Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Then you choose to see what you want to see. It's clearly not supporting some of the exaggerations that Fox was making, and it definitely doesn't "seem like more of a defense of the Fox story."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the fox link doesn't talk about jobs going overseas, it talks about jobs lost, which your links don't refute.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Sure, the author from the first link does express some concern for small businesses.

Which agrees with the Fox article. What did they "distort" or "exaggerate" in this case?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the fox link doesn't talk about jobs going overseas, it talks about jobs lost, which your links don't refute.

Oh my god, are you really going to argue semantics now? Jobs being shipped overseas is jobs lost in America. They'd have to lay off people in America just to give jobs to somebody overseas. It's job loss.

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Which agrees with the Fox article. What did they "distort" or "exaggerate" in this case?

No, it doesn't. Him sharing a concern isn't him agreeing with Fox.

The spin is that there will be tremendous job loss and reduction in R&D despite the significant increase in numbers of people covered by healthcare in the United States.

In other words, he's saying that this tax isn't going to matter really because the number of people covered by the new health insurance which will ultimately increase revenues!!!! Significant increase is the actual word he used.


Here is exactly what Fox said.

Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.

No. No way companies are laying off people or cutting R&D due to the looming tax. If anything, they are using this as an excuse like many companies like to do. Hrmm...how do I cut my work force, and push the extra work onto others without looking like the bad guy? Oh, I know, I'll just claim this new tax is going to kill my profits!!


Since you want to argue semantics, Fox's title is this "Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013" is misleading and false as well. Notice the word WILL, and not the word COULD. Distorting? Yes. Misleading? Yes. False? Yes.

There are many medical devices that aren't being taxed. So this tax isn't going to affect everybody's wallet. Not everybody will need to buy a medical device that's being taxed. Hey, not according to Fox!!

Source2:

Spending on taxable medical devices represents less than 1 percent of total personal health expenditures, so a small increase in their price would have an almost imperceptible effect on health insurance premiums.

Listen, we aren't going to agree on this, so you keep believing Fox and I'll chose not to. That we can agree on.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Oh my god, are you really going to argue semantics now? Jobs being shipped overseas is jobs lost in America. They'd have to lay off people in America just to give jobs to somebody overseas. It's job loss.

Not all jobs lost go overseas. Some are just lost, particularly if there's no demand for said job anymore by circumstances like say increased taxes on a manufacturer. Again, show where the Fox link said those jobs would be sent overseas.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

No, it doesn't. Him sharing a concern isn't him agreeing with Fox.

They made the same take on the same point. I can't see how you could spin this other than agreement on that point, and certainly not call one side exaggerating for it. They both agree the tax hurts small businesses that are important in the medical device field. Maybe you're confusing Fox with the AdvaMed article cited in the CPBB story.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

In other words, he's saying that this tax isn't going to matter really because the number of people covered by the new health insurance which will ultimately increase revenues!!!! Significant increase is the actual word he used.

And here's one example of where the CBPP article makes a foolish conclusion. If you increase demand for medical devices by making more people eligible for them, but decrease supply by increasing taxes on the manufacturer, then medical devices will be more expensive and harder for the average person to get. Even in the best case scenario, how much sooner does someone's health care insurance run out with the increased cost of medical devices? Looking at how hospital costs for everything from surgery to bandages has gone up since insurance companies took a stronger role in setting prices, it's not a rosy picture for people needing those medical devices in the future.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Here is exactly what Fox said.

No. No way companies are laying off people or cutting R&D due to the looming tax. If anything, they are using this as an excuse like many companies like to do. Hrmm...how do I cut my work force, and push the extra work onto others without looking like the bad guy? Oh, I know, I'll just claim this new tax is going to kill my profits!!

But companies must be laying off people for a reason, including profit. They won't actually do such things to hurt themselves, just to not look like the bad guy. I think you're confusing rhetoric by companies that live or die by such business decisions, with rhetoric by posturing politicians in Washington. Sure politicians act like you describe, but people whose bottom line is affected by laying off or hiring people? Really?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Since you want to argue semantics, Fox's title is this "Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013" is misleading and false as well. Notice the word WILL, and not the word COULD. Distorting? Yes. Misleading? Yes. False? Yes.

There are many medical devices that aren't being taxed. So this tax isn't going to affect everybody's wallet. Not everybody will need to buy a medical device that's being taxed. Hey, not according to Fox!!

You forget that we're all paying for this system, now more than ever. So we are absolutely affected by taxes like this. Not because we may have to get that kind of care ourselves, but because if costs for that kind of service rises, guess who funds the system to support it?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Listen, we aren't going to agree on this, so you keep believing Fox and I'll chose not to. That we can agree on.

Hey, I'm cool with agreeing to disagree. I'm just saying I don't see where Fox exaggerated *in this case*. I don't agree with believing or dismissing any source out of hand, even if it's Fox or MSNBC or any biased source. It leads to getting entirely too comfortable with getting only one side of debates.