coverage Plan Would Not Hurt Private Insurers," The New York Times, 6/23/09)
House Dems' Large Income Tax Hikes Eat Into Small Business Owners' Hard Earned Income. "Obama's plan to raise the top tax rate from 35% to 39%, combined with the health care surtax, would mean top-earning households are keeping 17% less of their income after paying taxes ... High tax rates have serious economic consequences ...They also shrink the size of the tax base, raise less revenue than some might think, and overly burden the entrepreneurial sector." (Robert Carroll, "The Economic Costs Of High Tax Rates," Tax Foundation, 7/29/09)
And Less Income Means They'll Be Forced To Lay Off Many Hard Working Employees. "This [surtax] would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators or investors, according to a 2007 Treasury study ... America's successful small businesses would pay higher tax rates than the Fortune 500, and for that matter than most companies around the world ... " (Editorial, "The Small Business Surtax," The Wall Street Journal, 7/14/09)
Tax Increases Will Lead To $76 Billion In Lost Economic Activity In 2011 Alone. "[T]he higher tax rates are estimated to raise $88 billion in 2011, but the economy will incur an additional burden of $76 billion--or 'deadweight loss'--as a result, which raises the total cost of the tax increases to $164 billion, roughly double what lawmakers intend to raise." (Robert Carroll, "The Excess Burden of Taxes And The Economic Cost Of High Tax Rates," Tax Foundation, 8/14/09)
And Could Lead To Over 450,000 Jobs Lost Over Next 10 Years. "Job losses would mount over time as potential high-income earners forgo job-creating endeavors; By 2019, the economy would offer 452,000 fewer jobs than it would have without the reforms ..." (Karen Campbell Ph.D., "Current Health I nsurance Reform Proposals Vs. Real Reform And Economic Growth," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2321, 9/23/09)
more http://gop.com
Health Care Reform For You, Not U.S.
Government: Federal employees are squawking that Congress might change their gold-plated health coverage, with its wide array of choices. Why isn't what the politicians plan for us good enough for them?The National Association of Retired Federal Employees sent an e-mail to its members this week warning of two amendments to the Senate's health bill that "threaten the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)."One was a proposal from Iowa's Charles Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. It required federal workers and members of Congress to join state-based health exchanges to purchase health insurance instead of the FEHBP.The Finance Committee changed it to make enrollment in the exchanges optional rather than mandatory for federal employees and lawmakers. But the NARFE warned that "Grassley's staff has said they still plan to push the stronger language."
The interest group warned its members that "the Grassley amendment would effectively end FEHBP and require federal workers to join the health exchanges. You worked too hard for your FEHBP health benefits, and we cannot allow them to be taken away."A second amendment giving the federal worker advocate group the jitters comes from liberal Democratic finance panel member Ron Wyden of Oregon. Wyden wants to, as NARFE puts it, "open the FEHBP to certain low-income, nonfederal civilians."NARFE insists "that any proposal to open the FEHBP to the public must include separate risk pools, which the Wyden amendment does not contain ... Risk pools are used to calculate health plan premiums based on the cost of providing coverage to enrollees."The group warns its members that "without the opportunity to study nonfederal enrollees in a separate FEHBP risk pool, the introduction of any new community into the FEHBP could result in unanticipated premium increases."And so, the NARFE is asking members to contact senators and urge them "to oppose any amendment to health care reform legislation that would force federal workers and annuitants into the exchange system and/or would open FEHBP to nonfederal civilians without a separate risk pool."A list of key senators was provided to NARFE members so they could "make an all-out effort" to influence lawmakers who "play a leading role in shaping the legislation."The way these federal worker lobbyists are panicking, you'd think they were about to have the crown jewels stolen from them. Well, that's about right.Should it really be a surprise that politicians in Washington have bestowed upon themselves the best health care scheme available? Should it amaze anyone that even liberal lawmakers pushing for a single payer Euro-socialistic health system for the rest of us found that a system squarely based on robust competition and the widest range of consumer choice was what they would want for themselves and their families?The number of private health insurance plans available to federal employees through FEHBP is well over 200, ranging from fee-for-service policies to HMOs and PPOs. The geographical location of the federal worker may limit availability, but no government employee has fewer than a dozen choices available.
Plus, every year, the millions of Americans who form the federal work force can switch their plan if they've decided they don't like it, and every year tens of thousands of them do just that.
"This puts tremendous pressure on health plans to be competitive and innovative," notes Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute. "Not surprisingly, most are." And while most U.S. private employers don't offer consumer-driven health insurance plans, the FEHBP offers a selection of more than a dozen such schemes.
Uncle Sam helps out with the premiums too, to the tune of over 70%, and regulation is very much on the light side: no state-mandated benefits or premium taxes and no specification of standard benefits by the federal government.As Dr. Gratzer puts it, comparing the FEHBP to federal health care entitlements, "the federal government's role in the FEHBP is to pay the bills; under Medicare, Washington is the designer of benefits." What's more, FEHBP costs have grown at a far lower rate than private insurance spending. That's the beauty of an arrangement that embraces competition.Politicians and the federal work force know that consumer choice works for their own health coverage. Whatever they impose on the rest of us, it's a safe bet they won't ruin the great competition-based deal they got for themselves. http:IBDaily.com
EXCLUSIVE: President Obama has cut off communication with Republican leaders, going more than four months without hosting the bipartisan congressional leadership at the White House to discuss his health care proposal, the No. 2 Republican in the House said Wednesday. Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, told The Washington Times that health care reform has been an "utter disaster" for Mr. Obama and predicted if he pushes through a public option as part of a final bill, Republicans will win back at least one chamber of Congress in the 2010 elections. Mr. Cantor said Mr. Obama initially asked for Republican help on health care, but Republicans have heard nothing since they offered their ideas."No matter what the cry is from the White House, no matter what the president claims, they have not engaged with us," he said. "The White House at this point has shut down, as far as any kind of engagement. I think that the last time that we as a Republican leadership were at the White House was in May, and that's when they called us in at the beginning of the health care discussion so that they could get our ideas," Mr. Cantor said. "The president enlisted us and said we want your ideas. [Minority Leader John A.] Boehner and I sent a letter to the White House in response to that request. Nothing." The White House disputed Mr. Cantor's assertion, saying that just last week, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius invited Rep. Tom Price and the Republican Study Committee to sit down and discuss the proposal. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Republicans are welcome to join the discussion - if they offer a comprehensive plan of their own. "We'd be happy to evaluate their comprehensive proposal to provide health care reform to the American people. If you want to get it from them, I'll be happy to take it over to [legislative] affairs," Mr. Gibbs said. Mr. Gibbs also said Republicans could take advantage of "a series of two-way streets between here and Capitol Hill" if they want to be constructive. By Stephen Dinan http:washingtontimes.com
