Medical Device Manufacturers Not Paying Their Share, and Other Links
Surprise: medical device manufacturers are passing the (ObamaCare) device tax on to consumers. (The ones the president promised not to tax?)
Is immigration good for Medicare?
Another argument for buying across state lines: It appears increasingly likely that just one insurer ― Anthem BlueCross BlueShield ― will offer plans in New Hampshire’s health insurance exchange.
“Surprise: medical device manufacturers are passing the (ObamaCare) device tax on to consumers. (The ones the president promised not to tax?)”
Of course this happens! Who’s shocked? You make it more expensive to produce something, that thing becomes more expensive to buy.
I guarantee you that half of the country (the economic illiterates) is shocked. I bet Congress will be sure to reprimand them publicly.
I second your assumption JD.
“Immigrants Contributed An Estimated $115.2 Billion More To The Medicare Trust Fund Than They Took Out In 2002–09,”
Huh. Well, it’s true that legal immigration expands the tax base.
I’d like to see their savings rates. Medicare isn’t enough to retire on. May temporarily increase inflows but they’ll need more in social welfare later.
“Immigrants Contributed An Estimated $115.2 Billion More To The Medicare Trust Fund Than They Took Out In 2002–09,”
That may be true, but it’s misleading nevertheless. Here’s why I think so.
For me personally over the 45 years of my working life, I contributed every year to the Medicare Trust Fund thru taxes. All that time the Medicare Trust Fund never paid me a nickel. So was I producing a “surplus” for Medicare? I think not. Instead I was contributing to the Medicare Trust Fund, against future benefits Medicare would someday become liable to pay me. The same is true for just about everyone in the US who is contributing to Medicare.
The authors concede that “Immigrants generate a surplus for Medicare primarily because so many of them are working-age adults”. In other words, they are not age-eligible for Medicare benefits – same as me over the 45 years before I reached age 65 and enrolled.
So here’s my question: since so many immigrants are working age adults, how can their true impact on Medicare be determined simply by comparing current revenue to current Medicare “expenditures”? Answer: it cannot.
It cannot, because the comparison fails to account for the present value of all future benefits which will eventually be paid from the Medicare Trust Fund . . . for people who are not yet enrolled in Medicare but someday will be. That calculation applies to everyone who is eligible to participate in Medicare. It applies for me. It’s actuarial.
I don’t think the authors are unaware of this actuarial issue; instead, I think they try to sidestep it. They state “Encouraging a steady flow of young immigrants would help offset the aging of the US population”
Well yeah, I suppose that’s true. But think. How can the US ensure that future immigrants will always be “young” when demonstrably the US has largely failed the more basic mission to secure our borders in the first place? And how can anyone believe that the US will ensure adequate funding of the Medicare Trust Fund in the future when the Trust Fund deficit today amounts to tens of trillions of dollars? I think the authors use this “younger immigrants” bit as a means to brush aside the actuarial realities without addressing them.
For me, that’s a serious flaw that makes the study worthless.
“Most of the surplus from immigrants was contributed by noncitizens and was a result of the high proportion of working-age taxpayers in this group. Policies that restrict immigration may deplete Medicare’s financial resources.”
Yeah for right now, but what happens when all of those “working-age taxpayers” become “retired beneficiaries”? To keep this immigrant surplus going we’ll need increasing rates of immigration.
bingo
“Is immigration good for Medicare?”
– A friend of mine linked to this article. Interesting question.. I certainly think there could be more research on the topic.
If you increase the number of working taxpayers relative to the dependents of course they’ll contribute more. Then, to cover them when they are old you have to have more immigrants. Sounds like a Ponzi scheme.
“Surprise: medical device manufacturers are passing the (ObamaCare) device tax on to consumers. (The ones the president promised not to tax?)”
– At the end of the day, businesses will ALWAYS pass taxes they are subjected to on to the consumer… Despite what the President says.
You should see the work Pam Villarreal has done on tax and fee incidence.. It’s sneaky. Of course the President doesn’t understand it (or doesn’t care) — they live in government housing and everything about him is tax deductible.
It appears increasingly likely that just one insurer ― Anthem BlueCross BlueShield ― will offer plans in New Hampshire’s health insurance exchange.
Well, in the Live Free or Die state, they probably all just want HSAs anyway.
Surprise: medical device manufacturers are passing the (ObamaCare) device tax on to consumers.
What did policy makers expect? Oh course manufacturers are passing on taxes to consumers in the form of higher prices. To the extent producers cannot pass on hikes in production costs they will grow the firm more slowly and hire fewer workers.
It’s naïve to assume that firms making medical devices would merely stand by, pay an excise tax on revenue and continue with business as usual.
If you were a store owner and your inventory costs increased by 2.3%, and your competitor’s inventory cost increased by 2.3%, you’d attempt to raise prices by 2.3%.