The New Insulin Pump Tax and Health Insurance "Reforms"
Pardon the rant, but I am simply incredulous that the health insurance "reform" bill pushed by Obama and passed by the Democrats adds taxes for the sick, disabled, poor and middle class - and of course, diabetics on insulin pumps and using CGMS systems. Some of you Obama fans may reflexively disagree and I'm sure I'll hear no end of it here, but color me outraged.
Flexible Spending Accounts are often used by people who make middle class money, as long as they make enough to pay any taxes at all and have medical needs to pay for. Reducing the amount of FSAs to less than half of the current limit means that the sick and disabled who rely on them the most will end up paying more taxes! Even sick and disabled people and families making lower middle class incomes! And on top of that, they added a brand spanking new tax to medical devices, which will of course be passed right through to the consumers of those devices - diabetics and other people who are sick and disabled! Poor and middle class included! I use my FSA to help pay for pumping and CGMS supplies, and am well under the income levels Obama said he would not support new taxes on, and I am apoplectic that I have become the target to pay for their so called reform.
In spite of his oft repeated promise not to increase taxes on people making under $250k, Obama and the Democrats are trying to do just that in this bill, and in fact reaching MUCH, MUCH lower, right below the belt. In fact, they are taxing those members of the lower and middle class who are the sickest and/or disabled in order to pay for this huge new new bureaucracy. And the readers of this board are right on the front lines - this tax will directly affect many of you, as the costs of pumping and CGM use will no doubt rise in at least direct proportion to the new tax on these systems, if not substantially more.
I think I'm going to be sick right now.
Flexible Spending Accounts are often used by people who make middle class money, as long as they make enough to pay any taxes at all and have medical needs to pay for. Reducing the amount of FSAs to less than half of the current limit means that the sick and disabled who rely on them the most will end up paying more taxes! Even sick and disabled people and families making lower middle class incomes! And on top of that, they added a brand spanking new tax to medical devices, which will of course be passed right through to the consumers of those devices - diabetics and other people who are sick and disabled! Poor and middle class included! I use my FSA to help pay for pumping and CGMS supplies, and am well under the income levels Obama said he would not support new taxes on, and I am apoplectic that I have become the target to pay for their so called reform.
In spite of his oft repeated promise not to increase taxes on people making under $250k, Obama and the Democrats are trying to do just that in this bill, and in fact reaching MUCH, MUCH lower, right below the belt. In fact, they are taxing those members of the lower and middle class who are the sickest and/or disabled in order to pay for this huge new new bureaucracy. And the readers of this board are right on the front lines - this tax will directly affect many of you, as the costs of pumping and CGM use will no doubt rise in at least direct proportion to the new tax on these systems, if not substantially more.
I think I'm going to be sick right now.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
I'm not sure enough facts are available to make an informed decision yet.
But I do know this:
47 Million people do not have health insurance at all, about 20 percent of the population under the age of 65.
13.2% of people are considered in poverty in the nation. (Generally considered to be about four times the cost of groceries for a year, last I heard it was about $24,000 for a family of FOUR)
As far as taxes go, 43.4% of Americans pay no or have a negative tax liability (Earned income credit)
Don't you think we as a nation should help these people? or should we pretend they don't exist?
Obviously, what we are doing now isn't working. At least not for everybody.
-
Permalink Reply by Shannon on -
Unless I'm mistaken, families who are at or below the poverty line already qualify for Medicaid.
I know plenty of people who choose not to have health insurance. They could get it if they wanted, but they don't. Not sure how many of those 47 million fall into that category, but I'd be interested to find out.
If 43.4% of Americans pay no tax, should the other 56.6% of hardworking Americans have to pay for EVERYTHING? Seriously?
I think that, as a nation, we'd be more inclined to give to the many charitable organizations that help the needy IF we weren't taxed to the gills. I'd happily give more of my income if it weren't already taken from me every two weeks. I want to have that choice.
-
Permalink Reply by Terry Keelan on -
One source of the "43.4% pay no taxes may be this 2006 report from the Tax Foundation. It includes people who pay payroll taxes that are ultimately refunded and consists mostly of single people and heads of households who just don't make enough money to have to pay taxes or take lawful deductions that reduces their tax burden. They have all filed returns. None of them are tax cheats if anyone is thinking such things. And the subject is really irrelevant to health care reform. Unless someone is arguing that people who pay more taxes should get better services.
Everybody in every country complains about taxes, but Americans are not 'taxed to the gills'. The highest rate is 35%, which is hardly out of line compared to many other industrial nations (see this site for other countries tax rates). Even though tax rates and marginal rates have been going down since 2000, we still insist on complaining about how high our taxes are.
Frankly, I don't mind paying taxes. What I mind is what I pay taxes FOR.
Terry
-
Permalink Reply by Patricia on -
No, not all low income people qualify for Medicaid because the qualifications are different by state and in ours, you do not qualify even if you are unemployed = no income, if you have not pro-created (have children/dependents). Here is a link to the Medicaid qualifications...note that they say you must look at specific qualifiers per state law...yes, you must be low income but, that does not alone qualify you for help.
We agree...there are those who have incomes or resources that should require that they pay taxes and maybe more than the poor, working, and middle classes. Our tax code needs revision to allow a more progressive tax.
I would never rely on charitable giving to solve a major issue like our health care mess. It would be like having bake sales to fund the shuttle launch! I also believe that everyone is "hard working" especially those that work 2-3 jobs at minimum wage to just pay to keep the lights on...and they are not middle class.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim on -
You are citing to statistics that are irrelevant to the discussion of the fact that they are adding taxes for middle and lower class diabetics and other disabled and ill people, seemingly trying to change the subject rather than addressing the point.
But I'll address it anyway. The 47 million figure is widely exaggerated and disputed since if you dissect it, (a) 9+ million of those are non-citizens (and no, I don't think we should be providing them health coverage), (b) the way the survey in question was conducted did not adequately distinguish between people who were without insurance for the entire year in question and people who went without coverage for a few months between jobs, etc., (c) of the remaining 37 million, even if we assume all of them were uninsured for the entire year of the survey, over 17 million of those make over $50,000 a year and could afford coverage but choose not to buy it, and (d) of the remaining 20 million or so, it is estimated that up to 14 million are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP and simply do not sign up. So we're now from "47 million uninsured Americans" to less than 10 million - if you base your argument on grossly misleading statistics, it's hard to have a reasoned discussion about the matter. If you wanted to cover those, let's round up substantially to 10 million, and the cost of simply adding them to Medicare would be a fraction of what is being proposed by Congress and the Obama administration.
But again, in any event, even if you're a centrally planned economy, pro-big-bureaucracy fan and for the most part never met a tax you didn't like, to me, the idea of taxing the ill and disabled from the ranks of the poor and middle class to pay for this is repugnant. I get the feeling you disagree, and as I said above, I suspected that some would.
-
Permalink Reply by Dori S on -
That 47 million people includes those who choose not to have insurance so is not an accurate number. I know quite a few that are just hoping they and their family do not get sick because they would rather have the extra cash then pay for health insurance.
There are a lot of folks out there who already can't afford their meds and supplies and now they will be looking at an increase on any equipment they need. At the very least the manufacturers will pass on the cost to the insurance companies who will in turn pass it on by raising deductibles.
I just hope all that wanted a change are happy with the change they are getting.
-
Permalink Reply by Patricia on
-
Just to share my thoughts on this. I agree that taxing durable equipment seems to be counter-productive in reducing long term costs of care if the durable equipment investment improves health. It would be truly tragic if we had no insurance choices or regulation. Seems taxing businesses appropriately in this country would go much further...but, I guess they are looking for funding for these health care changes specifically. I would say there is a bright side though...even if they could raise deductibles or pass on the costs to patients, patients will now have a choice of insurer including a government option that is not-for-profit...read, minimum costs. This is why a govt option is a must because if the legislators will not legislate cost containment, we are at the whims of the market in a system in which we are taxed/penalized if we do not buy coverage. If Aetna raises my premiums or deductibles because I want CGMS, I can go to another insurer who does or to the govt option and get it...this is a threat to Aetna...especially if millions of patients do this. Things that are well documented to improve patient outcomes (note the HR bill provides funding for this type of research and you bet the durable equipment companies will apply for some) will be offered because they must be self sustaining economically.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Actually, my point was:
Don't you think we as a nation should help these people? or should we pretend they don't exist?
-
Permalink Reply by Terry Keelan on
-
I think we should help all of our citizens get good health care. I'm willing to pay higher taxes to do it. I'm not willing to turn my taxes to enrich private insurance companies as this house bill does. The current plan only gets people health insurance and does little or nothing to guarantee them good health care.
Terry
-
Permalink Reply by Lauren on -
I'd be interested in seeing the numbers on these taxes for durable medical equipment, and how that would affect the end cost of said products. Until I see that (or take a trip through Google-ville and find it myself) I'm going to with hold any kind of freaking out/assumption making, like I've seen on this thread so far. :-D
That being said - I'm pretty darn poor (as I just went through a layoff and now the husband is the only one supporting us) and we can manage to pay for our co-pays out of pocket. So, I'm not really concerned about the FSA personally.
-
Permalink Reply by Terry Keelan on
-
Spurred by your question I spent only 30 minutes looking for data on the internet and found very little. This article is representative of what I found. This WSJ article is more recent.
The plan would tax the industry $2 billion/year for 10 years. (Originally proposed to be $4 billion/year.) It is allegedly a $130 billion/year industry. So the plan would take about 1.5% of overall revenue each year. The affect on revenue or profits will probably differ widely from company to company. The tax is a 2.5% surcharge on each device. On that very simplistic model the costs could go up at least 2.5% just to cover the tax. But that also would differ from company to company depending on what they sell, how long they've been around, what their profit margins are and a bunch of other stuff.
Opponents say the added tax would stifle innovation and drive away investors. But they always say that. Proponents say reforms will increase revenue by providing more customers to the companies. But they always say that. Who's right? It's all speculation as far as I can tell. Will the alleged increase in sales offset the increased taxes? Your guess is as good as mine. Will prices go up? You betcha. In medicine, unlike with other devices such as DVD players, the costs of devices always seem to go UP rather than DOWN.
I don't think the gummint is stupid enough to tax an industry out of business. I don't know of an example where it has done so before. I also don't think the industry is run by a bunch of dummies who can't figure out a way to make a profit. I don't think medical devices are going to get any cheaper, but I also don't think the whole reform effort is going to be funded on the backs of insulin pumpers and other users of medical devices. I really don't see how this part of the proposal is going to bring down costs.
Terry
Spread the word
Follow Us
Groups
-
Dinner and a Movie
41 members
-
Christian Diabetics
336 members
-
US - Mid-Atlantic Diabet…
173 members
-
LANTUS® Or Humalog Users
143 members
-
Teenagers With Type 1
148 members
-
Boulder Diabetics
5 members
-
parents of kids with Typ…
501 members
-
Omnipod Users
548 members
-
Symlin Users Forum
156 members
-
Oh! BABY!!!
220 members
Diabetes Resources
TuDiabetes Team
 Manny Hernandez |
 Andreina Davila |
 Kristin |
 Scott |
 Teena |
 MelissaBL |
Other Volunteers
© 2010 Created by Diabetes Hands Foundation, P.O. Box 9421, Berkeley, CA 94709.
Diabetes Hands Foundation (DHF) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Donations to DHF are eligible to be deducted.
Disclaimer
The contents of TuDiabetes is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition, including without limitation diabetes. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on TuDiabetes.
If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or 911 immediately. The Diabetes Hands Foundation does not endorse any specific tests, physicians, products, services, procedures, opinions, or other information that are advertised or mentioned on the web site.
TuDiabetes®, TuDiabetes.org®, Word in Your Hand™, Drawing Diabetes™, Diabetes Supplies Art™ and No-Sugar Added Poetry™ are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Diabetes Hands Foundation.
