60 Minutes - Romney on Healthcare

[Merge]

Man this board is dead... but I have to ask again, Is he trying to lose? He whiffed on answering if it is the governments responsibility to provide healthcare for 50 million Americans who are uninsured.

on 60 minutes.

"
Well, we do provide care for people who don't have insurance," he said in an interview with Scott Pelley of CBS's "60 Minutes" that aired Sunday night. "If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care."

In 2010.

"Look, it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care for which they have no responsibility, particularly if they are people who have sufficient means to pay their own way,"

In 2007.

"When they show up at the hospital, they get care. They get free care paid for by you and me. If that's not a for a socialism, I don't know what is... "So my plan did something quite different. It said, you know what? If people can afford to buy insurance ... or if they can pay their own way, then they either buy that insurance or pay their own way, but they no longer look to government to hand out free care. And that, in my opinion, is ultimate conservativism."

 

[Section112]

He knows this issue back and forth no doubt. Seems to be tongue tied not wanting to make a mistake. His original stance in the primaries was incorrect to completely repeal Obamacare. He really should have said he has a lot of experience with this issue and he can improve much more on what has been done. That would have given him more credibility in my eyes but he seems too worried about the base and now about making a mistake as the press will continue to jump all over him which is unfortunate. He should just state what he really believes but politicians rarely do that during campaigns. They make broad statements and try to make each other look bad which is not really Romney's game.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by Section112:

He knows this issue back and forth no doubt. Seems to be tongue tied not wanting to make a mistake. His original stance in the primaries was incorrect to completely repeal Obamacare. He really should have said he has a lot of experience with this issue and he can improve much more on what has been done. That would have given him more credibility in my eyes but he seems too worried about the base and now about making a mistake as the press will continue to jump all over him which is unfortunate. He should just state what he really believes but politicians rarely do that during campaigns. They make broad statements and try to make each other look bad which is not really Romney's game.

Pretty much agree with 112. Romney's strategy has not been good IMO, because A) he can't seem to stay on message (JOBS!!!) and B) Inability to connect with independants.

Merge, your question about the board being dead? Essentially, the electorate is unimpressed with Obana and his poor record and that Romney can't articulate a vision for making it better. We've been inundated with the same old, same old from both and quite frankly, I've tuned them out. I expect the debates to be more of the same.

 

[SnakeTom]

I for one am not happy with either candidate. Maybe if Romney ran on his record as Governor rather than trying to kiss the ass of those on the right and pretend to be what he isn't. I'll decide after the debates on who to vote for. I'd much rather that Hillary Clinton & Huntsman were the candidates.

TK

 

[cernjSHU]

Romney can't get out of his own way. That is because he has become beholden to the right wing and has abandoned his own principles. If Romney had any principles, he would actually stand behind the health care law and say it is a good idea and I am glad that the President used my plan in Mass as the model for the nation. Health care would be a non-issue. I mean this guy wants to agree with Obama on health care, but he doesn't have the onions to do it. Not a good personality trait you want to see from a person who is running for President.

Then his mantra could be jobs jobs jobs which is the only way he could win.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

I for one am not happy with either candidate. Maybe if Romney ran on his record as Governor rather than trying to kiss the ass of those on the right and pretend to be what he isn't. I'll decide after the debates on who to vote for. I'd much rather that Hillary Clinton & Huntsman were the candidates.

TK

Gary Johnson runs circles around all of them and was more successful as a leader than any of them. Just sayin'.

 

[Section112]

I like some of Gary's positions. Do not like his stance on legalizing marijuana.

 

[SPK145]

Merge,

Any comment on this failure of Obama's from one of your most quoted sources:

Health Premiums Up $3,000; Obama Vowed $2,500 Cut





By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 09/24/2012 06:43 PM ET























During
his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific
promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families
by $2,500, and do so in his first term.


But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than
$3,000 since Obama's vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family
Foundation employee health benefits survey.



Insurance Premiums Skyrocket

 

[Section112]

It's George Bush's fault Steve!

 

[Merge]

I would say a lot of things, starting with...The law that was passed is not the law that he campaigned on.

If you are really interested, you should read the full report.

http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2012/8345.pdf

There are actually some really positive signs in the report regarding costs, but it is too soon to know where to place the credit.

Worth noting that healthcare premiums from 2000-2008 increased 8% on average, and in Obama's first 4 years they have increased 6% for small firms.

for large firms, 2000-2008 there was a 9.3% increase on average compared to a 5.3% increase for Obama's first 4 years.

but I guess we should just ignore everything that was before Obama and get pissed off about a few words rather than recognizing areas of improvement?

 

[Section112]

I'd like to find the HC stats for NJ - bacause I manage a small firm and our costs did not only increase by 6%. The one thing I liked about the plan which other states have done long before Obama Care was the exchanges.

 

[SPK145]

For us, healthcare costs generally rise about 15% per year. The lowest it has risen in years was 8%. Our current carrier wanted a 22% increase for 2013. We told them to take a hike and we changed plans but that further erodes medical benefits.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Section112:
I'd like to find the HC stats for NJ - bacause I manage a small firm and our costs did not only increase by 6%. The one thing I liked about the plan which other states have done long before Obama Care was the exchanges.

Out of curiosity, were you able to take advantage of the tax credits available for small businesses?

The exchanges are a good idea and should help your company contain the costs as your risk pool gets bigger.

 

[Section112]

Most of the tax credits are being discussed but not passed.

The only credit that most small companies can take right now is the accelerated depreciation. The stuff they are talking about hiring new employees and getting tax credits for their taxes are proposed and not passed right now. Stuff available for loans we have no interest in.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by Section112:

Most of the tax credits are being discussed but not passed.

The only credit that most small companies can take right now is the accelerated depreciation. The stuff they are talking about hiring new employees and getting tax credits for their taxes are proposed and not passed right now. Stuff available for loans we have no interest in.

I don't know the size of your firm or the salaries there, but there was a tax credit that passed for firms with fewer than 25 full time equivalents that average less than $50k per year in wages.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Small-Business-Health-Care-Tax-Credit-for-Small-Employers

There was a small business group that said about 4 million small businesses would qualify.

 

[HALL85]

On a similar thread, one of the funding mechanisms for Obamacare, is the Medical Device Tax, which I have a decent amount of visibility in the healthcare industry in terms of how companies are preparing for this new tax in January. I would suggest that price increases from those manufacturers effected will increase proportionally to include the tax in addition to what increases are normally put through. So in essentially, the tax (2.3%) will be passed on to the user and consumer, further inflating the cost of care, while also creating another level of cost in the Federal Government to administer the tax. When I see shell games like this, it makes me wonder about other aspects of the bill.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

On a similar thread, one of the funding mechanisms for Obamacare, is the Medical Device Tax, which I have a decent amount of visibility in the healthcare industry in terms of how companies are preparing for this new tax in January. I would suggest that price increases from those manufacturers effected will increase proportionally to include the tax in addition to what increases are normally put through. So in essentially, the tax (2.3%) will be passed on to the user and consumer, further inflating the cost of care, while also creating another level of cost in the Federal Government to administer the tax. When I see shell games like this, it makes me wonder about other aspects of the bill.

I believe the tax was designed to help US manufacturers from seeing increased imports of medical devices especially now that medical device companies will see millions of new potential customers in the US which will help offset the tax from manufacturers.

It will have a nominal effect on the total cost of healthcare.

Prices are typically not set at the consumer level, so the price will really not be passed on to them but negotiated with insurance companies (with a stated medical loss ratio) so passing it onto consumers is not that likely.

 

[HALL85]

The increases will result in higher insurance premiums, which the consumer pay for.

I also don't follow the tax helping improve competition from imported product.

Finally, it isn't anticipated that there will be a dramatic increase in utilization once the part of the population has access to health insurance. The uninsured are receiving healthcare today and products/devices are being used. I work for a fairly large healthcare manufacturing and channel business and we are not forecasting and material increase in utilization for 2014.

 

[Section112]

Merge you gotta take off the rose colored glasses. That answer you gave to Hall85 was unrealistic and politician speak at best.

As far as the tax credit, that will most likely be used by firms that hire nonprofessionals etc but the incentive is not great. How many professionals can you hire for $50k or less per year? Not many. And how many of those firms will offer those folks insurance? Its just another tax credit that provides window dressing to say they are doing something. Its good that they can provide this credit to companies that pay their folks less than $50k per year - don't get me wrong. But again another tax credit that does not apply to most professional firms and producers and does not provide a lot of incentive to the small firms that will not be able to afford insurance anyway. If they actually did anything to lower the cost of health care it would be a great thing vs. offering more tax credits that don't apply to most.

 

[SPK145]

Also wouldn't apply to small businesses that are S-corps or LLCs which many of them are these days.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by HALL85:

The increases will result in higher insurance premiums, which the consumer pay for.

I also don't follow the tax helping improve competition from imported product.

Finally, it isn't anticipated that there will be a dramatic increase in utilization once the part of the population has access to health insurance. The uninsured are receiving healthcare today and products/devices are being used. I work for a fairly large healthcare manufacturing and channel business and we are not forecasting and material increase in utilization for 2014.

The uninsured receive emergency care. They do not receive the non emergency care treatments which would include many medical devices.

My thought process on competition, and I admit I could be wrong on this, in my research as to the reasons for this specific tax, I found that China and Europe are both expected to become bigger players in the industry and thought that the 2.3% tax may keep them form focusing on the US market as much as the would have. US exports would still be competitive globally as only US sales are taxed.

Also part of the 2.3% is just a revenue shift on the governments end. It reduces profit and will decrease the amount of income tax paid. Really it comes closer to 1.5% for the tax.

I don't think it is a stretch to assume increased volume which will close a portion of the profit after that tax.

According to Bob Kinsella, President of Kinsella Group... "
Medical device volume will increase.[/B] With the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act providing for insurance coverage for millions of more Americans, the volume of medical devices is bound to go up, Mr. Kinsella says. Even if Mitt Romney is elected and repeals the healthcare law, the direction has been set: there will be more people who have access to traditional healthcare services than have had access in the past, according to Mr. Kinsella. "

 

[HALL85]

Merge, the uninsured use the ER and hospital today and get care for critical care or procedures that are immediately necessary, which is where the bulk of medical devices and the majority of expense is occurring and will continue to occur. The uninsured who enter the insured pool will not materially increase the number of hospital procedures, because they will only get what is needed, to avoid paying deductable. Primary care visits and preventative care will go up because these will not carry deductibles. So the only supplies that will increase in any volume will be exam gloves, table paper, blood collection supplies, etc, which is peanuts in the grand scheme. The companies that make these products are the only ones forecasting more growth in 2013. By contrast, the clinical chemistry market is forecasted to grow at 1% next year.

China and India are growth markets, but because of the demand for care in those countries. The vast majority of medical products maufactured there that are used in the US, are made by US companies who have operations in those countries.

 

[Merge]

Clearly, you would know your industry better than I would.

Just using logic though, I would think the number of insured Americans would directly impact the the revenue stream for analyzing fluids. Why would you not expect your market to increase? Aren't the insured much more likely to receive analysis, especially in regards to a followup visit?

being a research guy, I googled the "clinical chemistry market" and found this article.

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/point-care-testing-drive-clinical-chemistry-market-173b-2018

"
The U.S. is the largest clinical chemistry market, valued at $4.3 billion in 2011 and expected to reach $6.5 billion by 2018, growing at a CAGR of 6.2 percent during that time period."

Another article from the same site...

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/medical-device-excise-tax-remains-place-after-scotus-ruling



"The positive news is that device revenues have been growing (plus 5 percent last year) as a result of emerging markets that will not be affected by this legislation," added Carlson. "And far down the line, the anticipated increase in customers of healthcare should have some impact on the number of devices needed. "

 

[HALL85]

Merge, thanks for linking the articles. The 5% growth as a result of emerging markets is because those market (especially China and India) are considered high growth, so U.S. companies are investing in acquisitions of companies based there and also re-deploying some of their product lines into those markets. For instance, the company I work for has done exactly that and are non-U.S. growth will be double digits next year off-setting a very low single digit growth here in the U.S.