I hate the political BS as much as the next guy, but when an industry comes under attack like the medical device industry is by the democrats, you have to speak up. You want facts?? The link you provided from Klobuchars site states: "this industry should not be forced to pay more than its fair share". What does that mean to you? When the medical device tax was first proposed, Franken and Klobuchar were against it because it will severly hurt MN businesses. But now Klobuchar is saying that she is against med companies 'paying more than their fair share'. Sorry, but those are weasel words from a weak person without convictions. She is opening the door to vote for pelosis bloated healthcare bill as long as there is some minor cut in the proposed tax on med device companies. Think about it!! Isn't it the goal of healthcare reform, to drive down costs? How in the hel do you tax a company in the business of helping sick people and expect costs to go down? Dumb, dumb, dumb democrats. Did you know that the health care bill proposed by Pelosi penalizes states that put in ANY restrictions on medical device lawsuit awards? Thats a fact. The democrats are anti-business but will go to the ends of the earth to fatten the wallets of the trial lawyers. Everyone needs to find out the facts and write, call or email Franken and Klobuchar and tell them to stand up to these attacks that will hurt all med device companies. I can tell you that Al and Amy lack the spine and the integrity to vote against a poorly written bill that hurts business. The only care about the union worker, the trial lawyers and their own bloated pensions.
There will come a day when those 46 million uninsured will be insured one way or another. (nearly 15 percent of the USA population)
When that day comes, MDT will benefit by about 15 percent top line growth. Those 46 million aren't among those receiving stents, pacemakers, hip replacements or other similar devices today.
Another point of debate is the FACT that employers are canning insurance as an employee benefit. It now costs $14,000 per year to insure a family of 3 persons as a national average.
This cost is resulting in American companies to be non-competitive with France, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Austria, Switzerland, and the other major competitors to USA.
This must end if USA is to be a place of employment. All companies must stop this drainage.
Point: The existing health care delivery methods are NOT sustainable when 35 percent of those costs go to health insurers instead of the money going to the likes of Medtronic, Inc.
In other words, it might be wise for MDT to find a way to support alternatives because that 35 percent going to "paper pushers" who know nothing about health care needs to end.
EVERYONE from all sides wants a reasonable healthcare plan for those that need it. The question remains; do we jeopardize the exsitng system by implementing a bloated, government backed system which includes unfair surtaxes on companies like MDT that already pay their taxes or do we make reasonable, sustainable changes to insure those people??. You make several statements that are misleading and flat-out wrong. Checkout this reputable site ~ http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090623160905.aspx A Quote from this site: "Liberal non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation put the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 8.2 million and 13.9 million". The current health care proposals are not intended to decrease costs and will not do so. I agree that costs to companies are getting too high, but the democratic bill does nothing to address cost, it only attempts to address the no insurance issue. The republican plan does attempt to decrease costs by rolling out tort reform, which will decrease 'defensive' medicine (ie. overtesting by the doc to avoid a potential lawsuit). The republican plan also allows buying insurance across state lines, which the dem's won't allow. Did you know that it costs on average $5,800 for a 25 year old to buy insurance in New Jersay yet it costs the same person $1,000 in Kentucky. Why? Is it because the procedures cost less in KY? No, the cost difference is realted to democratic state government beauracracy. The New Jersey policy requires unnecessary and elective coverages that drives up the cost. A change is coming, and that's a good thing. The question is whether Amy and Franken will have the guts/courage/ethics to vote no on any unfair, arbitrary surtaxes for device companies. I have doubts that they have the will to do the right thing for MN....call or write them!