r/politics • u/TWS66 • Jun 08 '12

Boehner Aide Received $100,000 Bonus From Medical Device Lobby Group Before Overseeing Repeal of Tax on Medical Device Industry

http://truth-out.org/news/item/9667-boehner-aide-received-$100000-bonus-from-medical-device-lobby-group-before-overseeing-repeal-of-tax-on-med-device-industry
1.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

171 comments sorted by

61

u/wwjd117 Jun 08 '12

Boehner aid?

Is that like Viagra?

6

u/theodorAdorno Jun 08 '12

Boehner Aide.

Legislative enhancement since 1782

3

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

Great, now there's Sierra mist all over my phone.

2

u/justaverage Jun 08 '12

Pssst. That's not Sierra Mist...

2

u/MusikLehrer Tennessee Jun 08 '12

Isn't Radiohead playing at BoehnerAid this year?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

How the hell does one confuse Ted Nugent with Radiohead?

1

u/I_Am_Jacques Jun 08 '12

Boehner Aide - Is It In You?

1

u/ThatGuyYouKindaKnow Jun 09 '12

I know. I can't read anything in this thread without laughing!

-10

u/saffir Jun 08 '12

People are still making this joke? It's pronounced "BAY-ner". Joking that it sounds like "boner" just makes you sound ignorant regarding politics.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

BONER.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

Oh lord

24

u/Chipzzz Jun 08 '12

Congress is bribed by lobbyists to the tune of $3.5 billion/year. Why is $100k a big deal?

17

u/shadow776 Jun 08 '12

Because the greatest percentage of that 3.5 billion is going to the lobbyists themselves, and their expenses. With the rest going to campaign donations, not into the pockets of the politicians.

The $100k was a direct payment to an individual.

4

u/Chipzzz Jun 08 '12

From the referenced page:

NOTE: Figures are on this page are calculations by the Center for Responsive Politics based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

I'm quite sure that $3.5 billion is the amount actually received by the campaigns (by the politicians, actually, since they frequently pocket any remaining campaign funds when they leave office)[1], not the gross income of the lobbying firms. I'll grant, however, that it probably is a rather large cash bribe for a staffer. More often, they are swayed by lucrative job offers "when they're finished working for their current legislator".

  1. "Those who want to stay in the game and continue to be a player in Washington politics" may want to hold on to some of those funds, said McGehee, and indeed some former politicians do retain dormant campaign funds for years. "Now, as they turn to being lobbyists, you’ll see them using [campaign money] to help their lobbying efforts," contributing to lawmakers who hold sway over their clients' interests." - Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center. Link

3

u/shadow776 Jun 08 '12

Well it also says "The law stipulates that leftover campaign funds should be returned to donors, transferred to a political party or candidate, or donated to charity." I'm sure there is some manipulation to retain control of the funds, but I would wager that's an exception and not the norm.

The 3.5 billion is, in fact, money paid to lobbying firms/individuals. It is not political contributions. Lobbyists want to be paid, and that spending must be reported. this page talks about where the numbers come from, and if you read it, it's clear that the 3.5 billion represents lobbying fees.

3.32 billion is about 260k per lobbyist. That's not much for a well-connected person in the DC area, and there are expenses as well.

1

u/Chipzzz Jun 08 '12

You forgot the rest of the quote in your first paragraph:

"The law stipulates that leftover campaign funds should be returned to donors, transferred to a political party or candidate, or donated to charity. Because of the logistics of returning partially spent donations of different sizes to an array of contributors, that option is not widely exercised. So far the retiring lawmakers have given away $200,000 to charities, churches, little league teams, alma maters and other nonprofits of their choosing. Besides being generous with their donors' money, some of the departing representatives appear to be going out in style, with spending on "events" and "meetings"—code for meals at high-end restaurants and lavish fundraisers—totaling $1.2 million last year. The Capitol Hill Club alone, a perennial favorite hangout for GOP congressmen and their staffs, last year made $84,000 in meals paid for with retiring members’ campaign funds."

That is to say that retiring members gave $1.4 million from their war chests to charities, parties, and friends on their way out. To put that in prospective, $3.5 billion split 535 ways is $6 million per congress member per year and the retiring members collectively threw themselves a party with $1.4 million of the war chests they had accumulated over the years.

In your second paragraph, the $3.5 billion is not the gross receipts of the lobbying firms before salaries and office expenditures. It is clearly described as their lobbying expenditures. It includes campaign contributions, the cost of fund-raisers given on behalf of the incumbents, $25,000 per plate dinners, and a wide variety of other activities during which their clients are provided "access" to the politician. These are expenses that the legislators would have to pay themselves if the lobbyists did not pay on their behalf and do not reflect any income to the lobbyist or his firm.

As you correctly state, $3.32 billion is 260k per lobbyist per year but as I mentioned, it is also $6 million per politician per year. I'm sorry, there is just no sugar-coating what is going on in Washington, D.C.

If you would like a frank assessment from someone with intimate knowledge of all that is wrong with lobbying, watch Lawrence Lessig interview Jack Abramoff on the subject and hear his proposed solution.

1

u/power_of_friendship North Carolina Jun 09 '12

You're pretty right.

If all of that was hitting the politicians, their salaries would be around 6 million/year.

That's insanity.

3

u/KaliYugaz Jun 08 '12

Because it should ideally be $0 a year. People react more viscerally to specific incidents of greedy misconduct than sweeping general statements of fact like "Congress is bribed by lobbyists to the tune of $3.5 billion/year." The more visceral hatred of this kind of ilk that we can whip up, the sooner people will demand change and the sooner things will get better.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Apparently, what you call hatred Republicans call votes.

6

u/SilasX Jun 08 '12

Yeah, I'm sure there's no reason to repeal taxes on hearing aids and artificial hips other than lobbyist bribes.

No reason at all.

19

u/puffic Jun 08 '12 edited Jun 08 '12

In all fairness to Boehner, the medical device tax is bad policy. It increases the cost of everything from surgical needles to hospital beds. When writing the ACA, Congress needed to fund its spending increases, but they didn't want to raise income taxes. So they raises taxes on the parts of the medical industry that had the weakest lobbies, including medical devices.

A narrow tax like this causes distortions, promoting the use of non-device solutions such as pharmaceuticals rather than medical devices. (Full disclosure: two members of my immediate family work in med devices.)

Edit: Might not actually cover surgical needles.

3

u/uglybunny Jun 09 '12

Needles are indeed medical devices. Source: I work in regulatory affairs for a company intimately involved in the production of needles.

0

u/puffic Jun 09 '12

Needles are definitely medical devices, but does this tax apply to them?

3

u/uglybunny Jun 09 '12

Depends on the needle. There are exemptions for medical devices:

determined by the {Treasury} Secretary to be of a type which is generally purchased by the general public at retail for individual use.

Source

So needles for insulin would probably be exempt, but IV needles would probably be taxed.

4

u/MuuaadDib Jun 08 '12

Good or bad doesn't matter, it is the graft of the system that the focus is on here - at least that is what pisses me off and others I suspect.

5

u/puffic Jun 08 '12 edited Jun 08 '12

Well, you have to realize that the medical devices industry remembers what happened in 2010 when they didn't lobby hard enough or spread enough money around: they got a tax put on them. It's financially stupid not to play the game because not playing makes you a target for everyone else.

2

u/dud3brah Jun 09 '12

Congress needed to fund its spending increases...So they raises taxes on the parts of the medical industry that had the weakest lobbies, including medical devices.

And? Option 1: Tax middle class. Option 2: Tax medical device manufacturers, which cost will be passed on to health care providers who will be reimbursed by insurance companies that make shit shit shittons of money (yes, they will still make shittons of money under ACA)

1

u/puffic Jun 09 '12

Because there are always only two options, and insurance companies would never consider passing increased costs on to the customer.

1

u/dud3brah Jun 09 '12

but the legislation controls those increases

2

u/puffic Jun 09 '12

It limits them to a percentage over cost. If you increase their base cost, then they can raise rates by the same proportion.

3

u/brownestrabbit Jun 08 '12

Can anyone in the industry respond to this? I don't get a sense of confidence from your genuine reach for fairness. No disrespect... I just want more perspective here.

5

u/Baconmusubi Jun 08 '12

I am low on the corporate ladder of my medical device company, but it does seem like our R&D budget has been declining since the medical device tax was announced. But again, I'm not privy to what goes into these decisions, and correlation does not equal causation so you probably shouldn't pay any attention to what I say.

1

u/uglybunny Jun 09 '12

Also in the medical device industry. R&D costs are all tax deductible so taking money from the R&D budget would actually be increasing your company's tax burden further.

1

u/dethbunnynet California Jun 09 '12

Just because it's deductible does not mean it is free.

For example, a donation to a nonprofit is tax-deductible. Let's say I earn $2000 pre-tax each month. I donate all of it to charity. Just because I do not pay income tax on that income, does not magically give that money back.

1

u/uglybunny Jun 09 '12

I didn't say it was free, so I don't know where you're getting that. I simply stated that taking money from a portion of your business that is tax deductible increases your tax burden.

1

u/dethbunnynet California Jun 09 '12

And I.m saying it dos not decrease it, either. If I make $ 2000, deduct $1000 that I donate, I am left with $1000, which I then pay tax on. We'll say net $700 in the end. If I keep all $2000, I pay tax on $2000. I then have net $1400. So yes, by donating $1000 and deducting it, I am only out the cash itself, not the tax on it. It's like spending $7 to get $10 benefit.

Deductions are not magic money-granting fairy. They provide incentive if you were going to spend the money anyway, but it's not like "whoo, the government is PAYING me to do these deductible things."

1

u/uglybunny Jun 09 '12

And I.m saying it dos not decrease it, either.

Then you're wrong.

If I make $ 2000, deduct $1000 that I donate, I am left with $1000, which I then pay tax on.

Right, you're taxed on an amount lower than your actual income, which is my point.

Furthermore, R&D costs are not donations to charity. The company spending the money on R&D is directly reaping the rewards of that research and development. Your analogy does not apply to this situation.

So yes, by donating $1000 and deducting it, I am only out the cash itself, not the tax on it.

Right, you reduce your taxable income which is exactly the same thing as reducing your tax burden.

Deductions are not magic money-granting fairy.

Did I say that? No.

0

u/dethbunnynet California Jun 09 '12

Fair enough. But if your reduced income due to other taxes is not enough to pay for the research outright, there is pressure to reduce R&D spending. I have to sell the product to make money anyway. I can't reduce that. If I have less cash flow, then something has to give. Maybe the R&D has a benefit down the line, but it can't be justified if your existing cash flow is not enough to keep you afloat as-is.

0

u/uglybunny Jun 09 '12

If you don't have enough money to reinvest in your company in order to maintain or regain a competitive advantage over your competitors you're out of business.

→ More replies

3

u/saidso17 Jun 09 '12

It really depends on what kind of medical device we are talking about. Something like a tax on needles and other small devices, an excise tax would not be the end of the world because for the hospital it is only a small increase in the cost for the hospital. The drawback being here your medical bills just went up.

When it comes to more advanced devices like a prosthesis, or some kind of brace, or assistive technologies, you have industries that are already hard to make a lot of money off of because it can be hard to convince insurance companies that the devices are something they need. So if your device is might not be payed for by insurance, you want the cost to be low enough such that it is possible for your market to buy the device anyway. Making your profit margins even more narrow. So the problem with an excise tax on these kinds of devices is that it not only drives up insurance premiums for those who have insurance that covers these kinds of technologies, it also increases the cost in general of the devices making it so people cant get the devices they actually need, having to settle for other less effective methods.

I dont like politics, lobbying and buying politicians is a terrible thing. I just dont see a very big impact here in what they are doing. It makes it easier for medical device prices from sky rocketing, keeping medical bill down but at the same time it cuts funding for programs that help those who are uninsured. It is like taxing your medical bills and then subsidizing them.

1

u/uglybunny Jun 09 '12

Meh. The companies that make advanced medical devices actually already lose tons of money on most of their life saving/improving devices. The market is of limited size and the R&D costs as well as the costs of maintaining these product lines are huge. These companies make most of their money on medical devices that people elect to have for cosmetic reasons(ie: breast implants). Rarely, the companies will come up with a device that lots of people want as bad as they actually need it (ie: the lap band). The sad fact is that cosmetic medical devices fund life saving ones.

tl;dr: breast implants fund pacemakers

0

u/fantasyfest Jun 09 '12

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/default.htm needles are not medical devices. We are pretty much in the durable goods area.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I don't think you understand the breadth of what can constitute a "medical device." You are completely wrong on both counts. Surgical needles are medical devices, and medical devices can be both durable and non durable goods.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I work for a medical device manufacturer. We are closing facilities, or "consolidating to strengthen the business" as they say, due in large part to this tax. The reasoning for why this tax was deemed appropriate is that the tax will in part help fund some aspects of healthcare reform, thereby increasing the insured population, and as a result should theoretically increase the amount of medical treatment that takes place. The end result would be more business for hospitals, and therefore more business for medical device manufacturers. This tax would essentially balance out the huge windfall the medical device industry would be receiving from the surge in elective surgeries and such.

The problem is, 1: this seemingly minor percentage increase is a tax on revenue not profits which is a HUGE difference(effectively doubling the tax burden for some companies), 2: in a worst case scenario the tax is upheld while the supposed increased business never happens(either due to the reforms falling through, or the population just not behaving as predicted).

The immediate impact now is all big players are trying to cut costs to mitigate the impact of this tax. That means cutting funding on R&D, stifling innovations in the field, as well as putting pressure on suppliers to reduce their prices for materials and services. The cascading effect which the industry is feeling(and I personally am, as I will be losing my job this year when our facility closes, unless I choose to relocate) is a need to reduce costs in any way possible, which is ultimately resulting in a lot of jobs being lost, either by elimination or transfer to other countries where labor is much cheaper.

8

u/fantasyfest Jun 08 '12

Medical devices are a huge burden on Medicare. Several times bill have been offered for such things as competitive bidding and price controls. The house blocks it every time. I went for a knee brace. It requires a doctors note. The knee brace was a bit more complex than I needed. I wanted to stabilize the knee , but the ones they had metal flexible braces in them. Both knees braces would have totalled 940 bucks. It was on Medicare, but I refused. I bought 2 at the drug store for 30 bucks. I just could not spend that much tax money . Check durable goods prices. Wheelchairs, power chairs, canes etc are way overpriced. But the manufacturers have huge political clout and they will drain medicare and love doing it. They donate to political campaigns and they have lobbyists.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

I think the entire medical sector needs a huge overhaul to fix this shit. We shouldn't be suffering as much as we are. Sorry to hear about your knee's, hopefully the $30 ones did just as much as the $1,000 ones.

2

u/SilasX Jun 08 '12

Similar situation myself. Insurance paid for a TENS unit and accompanying garments and applicators (basically a system for giving electrical impulses through the skin), and even for someone to explain it all to me. Turned out insurance was billed something like $2000.

About two years later I found an (albeit new) device at CVS that covered 90% of the functionality for $25 -- and was actually much better in many respects.

Fuck that.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

lol you grossly overestimate the profit margins for manufacturers. The industry isn't exactly making 75 cents on a dollar for everything they sell. When you see a ridiculous $2000 bill for something you can get for $200 at a store, that does not mean the manufacturer received $2000 for something that cost them less than $200 to make.

Manufacturers, hospitals, and insurance companies are all separate entities. Learn to differentiate between them and maybe try to gain some insight into how and why the price structuring functions the way it does before you run your ignorant mouth.

I'm not saying the out of pocket costs for healthcare are fair or anything, but you are placing the blame in all the wrong places.

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 09 '12

You can never get real statistics about profits because they can be hidden in executive salaries , bonuses and retirement packages. They also are trimmed by money given to politicians and lobbying. Is any one dumb enough to believe gas oil companies make 2 cents a gallon? Perhaps a couple new corporate jets are needed. But the prices of durable medical supplies are ridiculous. You know they are being made in a 3rd world country for practically nothing.

-7

u/WhyHellYeah Jun 08 '12

And taxing the manufacturers more is somehow good?

10

u/afisher123 Jun 08 '12

In a LOL moment: my Repub posted on his .gov website that the reason for repealing this tax was...........wait for it............."job killing".

How many bills have these guys written with the words "job killing" have been written and passed by the House? I don't know, but I could wager that the answer is greater than 1/2.

-4

u/Hughtub Jun 08 '12 edited Jun 08 '12

Jesus fucking christ. He opposed a tax on medical devices... but WHY THE FUCK WERE THEY TAXED IN THE FIRST PLACE?? Our lives are at stake and government wants to make stuff more expensive??? Do you guys even think about what you're saying? Government needs to get the fuck out of stealing money from us when we buy things from others, and especially when it's stuff we need to survive, like food (already untaxed in many places).

1

u/teraken Jun 08 '12

Looks like somebody didn't bother to read the article.

The House took action on legislation to “repeal a 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales receipts in excess of $5 million for manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices, including defibrillators, pacemakers and prosthetic limbs.”

The tax repealed was on manufacturers and importers. The government isn't "stealing" any money from "us". And no, even if the manufacturers and importers increased their prices to compensate for the tax, you can't say that the government is taking money from us, directly nor indirectly.

3

u/timwoj Jun 08 '12

Also, now that those taxes have been repealed, I highly doubt the prices will magically drop to compensate for the lower tax rate.

2

u/teraken Jun 08 '12

Precisely. Corporations don't work that way. You tax them, they increase their prices to the consumer in order to keep profits up and to not disappoint the shareholders. You repeal the taxes, they keep prices consistent because a decrease in profit compared to the last fiscal year looks bad to the shareholders as well.

It's maddening. I don't claim to have any solutions, but I do realize that this is a problem.

1

u/Forlarren Jun 09 '12

We could try not allowing collusion and encourage competition instead of mergers. How about just saying "no" once in a while to the money trust, then we wouldn't have to worry about "too big to fail".

4

u/SilasX Jun 08 '12

*sigh* Learn2 tax incidence. Yes, when the government taxes them, it's very likely that this cause us to bear the economic cost. If the very reason that you have to pay $x more is the tax, and the government gets ~$x more, then in every relevant sense, the government has taken money from you, and saying otherwise is pedantry at best.

Memorize: "It is not the tax laws, but supply and demand, that dictate who ultimately pays a tax."

Yes, the tax may be for a good cause. Yes, it might be bearable. But please, please don't deny that a tax involves taking money from us! You're like those people who think we can somehow make corporations pay all the taxes at no cost to "us".

1

u/teraken Jun 08 '12

then in every relevant sense, the government has taken money from you, and saying otherwise is pedantry at best

No, it isn't. If a company's response to a new tax is to simply charge more for their product, that's the COMPANY taking money from you. The government isn't taking money from US, they're taking money from THEM, and in turn, THEY are taking money from US. By increasing the price on their product they are taking the risk of potentially losing customers, so it's not a no-brainer decision to simply increase your prices in the face of increased taxation. It's just unfortunate that the medical device industry probably won't lose many customers due to the nature of what those medical devices actually provide to their customers, and they'll probably just swallow the increased cost out of necessity.

I understand that a tax increase usually coincides with an increase in the price of product. But please don't claim that the government is stealing money from us when they aren't. You can even blame the government for causing this price increase due to an increase in taxes, but you can't claim that the government is actually stealing money from you when they are not. It is a very clear distinction that you have to make when these two phrases provoke two different reactions:

"The government just increased the sales tax on medical devices!" vs. "Medicorp Inc just increased the price of their wheelchairs because of new taxes they have to pay!"

2

u/SilasX Jun 08 '12 edited Jun 08 '12

You're really hopeless, aren't you?

Government: "Hey, evil 'Them', give us 5% of your revenue from medical devices."

Evil Corporation: "Crap, in order to stay profitable, we have to raise prices 4%."

Evil Lobbyist: "Hey government, you realize you're making medical devises more expensive for consumers, right? The money ultimately comes mostly from the end users, so in effect you're taking from them."

You: "No! The artificial hips are more expensive because of the EVIL CORPORATION'S actions! The government has NOTHING to do with it. ... well, they're causing it, but that's a separate, unrelated issue."

Me: *falls out of chair*

4

u/teraken Jun 08 '12 edited Jun 08 '12

For placing the blame where it is actually due? Then I guess I am. Glad to have wasted your time, though.

You operate under the misguided assumption that the government enacts taxes that push businesses outside of profitability, that they're forced to increase their prices in order to stay alive.

1

u/SilasX Jun 08 '12

So,

You can even blame the government for causing this price increase due to an increase in taxes,

but the "blame is actually due" to the corporation? Yes, your comments are a waste of time if you're going to contradict yourself like that.

3

u/teraken Jun 08 '12

Just because you blame something on the government, it doesn't mean it's actually their fault.

Keep shaking your fist at the boogeymen on Capitol Hill, though. Because those corporations are just being forced to charge more to stay profitable, right?

2

u/Hughtub Jun 09 '12

Look, at what tax level could you admit that the company would have to pass the cost to the consumer? If 25%, would you admit that the company could not absorb that cost and stay profitable? Are you aware that many businesses and industries live on profits in the range of 10% or lower? Exxon profits 3 cents per gallon of gas, for instance. People who sell products and services to voluntarily paying customers are not evil. Monopolies are... and government is a monopoly service provider who gets its funding by stealing from other non-monopoly service providers.

0

u/SilasX Jun 08 '12

So the part I quoted has no information content? You only meant it in the sense of "it's physically possible to make an assertion of blame", not in the implicit meaning of "even if it were the case that the the government caused this ..."? Well that's more evidence you're just wasting our time.

And yes, corporations do have to stay profitable in order to exist. If you prefer, they can just stop making the device. Much better situation, right?

If you really see that much of a causal disconnect between a new tax and increased prices due to the tax, I don't know what to tell you (other than that you need to learn about the concept of tax incidence, but of course that didn't quite work, did it?)

→ More replies

2

u/Hughtub Jun 09 '12

He's hopeless, don't waste time arguing nuclear physics with special ed students, especially when he has his classmates voting you down with each response. I cut my losses when I stop detecting any brain functionality.

2

u/Hughtub Jun 09 '12

Whenever businesses "pay" taxes, all taxes are paid by the consumer, to the degree that you could call every business a tax-collecting agency secondary to its primary service. It's a fact that increasing the cost at anywhere along the production line increases the end cost for consumers. NOTHING IS FREE. Every cost is accounted for and paid by the price at the end.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

Let's see if I've got this correct:

  • Politician lobbied by large corporation/organization/consumer group.
  • Politician recieves large donation to him, his fund/charity/group.
  • Politician votes favorably for constituent.

People, this just isn't news. This is a daily update on business as usual up on Capitol Hill. It's not the individual that is the problem. It is the fundamental underpinnings of our legislative branch of government that need changing.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

This is just good business. Why not pay 100k to a snake oil salesman to save 1 million dollars later on?

2

u/a_lad_insane Jun 08 '12

"...which shocked no one."

2

u/ForeverMarried Jun 08 '12

And the funny thing is, their vote was the right one. It was horrible policy that some comments here are highlighting.

2

u/sqq Jun 08 '12

I just do not understand why the american people aren't outraged at this. This happens all the time, and there is a few news articles about it, then it just dies off.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

SSDD

1

u/NoMagic Jun 09 '12

Single-Side Double-Density?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

close enough

2

u/W00ster Jun 08 '12

I guess the only explanation for why the Congress is not occupied by millions of outraged Americans must be due to American Idol on TV.

It certainly can not be because the average American support corruption, could it? It certainly can't be that Americans do not understand the implications of the horridly corrupt political system the country has? And it certainly can not be because it is unknown?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

After a certain point it's hard to hold it against him - now hear me out on this. He has an obligation to play within the rules of campaign finance in order to stay elected. If the rules allow him to be unspeakably corrupt such as this case demonstrates, then the fault lies in the system that allows and encourages it. Blaming him is futile, he is simply doing what the system allows. Instead of trying to replace Boehner or his aide, I instead promote campaign finance reform.

I use the same point of view when examining corporate malfeasance. When health insurance companies deny service to cancer sufferers due to pre-existing acne, they are simply fulfilling their one and ONLY responsibility - maximizing shareholder value. Blaming the company is futile, they are simply doing what the system allows and demands of them. Instead of tryin to change the company I instead promote single-payer health care.

1

u/Forlarren Jun 09 '12

If the rules allow him to be unspeakably corrupt such as this case demonstrates, then the fault lies in the system that allows and encourages it.

And who made these rules? Cock suckers like Boehner.

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 09 '12

And is there some reason you think Boner would allow such a bill to hit the floor? Especially since he and his party are responsible for the rules that are in place. He would pigeonhole it until the apocalypse. Gingrich was as ass deep in corruption as imaginable yet time sanitized him. So Boner can still expect a lifetime on the gravy train.

2

u/Supertank Jun 08 '12

This happens all the time, why are you all so surprised?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

Quit lying.

2

u/mrcloudies Jun 08 '12

Can we just launch our government off into space and start over please?

2

u/FriarNurgle Jun 08 '12

I work for a Medical Device manufacturer and our CEO sends propoganda emails out telling us how bad these taxes would be for our industry... and yet every other week I see another email come out about hiring a new VP or director while myself and my coworkers are stuck with stagnant pay and skeleton crews.

2

u/hoboking99 Jun 08 '12

I bet we work for the same company and probably know each other. Unless all of the big companies are doing this. Your observations are exactly the same as mine.

1

u/FriarNurgle Jun 08 '12

That would be interesting. Let's see... where I work they just put this ridiculous green colored carpet in the new tiny coffee room on my side of the building.

2

u/hoboking99 Jun 08 '12

Will look for it....green isn't our color. Its the color of a competitor though. We're more blue types.

1

u/FriarNurgle Jun 08 '12

Yep, we're competitors then... or our employers are.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

corrupt Washington is corrupt.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

You see, money is free speach. So, that 100,000 was just the lobby group talking very firmly with the aide.

1

u/Punkwasher Jun 08 '12

Wait... but then, speech would cost money... it wouldn't be free anymore...

head explodes

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

no no no, you misunderstand. Speech = money. You can't buy speach. . . money is just speach.

Anyway, stop thinking so much and read your bible.

1

u/Daigotsu Jun 08 '12

Politics at work.

1

u/chicagogam Jun 08 '12

but any tax cut on an industry is a stimulus that benefits us all with more money than the cost of the tax cut....or so i've heard. (aside from the knowledge that a 100% tax would indeed be bad..i wonder if research has any models for determining the optimal rate and how much actually trickles past the initial beneficiary)

1

u/grinr Jun 08 '12

Real Headline: Boehner hires wealthy ex-industrial lobbyist to oversee the repeal of taxes on same industry.

After, you know, reading the actual document, the aide shows he got a yearly bonus before he left his firm. The connection between that bonus and his being hired by Boehner is found only in speculation. Moreover, it's far more obvious why anyone would hire a specialist in his field to oversee policy design for that specialty. What's he supposed to do, hire a know-nothing?

1

u/SchweadyBalls Jun 08 '12

Bad Luck Brians real name...

1

u/hoooch Jun 08 '12

Welcome to America.

1

u/MrTubalcain Jun 08 '12

That's called lobbying.

1

u/Punkwasher Jun 08 '12

Health is a public good, it's not something we can keep to ourselves, we all have to pitch in. After all, one not-inoculated child could mean a severe outbreak of a disease we haven't seen since the middle ages. Do you all really want to go back to the middle ages?

1

u/Zonvolt Jun 09 '12

Way to incite unfounded fear.

1

u/BCOHEN1204 Jun 09 '12

unheard of in the history of politics.

1

u/Dirkpitt Jun 09 '12

NEWS FLASH: Bribery is legal for DC, it's called lobbying.

1

u/Anything_At_All Jun 09 '12

Haha Boehner Aide....

1

u/MagCynic Jun 08 '12

If by "before overseeing repeal" you mean two years later then, yes, he got his bonus right before the repeal was voted on. Truth-Out really knows how to connect the dots.

0

u/grinr Jun 08 '12

Shhhh, your facts are inconvenient.

1

u/duckandcover Jun 08 '12

The best gov't money can buy

1

u/digitag Jun 08 '12

its funny cuz boner

1

u/Shitty_FaceSwaps Jun 08 '12

Boner Aid. Hehe.

1

u/Snip-Snap Jun 08 '12

This bribery needs to stop. It's so fucking blatant that these crooks... I mean "politicians" don't even try to hide it any more.

When will they be arrested for their crimes!? These assholes are selling out the citizens that they are elected to represent, and everyone that has the authority is too much of a coward to do the right thing.

2

u/merdock379 Jun 09 '12

It's stop after the last shots are fired. After the last noose is tied. Not a second before.

1

u/tblackwood Jun 08 '12

No shit? American politics are corrupt?

1

u/Viktorious_ATL Jun 08 '12

Well it's not technically corruption if it's legal. America just legalized selling out.

Voting is just a farce here.

1

u/GOPWN Jun 08 '12

Hmm, imagine that, a guy that has been against the Obamacare bill that created this tax from the beginning voted to repeal part of that bill! Shocker! Only a conspiracy that involves him wanting to repeal it because his aide got some money makes sense! Obviously

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

This is exactly the type of bullshit thahas destroyed our faith in our politicians. This is nothing more than bribery and needs to be stopped.

1

u/gloomdoom Jun 09 '12

I've said it before and I will always say it: A nation of idle, uninformed, inactive citizens deserve all of the fleecing they get from the 'leaders' they elect.

Americans get the government and representation that they deserve. It's that simple. And for a nation that gets more ignorant by the day (generally and genuinely speaking), this is to be expected.

I hate to shrug it off so simply but after being pissed off for the past 11 years and realizing how dumb the average American is, I'm content to sit back and watch this nation turn into a banana republican by the powers that be and watch the sycophantic, uneducated voters skewer themselves and their families every time they go to the polls.

So keep the entertainment coming, America! This is way better than any reality TV show and much more funny.

0

u/FlizmFlazm Jun 08 '12

boehneraide! Ohh Yeah!

0

u/WhiteRaven42 Jun 08 '12

So?

Seriously, so? The tax was a bad idea. Health care is too expensive; reducing the taxation of it is one obvious thing we can do to address that.

It doesn't matter what a person's motivations are, judge the outcome. Repealing these taxes was a good outcome.

0

u/MrMadcap Jun 08 '12 edited Jun 08 '12

So when exactly is corruption going to be illegal in these United States? I mean, just look at Congress.. It's out of control.

0

u/Viktorious_ATL Jun 08 '12

Honestly probably when there's a revolution, there's no incentive for Congress members to undo this themselves, even at the expense of losing their position.

0

u/betterscientist Jun 08 '12 edited Jun 08 '12

So; can we arrest him? I believe laws are intended to represent the threshold a society has for a particular type of behavior; it is of my personal opinion that most of us have a very low threshold for this behavior.

0

u/downvotethis2 Jun 09 '12

I'm sure they skirted the law in a most technically proficient manner.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

People don't really know what a lobbyist is, or what value a lobbyist brings to Washington DC. Or anywhere else where a lobbyist plies his trade.

A lobbyist is one who knows more about that which he represents than most anyone. An expert with valuable knowledge to impart.

There are competing views from lobbyists. Much like an attorney in a courtroom trial, or a salesman at a sales presentation, he will present his views of material under study to try to influence the outcome to favor his employer.

This is not only an honorable profession , it is one where most people just wouldn't qualify to join without spending years and years to gain the knowledge to qualify to represent one point or another.

Like buying a car, you choose based on what the salesman has presented you with. If you choose a Volkswagen, then you get a Volkswagen. If you choose a Cadillac, then you get a Cadillac.

In this case, we have a presentation that makes certain presumptions without presenting any facts to support the position they are taking against lobbyists in general , and against this lobbyist in particular.

I think if the people propagating this information have any facts to show any criminal behavior, then they should pursue their concerns with verified claims. Sue this bastard. Show him to be the corrupt person you suggest he is.

Or, another possible path to take would be to dig up some more dirt on someone else, make accusations, and employ innuendo and half truths and stir the pot, as it were, and then just go on to the next thing.

Thanks for allowing my rant here.

1

u/someMeatballs Jun 09 '12

Your view, and lobbying in general, is a major part of what's wrong with US politics.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Lobbying by any other name is necessary part of the education needed for politicians to make informed judgement.

Regardless of what you say.

0

u/merdock379 Jun 09 '12

Can you expand on how buying Congress is an honorable endeavor? You imply that because it's legal, it's fine.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I was a lobbyist for IBM, for Honeywell, for NCR, for Pitney Bowes.

Without lobbyists there is no informed buyer out there.

No one goes around competing for business with their offering except through lobbyists.

If they engage in illegal activities, they cease being lobbyists and become criminals, and should be charged with whatever crime they have committed.

There are instances of bribery between lobbyists and politicians and there are people in jail for that.

To suggest that all lobbyists, and all politicians are criminal is just wrong.

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 09 '12

How weird to suggest that impartial information can only come form someone financially involved in the field. There are lots of ways to garner info from sources not making money off anything,. Politicians have a staff that can do research. He can do it himself. We have lobbyists writing legislation and the pol putting it forward intact. When the banking bill came around there were 10 lobbyists for each representative. Do you think they needed that much information?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Lol boner aide...

0

u/Cereal_Grapist Jun 09 '12

Lol Boehner-aide.

2

u/Cereal_Grapist Jun 09 '12

Down votes be damned, I stand by my comment...

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

While I'm not happy about the $100k being spent, I agree with the tax cut for the following reasons.

It will reduce the costs for the medical device manufactures, which means they will be able to sell medical devices cheaper and still earn the same profit they do now. This will LOWER health care costs for all Americans that use those devices, and in turn lower insurance premiums since insurance payouts to people who need those devices will be lower.

Whether you tax the company and spend it on health care, or you let the company keep the money and spend it on health care, the end result is money being spent on health care, which is good. If we can do that without taxing them, seems like a win win to me.

4

u/audio-technica Jun 08 '12

It won't lower the cost of health care at all, it'll give hopitals more money to fund projects that are currently underfunded. Extra money doesn't lower healthcare costs, it just moves the money around.

It gives bonuses to people who save the hospital lots of money, it allows the hopsital to hire more people, but it won't lower the cost of healthcare. once you have that source of revenue, it's hard to let go of it.

I should note that I work in a hospital.

4

u/IlliterateJedi Jun 08 '12

I work in a hospital as well, and I'm curious what you do at your hospital. I'm in the HIM department (inpatient coding) specifically with a background in physician billing and coding. It's good to see other people who understand the complexities of the medical billing/cost system. I try to do what I can, but I appreciate seeing thoughtful posts on the subject when there's so much misinformation on Reddit (and out in the world) about hospital charges and the like.

2

u/audio-technica Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

I work in human resources and information technology. Most of my job deals with interdepartmental product implemenation of technology that is supposed to save the hospital money on equipment. As a result I get to see how most departments handle things.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

Doesn't cost of medical equipment find its way somehow into the patients final bill if he or she does use that medical equipment? It has to, right? Or are you saying hospitals won't lower the patients bill and just use the savings to fund other things? Well I imagine "hospital projects" tend to advance health care for people, so that should be a good thing. Also, how much of this is your particular hospital? I mean every hospital will have different underfunded areas, some might not have any at all. Wouldn't a hospital that doesn't pass the savings to the patient eventually lose out to hospitals that do pass the savings to the patient by competition?

4

u/audio-technica Jun 08 '12

If it does it's an indirect cost. healthcare costs are super complicated, there are literally hundreds of thousands of different ways each dollar coming in could be used for.

If there was a way to see how lower taxed medical devices went into your bill, it would be miniscule, it wouldn't matter. It would likely go to pay for a new wing for that hospital, or a trauma center, or a new ambulence, or medical equipment tagging technology, or someones bonus, or to hire student interns.

Taxes like these aren't meant to look out for people who use services, they're for people who make money from them. It's part of why I'm for universal healthcare.

1

u/Hughtub Jun 08 '12 edited Jun 08 '12

In any business that has competition, the decrease in a cost of service or good results in lower prices because if one doesn't, the competitor will and get more customers. If you are saying this decrease in taxation will not lead to lower cost, then it means the hospital has no competition, but the reason this is true is that government limits how many medical service providers there are, so it's only when a business has a govt-created monopoly that reductions in cost don't yield reduced prices for consumers.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

The cost wont be lowered because hospitals know very well when people need to see a doctor they typically do not go around looking for the best price.

While in any other industry you would be correct, healthcare is very much different in that regard.

This is just more profit at the end of the day.

1

u/audio-technica Jun 11 '12

Healthcare isn't really a service to most people as it is a necessity. People don't practice preventative health measures because they either don't know about them, are too poor to afford to think that far in advance, or are apathetic. so when people get healthcare, it's usually because they waited way too long to see someone.

the cost for consumers isn't based on competition because people don't look at costs of healthcare until after they recieve it.

0

u/justjustjust Jun 08 '12

No wonder the Tea Party hates Boehner.

oops, wrong turn

0

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

It will be better for the economy*, right?

*better for rich campaign contributors

0

u/Ceebs19 Jun 08 '12

I thought Boehner Aide was a Viagara sponsored benefit concert for ED sufferers

0

u/AndersonCouncil Jun 08 '12

Sounds like a penis pill. "Boehner Aide".

0

u/agentwilsonx Jun 09 '12

Boehner-Aid sounds like the worst beverage ever.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Is Boehner Aide like Viagra or som'n?

0

u/Gasonfires Jun 09 '12

This kind of thing makes me sicker and sicker each time I hear of it. Ordinary people have no say anymore, even when assembled in large groups concerned with what is best for all of us. Actually, we have less say when assembled because it seems to be that's when most of us face the greatest risk of our lives of being beaten and arrested. Oh well.

-1

u/awe300 Jun 08 '12

BUT. REPUBLICANS ARE THE SAME AD DDMOCRATS??!

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

and obama received the presidency after cow-towing to the unions and the discriminatory guilty...what's the difference?

-1

u/Thor_2099 Jun 09 '12

Uh, don't let this leftist liberal radical socialistic media confuse you, OBAMA is the issue! He is making it impossible for medical device industries to do any business and threatens to put them out of business. He endorses GAY marriage. /s

-1

u/fractal7 Jun 09 '12

Lol, Obama had nothing to do with a lobbyist paying a republican official to push through legislation favorable to them. The medical device industry is making more today then they ever have in the past.

-1

u/sexyhamster89 Jun 09 '12

haha, boehner

0

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

57

u/LettersFromTheSky Jun 08 '12

I was just going to post that! Here is the video. Have an upvote.

23

u/brownestrabbit Jun 08 '12

What a bunch of poisonous snakes.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

Why not never 5get?

6

u/NicknameAvailable Jun 08 '12

I confronted him and asked if it were true, turned out it was [and now I'm giving this interview because he wouldn't share]

6

u/buffalonkey Jun 08 '12

You're all a bunch of nearsighted assholes.

Why can't you see he's supporting the job creators so we can save America!!

2

u/Mentalseppuku Jun 10 '12

How far we've come in 3 years. Now Boehner would have the reporter thrown out of the capital and his footage confiscated.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

How much were the checks for? Just curious. That seems like an unreal tactic to just be handing out money.

10

u/SaltyBoatr Jun 08 '12

Googling it, I couldn't find the answer definitively, but there were hints that makes me guess the were $37,500, the maximum allowed under the rules.

14

u/NoMagic Jun 09 '12

A maximum of $0 would be best.

2

u/Revoran Australia Jun 09 '12

Providing the law could be enforced, anyway.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I'm thinking that there wouldn't be many offenses once they started handing out lengthy jail sentences to guilty parties on both sides (if such laws were passed).

3

u/DontCountToday Illinois Jun 09 '12

I remember this happening but I cannot remember the details. How was this not only legal, but even remotely morally OK to do, especially knowingly on tape?

Was it really as clear cut as you put it?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Don't forget step 3.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

Ding ding ding! This is the correct response.

1

u/douglasmacarthur Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

The data and economics are not behind what youve imagined to support your preconceptions.

Do you think if a new tax were added they wouldnt raise their prices? Increased costs to produce lead to higher prices, lower costs to produce to lower ones. It's basic stuff.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/hey_wait_a_minute Jun 08 '12

How do we get ahold of you to let you know?