Vet bills to increase due to medical tax

[ledboots]

Veterinarians are facing unintended cost increases due to Obamacare, and they will likely have to pass them on to the consumer.

"...Why the increase? Its part of a new 2.3-percent federal excise tax on certain medical devices that just went into effect. The tax will help fund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, intended for people, not pets.

Manufacturers pay the tax, but a recent survey found more than half plan to pass it along. Some vets say they can’t afford it. Dr. Mike Hatcher is one of them. He explained, “I’m extremely concerned how this is going to be a hidden tax to our consumers that is going to be passed on.

”How does this work? Medical devices used only on animals are exempt. However, items including IV pumps, sterile scalpels and anesthesia equipment, which are medical devices that have a dual use, meaning they can be used on people and animals, will be taxed. Hatcher said, “Putting off an equipment purchase is something that can terribly affect our clients’ ability to have quality care.”
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/03/11/obamacare-may-bite-you-at-the-vets-office/

 

[Pickle Juice]

Oh they don't have to pass the cost on to us, but they will anyway, because no one's going to stop them. Go capitalism!

 

[beancounter]

It's only a tax on certain equipment, not all, and 2-3% is a small increase, about the same as an annual COLA adjustment.

The problem is people who write these articles hate Obama and anything associated with him. Furthermore, they have a zero tolerance for even the slightest increase, and talk about it as if it would result in overwhelming economic hardship. Regardless of the amount or circumstance.

 

[ledboots]

It's only a tax on certain equipment, not all, and 2-3% is a small increase, about the same as an annual COLA adjustment.

The problem is people who write these articles hate Obama and anything associated with him. Furthermore, they have a zero tolerance for even the slightest increase, and talk about it as if it would result in overwhelming economic hardship. Regardless of the amount or circumstance.

Do you think it is fair for veterinarians to have to pay a tax to help pay for human healthcare?

For a small business, 2-3% is a large amount. Many, many tanning salons went out of business when the skin cancer tax was slammed on them, for example.

There is only so much increase people are willing or able to absorb; many people now don't take their animals to the vet because of cost. They need to exempt vets from this tax.

 

[mlp]

Do you think it is fair for veterinarians to have to pay a tax to help pay for human healthcare?

For a small business, 2-3% is a large amount. Many, many tanning salons went out of business when the skin cancer tax was slammed on them, for example.

There is only so much increase people are willing or able to absorb; many people now don't take their animals to the vet because of cost. They need to exempt vets from this tax.

Highlighting added. Clearly, you feel that tanning salons were badly treated by being taxed, otherwise you wouldn't have used the language you did. That's an odd position for someone in the healthcare field, who should be aware of the risks of tanning salons.

Vets aren't being taxed by the tax in question - medical device manufacturers are. They're the ones who will pass it on to the vets, who will then pass it on to the clients, according to this article.

Of course the answer is to set the prices that medical device manufacturers can charge to a cost of goods (including all overhead, with reasonable salaries) plus a reasonable profit margin. Based on your concern that medical device manufacturers currently aren't making enough money (even though they are one of the highest profit industries), I doubt that you'd find that to be a palatable solution though.

BTW, vets aren't suffering too much. A cat neuter, which takes only a few minutes, costs me about $125. ETA: That's the base neuter- my bill is always for $225+, because I opt for pain management and other *incidentals*.

 

[ledboots]

The medical device tax is just going into effect now, so it is when the vets have to replace their equipment that they will be hit with the tax.
Tanning salons were hit with 10% tax, which was supposed to be passed along directly to the consumer in hopes they would stop tanning. Many salons just cut staff, hours open, or employee benefits instead so they wouldn't lose customers.

Good yearly skin cancer screenings like they have in (I believe) Australia would work a lot better than punishing small businesses who offer a legal product. Should we tax beachgoers too? How about lawn care workers? High risk.

Our government thinks not only that physician screenings for melanoma are unnecessary, but even thinks that encouraging self-exams is unnecessary, too. If melanoma is such a concern that they impose a tax on tanning salons, you would think that non-invasive screening for the disease would be encouraged. But:

-----------
"...Despite the obvious common sense conclusion that these strategies save lives, in February 2009 the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) published a recommendation guideline stating that “current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of using a whole-body skin examination by a primary care clinician or patient skin self-examination for the early detection of cutaneous melanoma, basal cell cancer, or squamous cell skin cancer in the adult general population.”3
Although this statement assumes a fairly neutral position, it has unfortunately led to some inappropriate conclusions questioning the value of skin cancer screenings for the public." http://www.skincancer.org/skin-canc...ion-guidelines/melanoma-screening-saves-lives

 

[mlp]

There's a difference between having an outdoor job and operating a tanning salon. I think most people understand that.

 

[ledboots]

In addition, the numbers used to scare everyone from tanning beds (75% increase in the melanoma risk, they were saying) are not as clear as they appear.
http://healthjournalism.org/blog/2010/05/tanning-beds-what-do-the-numbers-really-mean/

 

[mlp]

I'm curious - why are you worried about defending an industry that has no reason for existence other than vanity, and has a substantial risk of melanoma associated with it?

 

[ledboots]

I don't care about the suntan places particularly. I live in a sunny place and have never been to a tanning salon.

The reason it ticks me off is because a 10% tax was imposed on businesses that have a very strict bottom line, and there is not convincing scientific evidence that it will do jack **** to reduce melanoma rates, or deaths from melanoma. In fact, low vitamin D levels are linked to several much more prevalent cancers, such as breast cancer. You get vitamin D from tanning beds like you do the sun, and it might very well be that the risk for other more common cancers will go up from avoiding the sun (or tanning beds) if, like most Americans, the vitamin D levels are low.

On the other hand, skin cancer screenings do save lives, but they won't be part of your annual physical.

These health decisions should be made by the patient and doctor, not taxed away by some committee. For some with a family breast cancer history, tanning to raise low vitamin D levels could be healthier than not. For some people with bad psoriasis, they can take a very strong oral drug with a myriad of side effects, or they can tan a few times a week.

 

[beancounter]

If someone has already mentioned this, I apologize, but I just wanted to make sure I got this point across.

Manufacturers will increase their cost which ultimately gets passed to the consumer for a variety of reasons, most of which has nothing to do with tax increases.

The most typical scenario where this will occur is when the cost of raw materials increases, which often has to do with limited supply (e.g. when weather conditions aren't ideal, maple trees produce less maple). Also, a manufacturers costs increase when the cost of utilities increases (e.g. heating oil).

There are numerous other examples, but my point is, that tax increases are NOT the only reason/circumstances why manufactures increase their prices.

The reason why you don't hear about those types of increases from the rabid right are: 1. They are often out of control of of the manufacturer 2. Would end up putting blame on another industry (e.g. oil companies from the example above) 3. Can't be pinned/associated with Obama.

 

[ledboots]

Nvfm

 

[Wolfie]

Do you think it is fair for veterinarians to have to pay a tax to help pay for human healthcare?

For a small business, 2-3% is a large amount. Many, many tanning salons went out of business when the skin cancer tax was slammed on them, for example.

There is only so much increase people are willing or able to absorb; many people now don't take their animals to the vet because of cost. They need to exempt vets from this tax.

I'm with you, it's BS. I already don't get a break on taxes for pet food or income taxes like those with human dependents get. Now more for vet care. Yippee. Contrary to popular belief, not all vets are rolling in money either.

 

[mlp]

I don't think they're rolling in money, but my vet in St. Louis (whose husband is also a vet) works a lot with rescues and gives them terrific discounts, is raising four kids, and still manages a comfortable middle class lifestyle. It's very rare to find a vet who does as much for rescues as this one does - her income is greatly reduced because of it - but she still manages to do O.K.

 

[Wolfie]

A comfortable middle-class lifestyle on 2 veterinarian salaries kind of proves my point that they aren't rolling in money. Two MDs would make substantially more money.

 

[mlp]

A comfortable middle-class lifestyle on 2 veterinarian salaries kind of proves my point that they aren't rolling in money. Two MDs would make substantially more money.

MDs make substantially more than most professions. I did agree that vets aren't rollong in money. My point is that they're not exactly hurting either.

A 2 or 3% increase in one portion of the cost of doing business (and probably not one of their top three expenses) isn't going to cause them a great hardship.

All that being said, the fix is simple - cap what medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, medical care providers, etc., can charge for their goods and services. That would take care of the problem of paying for universal care at its root. But thst's not a palatable solution to the OP or those industries.