Obamacare May Bite You At The Vet’s Office

[humbled_opinion]

Source: cbs

MIAMI (CBSMiami) — Pet owners listen up: You may want to start saving more money for veterinarian care this year. The reason goes all the way back to Washington and an unintended consequence from medical reform.

Dog owner Lori Heiselman was surprised where her veterinarian posted a warning on Facebook.

The notice read: “Because medical equipment and supplies will be going up in cost, that extra expense will have to passed on to the customers.”

So Lori is already tightening her belt to pay for the increase in her dog’s care. Though she doesn’t like it, she’s willing to pay more for her pets.

“They’re very important. They’re members of the family,” said Heiselman.

Why the increase? Its part of a new 2.3-percent federal excise tax on certain medical devices that just went into effect. The tax will help fund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, intended for people, not pets. Manufacturers pay the tax, but a recent survey found more than half plan to pass it along.



Read more: http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/03/11/obamacare-may-bite-you-at-the-vets-office/

---

Seriously, what can be done to ensure that these vultures do not pass these costs on to consumers. There has to be some kind of government protection to help people that have pets that are going to be robbed by these vets in the name of the Affordable Care Act... The worse part is that they shamelessly admit that they will pass on the increases to their customers. I guess I will start using the Humane Society for all my pets medical needs, didn't want to go that route but I can't afford cost increases in vet care, hopefully the Humane Society doesn't raise their prices too....

[Bay Boy]

1. Are you calling the veterinarians vultures?

That seems unfair. Why shouldn't they pass along a price increase. That said I don't see why a vet should be paying an excise tax for equipment that isn't intended for human use.

[humbled_opinion]

6. Yes to those vets

That would pass along a tax cost that was specifically used to benefit humans as part of animal care I would call them vultures, not saying all would do that but some may.

[X_Digger]

21. So vets with higher costs should just eat the difference?

Umm, no.

[Psephos]

23. Insane.

Why do vets, most of whom don't make much money, owe pet owners when the government raises a tax?

That's as crazy as saying humbled_opinion owes psephos because...because...psephos would like someone else to pay for his tax expenses?

The mind wobbles.

[TheMadMonk]

27. For the same reason people will cheerfully drag a straight razor across...

...their own throats, provided it's called a tax cut.

[Katashi_itto]

28. There is a slight lack of critical thinking on your part.

[kestrel91316]

29. I'm a veterinarian. I pass along all costs of doing

business to my CLIENTS (they aren't customers - I'm no shopkeeper).

All businesses do. You don't hear of wages being cut every time some supply or piece of equipment goes up in price. But you WILL eventually see retail costs rise.

And the "devices" that will go up in price because of the tax are things like intravenous catheters, which cost me a buck or two each from my wholesaler. And when I charge $50 or whatever to place that IV catheter, 95% of my fee is professional services, truth be told, and 5% is cost of supplies. So the thing has a slightly higher cost now, maybe $1.10 or $2.20. It's hardly worth noting.

The fears that this is going to make vet costs skyrocket is complete and utter bull shit and RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA.

[Skittles]

30. thanks for your input, kestrel

I thought that note sounded suspicous and suspect it's a Fox News-watching vet.

I have always set aside a fund for veterinary care (money to be used solely for that purpose) to help take the bite out of any unexpected bills (HEY, was that a pun?).......that came in handy last week when my 6 year old kitty had to have some dental treatement; I try to increase the fund when I have a geriatric pet

[happyslug]

32. Yes, most business do what you are doing, high cost for items to cover labor costs

People complain less if a part is expensive as oppose to the cost of labor to replace that part. 30 years ago I had to replace the alternator on my truck. All the alternator needed was a new set of bushings, a $2 part, but taking apart the alternator, removing it and re-installing it was an all day job. If I had to pay someone to do it, it would have been $100 to $200 in labor. If I was a mechanic and had to give an estimate I would have said $150 for the part, $50 in labor. Why? People will object to high labor costs, because they believe that can be reduced, but accept the parts cost on face value.

In the early 1980s I sold window glass (and other glass products), we charged individuals a 50% discount (The price card we used was set up in the 1940s, then PPG adopted "Float Glass" technology, which rapidly dropped the price, thus we were making a huge profit at 50% discount, PPG finally replaced the 1940 era discount card in 1982, the price of glass had dropped so much, that we needed a new card with something lower then 99% of list).

On the other hand, if you were in the business of repairs we gave you a 95-99% discount, but if our installers did the window repair we listed the glass at full price. Why? People object to labor costs, but NOT on the costs of parts.

People who deal with people who do any type of "repairs" (in my case in the 1980s windows, in your case animals) know this occurs, but because they do the same thing for the same reason they fully accept it. The States do not complain, for Labor charges are NOT subject to sales taxes, but the price of items used are (Thus the States gets more sales tax revenue).

As to this tax leading to increase Vet bills, it will in theory, but as you pointed out this is NOT being collected at the consumer level, where the above "rule" of business kicks in, but at the wholesale level, where regular rules of business are in play (i.e. lowest price still rules, provided the item meets actual needs).

[humbled_opinion]

33. Nuts

I understand this is just a few cents now, but the point is the same, what if government keeps raising your taxes, your reply is you just keep on passing the costs on to consumers? That is insane so am I do believe every time Obama says that the rich should pay more he is advocating my (lower middle class) costs going up?

Where is your compassion... I hope everyone boycotts your business for passing on costs you are no different than Papa Johns and Denny's saying that their costs go up because of the PPACA....

STOP and extrapolate your capitalist greed across every single business sector are you telling me that won't wind up hurting me the low wage consumer that is barely making ends meet now?

THINK THINK THINK...

[kestrel91316]

48. I lack compassion for daring to charge for my services and attempt to pull in

enough money that I can take home more than minimum wage, on average, for my efforts??

Jesus wept. I'M not the one lacking in compassion here.

OF COURSE I pass on costs to my clients. WTF am I supposed to do? Work for FREE??

Veterinarians are greedy capitalists now????? FUCKETY FUCK FUCK. I wish I knew your name and location so I could warn every vet in your area to decline to accept you as a client. People with your attitude are troublemakers and make the worst kind of clients.

[christx30]

49. Taxes are just another expense.

They raise the price of power to the building, prices go up
They raise the rent. Prices go up.
They raise the cost of raw materials, prices go up.
Why are taxes any different? How is it greed to say "It's more expensive for me to run my business now. I either need to raise my prices or shut my doors." Sometimes businesses complain loudly (and in Papa John's case, annoyingly) and threaten to raise prices. Some keep it quiet. But when taxes go up, prices go up. Hell... look at your cable/internet bill. Probably a full 1/3rd of the total bill is taxes and government imposed fees. Can't do anything about it. It's just there. If you've ever seen this and thought to yourself that you might need to change your services to compensate, you are no better than anyone that raises their prices to compensate for increased taxes. It's not greed. It's just the economic reality.
If your expenses went up (rent raised, had a kid, ect), wouldn't you try to get a raise from your boss? How is that not greed?

I have no problem with taxes. But I do know that there is a cost when they are raised. Everyone wants to make as much money from their products and services as they can. But if you wouldn't take a pay cut, why should anyone else?

[hedgehog]

36. Thank you - I was guessing the actual numbers would

resemble your fact based numbers! I was also thinking, 2.3% on a $100 fee is a whopping $2.30!

[hamsterjill]

37. Thanks for the grounding effect!

I am much more concerned with some of the drugs that seem to be becoming difficult to obtain from my vet. Guess the drug companies haven't been making enough profit!

Last drug that my own personal vet commented about was doxycycline.

[Historic NY]

52. Thanks it didn't sound right..

[LiberalFighter]

62. Thanks for your response.

I just don't understand how others correlate costs associated with one area to another. And they think it is logical.

I'm betting that if that vet does raise prices like the poster says he is that he is going to price himself out of the business. With competition not doing the same I'm sure word will get out there are other vets providing as good or better services for less.

[PatrynXX]

14. some of them are some of them aren't

had one for years telling us 1 800 Petmeds sold illegal counterfeit drugs. Over 5 years after our beagle passed. that company is still around. So clearly it's not a clear cut case. and that because of Petmeds he had to raise the prices

[LiberalFighter]

2. Until I see this reported by something other than local news

I will call bullshit.

[JaneQPublic]

64. factcheck.org called BS on this last summer.

Vets get taxed only to the extent they use the same equipment used by people doctors.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/nrcc-obamacare-taxes-sick-puppies/

taxable devices are those “intended for humans.” So if a medical device is exclusively used for veterinary medicine, it would not be taxable.

But there are also medical devices used in veterinary practices as well as in human medicine. The IRS says those would be taxable.

To me, a 2-3 percent tax sounds miniscule, considering I just got socked with an 18 percent increase in the cost of prescription kibble for my diabetic cat. An 8.5 lb bag went from $36 to $42 in one month -- not because of any tax, but because of inflation caused largely by the drought in the midwest.

So cry me a river.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. You are blaming vets because their overhead went up due to an excise tax?

Wow.

[humbled_opinion]

7. So what does the PPACA

have to do with animals?

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. Do you read what you post before you hit 'submit'?

From your article, emphasis added:

Its part of a new 2.3-percent federal excise tax on certain medical devices that just went into effect. The tax will help fund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, intended for people, not pets. Manufacturers pay the tax, but a recent survey found more than half plan to pass it along.

[humbled_opinion]

34. Doesn't make it right

I care about my animals and all this crap about every single sector of business being OK to pass along costs to consumers is just insane.. If that is what this law is about than shove it.

[Notafraidtoo]

4. I doubt the consumer

Last edited Tue Mar 12, 2013, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Is going to notice the increase in vet cost when the Tax is only 2.3% on the supplies,its just like when Papa Johns says it will raise pizza by 25 cents do they really think that quarter will cost them market share? Its just business owners crying about nothing while trying to gain public support for their irrational whining.

Never mind that both papa and the vet will have a increased pool of people with a little extra cash to spend due to the slow down of health care cost.

Also on a economic sidenote something that republican voters miss completely and that is the cost of goods is directly effected by the price people will pay for said goods its a balance of what people will pay and how many of those people you need to pay it,raise your price too much you lose out to competitors that will undercut you cause they are willing to take less, if competitors match your prices then you can risk losing people that don't think your product has that much value.

In the end if a business is rational the prices of good's make themselves only someone not completely concerned with profit under prices his goods but the same is true to those that over price.This is why tax cuts for the wealthy don't create jobs you don't hire people you don't need, why increase cost if you are meeting all possible demand, the only thing that increases hiring in the private sector is a market with more demand than is being met,the best tax cuts do is transfer jobs from one place to another but doing so hurts other jobs like Public.

[humbled_opinion]

8. Yes that is a very good way

to look at it but the sketch part being lower medical costs... just because the PPACA winds up saving money in the medical community does not necessarily mean those savings will be realized by the consumers.... Just saying Capitalism sparks greed at every turn.

[Notafraidtoo]

11. True

But the limits on the profits insurance company's make and the increased competition should lower the cost just fine,its the insurance company's that negotiate prices with medical providers if their profits are limited by law there is little incentive to increase the cost for the purpose of greed or so thats the gist behind the whole thing.

your right though capitalism is a slippery thing so we are at the wait and see stage.

[TheKentuckian]

57. There is no increased competition, the cartel still even has their anti-trust exemption

and an irrational market.

Limiting the purse holder's percentage but no one else's means logically overall systemic cost increases are the only real way to actually make more money. All the cartel has to do is payout more of what they are billed and/or ease up allowable charges.

What we have is a decades old right wing scam built to preserve the insurance cartel from the downside of their unlimited avarice and act as a dam against the rising tide of demands for systemic reform with a few pay to play features acting as the sugar to help the medicine go down that mostly appeal to comfortable suburbanites.
The 24 year old who has parents that cannot afford to cover them or have passed away is a deadbeat who needs to buck up and take care of his obligation to the cartel while the 24 year old with parents willing and able to carry them needs our help as they get established. This is the mentality and morality of the law.

[Notafraidtoo]

58. I agree its not best case

I am for single payer myself.

[TheKentuckian]

59. That is cool but you still made an argument about competition and controls lowering costs just fine

which is pollyannaish, at best.

Lowering cost is beyond what almost anyone has pushed as a plausible benefit, the common pitch was that it will "bend the cost curve", which I have a hard time swallowing long term either with powerful incentives to raise systemic costs.

"Not ideal" doesn't begin to get a handle on this. We have sanded off some of the roughest edges of our existing system but spread the pain around a bit more to balance it which leaves us little better off overall after full implementation of "reform", on the whole, than we were before.

The insurance cartel largely wrote the bill, the "stakeholders" consulted throughout the process far more than patients, providers, taxpayers, economists, operators of superior systems around the world, administrators of VA, medicaid, or Medicare, or indeed anyone at all even combined.

How many spots will this law move us up in health care rankings? How many spots will we move down in cost?

This is straight up rearranging the deck chairs and doing so to protect and preserve the existing order and profit centers. This isn't even serious market oriented reform but I guess if such was the aim then the less than ideal measurement might come in on the borders of worth mentioning but even there the success is minimal while uneven

[Bay Boy]

15. You make a good point

as a client at a vet's office you'd have to know what the procedure cost previously and then get your panties all in a bunch becaue that $200 procedure is now $204.60

[obama2terms]

20. Exactly

2.3% really isn't that much, some people might notice but not everyone.

[greatlaurel]

5. This smells of desperation by the GOP

The GOP is getting really desperate to try and stop the ACA. Once it is implemented and it gives people any relief, the GOP will loose a lot more elections, after all the ridiculous claims they have made about ACA. This is just another attempt to frighten gullible people into hysteria about the ACA.

The biggest cost for vets is paying off their outrageous student loans. That is a big driver of vet costs. The other price driver is the cost of animal drugs. Once big pharma got vet antibiotics regulated, I noticed drug prices went way up. Used to be able to go to the farm store or mill and get antibiotics for your animals without a vet visit. The factory "farms" still use the vast majority of antibiotics in the USA. That is a huge source of the scary antibiotic resistance problem.

[Tanuki]

10. Excellent first post---welcome to DU! eom

[greatlaurel]

43. Thank you!

[SunSeeker]

26. Welcome. We can always use another voice of reason here!

[greatlaurel]

44. Thank you!

[Auntie Bush]

38. Welcome to DU Greatlaurel

[greatlaurel]

45. Thank you!

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. the 2010 median average salary for a vet is $82,040 per year - about half that of any medical field

with equivalent education. Also with only 28 veterinary schools in the entire United States it is far more difficult to get into veterinary school then medical school or dental school or just about any other equivalent advanced medical program.

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/veterinarians.htm

Even if you contrast their salary with say a pharmacist who have considerably less - albeit significant amounts of formal education and a considerably less albeit still a very significant amount of competition to get into a program - the median average income for a pharmacist is $112,160

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/veterinarians.htm

a more realistic comparison would be with dentist -Although is still far more difficult to get into a one of the United States 28 veterinarian schools - the median average income for a dentist is $146,920 per year

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/dentists.htm

[Ruby the Liberal]

13. Yet Vets have to be trained in general medicine, dental AND surgical

before getting their DVM. Just had that inane argument with someone claiming Vets have no business claiming they are in the "medical community" the other day... http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2451036

*sigh*

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. people know they have to pay a lot for dental and medical bills and usually have help with some form

of co-pays and insurance. Very few people have health insurance for their animals. And still people accept that medical bills and dental bills will cost a fortune. About six months ago I adopted a wounded, sick and starving abandoned dog of the street - one that had once upon a time had been well cared for - but the owner left the area and the dog ended up being left to his own survival skills - living on the street for about four years. I suppose my veterinary bills ran close to $1200 in restoring him to proper health and care. Certainly - an abandoned, sick child living on the street would have cost considerably more in medical bills if there were no financial assistance in restoring them to proper health. But people pretty much expect to pay a lot for their children or themselves - but seem shocked when they pay considerably less for the care and restoration of their animals. I don't suppose we are yet at the point where the country will support single payer veterinary care?

[Ruby the Liberal]

19. Thank you for taking in that puppy dog.

For the life of me, I will never understand the mindset of someone who would put a pet out onto a street to fend for their-self. May karma hit back, hard and often. Namaste.

[JanMichael]

41. our animals are rescued "mutts"

our dog (kid you not) has breakfast in bed (our bed) every morning....(started when she had double eye surgery from a specialist who does NOT do dentals, etc...like you seem to think they do)

You worship at the stupid altar of capitalism that your vets have sold you, lock stock and barrel. It's bad enough that the human medical practioners have got us so used to being screwed that we STILL think they are fantastic, but now vets have you believing they too should be worshipped at the altar of greed.

I responded to you about veterinary school. We live less than 75 miles from one of the best in the country; my wife's bf in her twenties was a pretty well known vet in that profession.

We ARE familiar. You just fall for the "I love my animals SO much that I will pay anything" crap, and it's sad.

[JanMichael]

40. Ruby. That was me.

Do you understand that veterinary school is 4 years of grad school....and then that is it....unless you want to become "board certified" in a specialty (such as cardiology, etc) in which case you will NOT do dentals, etc?

To be a "general" vet.....large or small animal.....takes 4 years of undergrad (one of our vets majored in history, btw) and 4 years of veterinary college.

Not saying it's not hard, but please quit comparing veterinarians to human doctors who have to have 12 year of post grad, including residencies and internships.

Thank you.

Yes, I understand our vets are awesome....I do.

But, cut it out. Nurse practioners have more school than veterinarians do. Please stop.

[southernyankeebelle]

16. People need to understand doctors and dentists are being hit also. They have alot of expenses

they have to have. They have to meet payroll. I know I have a relative that is a dentist and this relative paid 50% in taxes and this relative is still going to owe the government $30,000. This relative spent 12 yrs becoming a dentist. This relative also had breast cancer and if she didn't have some of her friends help pick up some of the slack I don't know what would have happened. She had to worry not only about her but also her employees. It is very sad that big corporations aren't paying the fair share of taxes. Doctors are hurting to.

[RILib]

24. 50% in taxes?

She must be making a giant salary. I assume you mean federal + state taxes, since federal taxes don't even reach 50%. Not only a giant salary, but a giant NET salary since deductions and business expenses reduce the income. I'm not weeping about taxes for someone bringing in half a million a year or so.

[southernyankeebelle]

31. I am assuming its both. But they also have a payroll. Many pay high rate of insurance for

malpractice insurance. They have to have equipment taken care of and when it breaks down they have to buy new equipment. My relative worries about their patience care when they come in to their office. When they are sick there is no income coming in. If they don't work they don't get paid. I don't know what kind of salary my relative makes but I do know that this relative does a lot of charity work here in the state they live in and also goes to the Dominican Republic to help poor with dental work. I can understand their point. I tried to tell them that big corporations are the ones who aren't paying taxes. This relative has a small practice.

[RILib]

55. insurance is not taxes.

[tarheelsunc]

17. When they say "medical equipment and supplies," what exactly do they mean?

Do they mean cheap little instruments that would only need to be purchased once and could be washed and reused for years?

[RILib]

22. I went looking for a list

I found this:

"Veterinary devices. A device defined in section 201(h) of the FFDCA that is intended for humans means a device that is listed as a device with the FDA under section 510(j) of the FFDCA and 21 CFR part 807, pursuant to FDA requirements. Because devices that are intended for use exclusively in veterinary medicine are not listed as devices under section 510(j) of the FFDCA and 21 CFR part 807, they are not taxable medical devices within the meaning of Code Sec. 4191."

So I have no idea what devices they are talking about but ones for animals only seem excluded.

What could this stuff be? Pins for broken bones? Syringes? It's not like they're ordering wheelchairs. It would seem that not only is this stuff very inexpensive to begin with, but the additional cost is minute.

p.s. Things are sterilized, not "washed."

[SunSeeker]

25. Geez. What's with the anti-ACA posts today?

Funny, for a "breaking news" item, it is nowhere on the front page of the national CBS News site: http://www.cbsnews.com/

And even in the link you provide, the author admits:

"The American Veterinary Medical Association represents 82,000 vets. At this point, they don’t know how much this new tax will indirectly cost them. The organizations members are waiting to hear from more device makers."

It appears to be a scare piece based on no actual figures. What we do know is that vet equipment is exempt. Dual use equipment is not, and apparently half of those manufacturers said they intend to pass the tax cost along. But what percentage of your vet bill is comprised of the costs of dual use equipment? Last time I went to the vet, it was none. I paid for the vet's time and cat medicine. Even if it was ALL of it, a 2.3% tax increase that is passed on to you means a $100 vet bill goes to $102.30. So you are really worried, humbled_opinion?

[humbled_opinion]

39. Yes, I have 7 pets...

if each procedure goes up just a little than it does affect my finances, lately I have been wondering if the attitude on this is that it is ok for business owners to just pass on these costs to consumers than if you start extrapolating the costs acrosss all sectors of the economy than it really does mean a huge cost increase to individual consumers like me sort of like a big inflation something will have to give, I don't foresee my employer offering me more money to help reduce the costs, so the bottom line I think becomes why can't the government stop companies from passing these costs on to consumers? It is the entire capitalist greed and uncaring compassion that bugs me most of all. Trying to do something good to help people who need medical care winds up turning into something that the costs get spread to those that simply can't afford to bear those costs. Let me try to state better what I mean...

Lets say that Obama said I am going to pass this healthcare law and in order to pay for it I am going to take 10 percent more from people that make 200K and above the costs will not be passed down to consumers because the costs are all being subsidized from a tax on the rich... well then if the vet said my costs are going up or Papa Johns said my pizza is going to cost more etc than as consumers we could fight that because they have no business passing on direct higher taxes to their customers.... but because it taxes medical equipment makers or fines employers or whatever then it seems like the costs become the costs of doing business and the capitalists seem to get a pass on being able to pass those on to the consumers.

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't like it, I guess we will ultimately see exactly how far and how much is passed on to consumers of course 2.3% doesn't sound like alot but that doesn't mean that every sector of every business will be sticking to that same percentage math. Many businesses will use this to get over on customers, the effect of market share will most likely force entire sectors to raise prices at the same time so their won't be alot that a consumer can do to force the costs to go down....

[christx30]

46. If you ran a business

And a new tax was introduced, would you just eat the difference? If your rent and payroll, ect, as well as your personal bills relied on getting say... $100 profit on each customer. Especially if you are the kind of small business person that keeps their prices low to help their customer, while operating on a razor thin profit margin. This new tax ended up costing you $8 per customer. Would you take the hit? Let your per-customer profits get under the do-or-die line and risk your business? Or raise the price just enough to cover the new tax? Maybe you can find a cheaper place to operate your business. Maybe you can use cheaper materials to make your product.
This isn't an anti-ACA post. But there are not going to be many businesses that are going to eat the cost. They'll pass it along to their customers. This isn't greed. It's the survival of your business.

[ChazII]

35. Good questions...Walgreens

is where my friend gets the medicine for her dog's valley fever. It is less expensive and her vet told her to go to Fry's Grocery or Walgreens.

[Sunlei]

42. Vets are a lot less expensive than the same operation done by a human Doctor.

However, the basics- all vaccines including rabies, all heartworm prevention and all wormers should be over the counter and not an RX required. The Vet Lobby has pretty much locked up this market by requiring a visit to the Vet.

[RILib]

56. many "basics" for vet care can be bought by owners over the counter

There is no evil "vet lobby." I thought only the rightwingers made charges based on low information. We can do better than that.

[karynnj]

47. I question the motivation of that Vet's office

Think about it. They are speaking of a 2.3% tax on medical devices. Assume the worst - 100% is passed on by the manufacturer. That means if your dog were to need a medical device -of the types manufactured for humans that cost $100 - the increase is $2.30.

Now, think of the real costs you have paid at vets' offices. Most is for the time of the vet - unaffected and for vaccines - unaffected and for tests - unaffected.

Then there are the HUGE costs when the dog is very ill - again - even if a medical device that is covered under the ACA is needed, it will not be the bulk of the costs.

-- caveat - I am not a vet. We now have the second dog we have owned - the first died after EXTENSIVE (expensive) medical care.

[6000eliot]

50. What if the vets treat the vultures?

[DreamGypsy]

51. GIVE ME A BREAK: Medical devices are generally NOT single use ...

... so any increase in cost can/will be amortized over the usages.

If a $10,000.00 device increases in cost by 2.3%, that's $230.00. If the device is has an expected lifetime of 1000 usages before replacement or repair, that's 23 cents per use ... passed on to the the client by the veterinarian...per treatment or usage.

The people that care for my dogs are outstanding professional, caring women and men. I respect the integrity of each vet, vet assistant, and clerical person at the animal hospital. The love my dogs...not quite as much as I do...but almost.

My vets understand that some people are unable to pay the full costs for treatment of their animal companions and they accept donations from those of us who can afford more to support those who cannot. I am more than happy to give all my spare quarters to support the care of my community's animal companions.

To kestrel91316 - thanks for devoting your life to caring for our animal companions/teachers.

To greatlaurel - welcome. you exposed the core problem...the purpose of the media is to incite panic.

[onpatrol98]

53. companies who incur a greater cost

Companies who incur a greater cost pass it along to their customers...these things don't happen in a vacuum. Legislation of about any type generally adds a cost. Its about the kind of country you want to live in. If we want things, we have to pay for them.

[dballance]

54. You Can't Possibly Be Serious

You pay for services rendered every day. If a vendor raises their rates then you live with it. We all commonly live with gas stations raising their rates all the time. There isn't a lot we can do about that since we need to drive to work.

You want government protection from vendors increasing prices? That's about the most ridiculous thing I've heard lately. You're whining about 2.3 percent? Really? So if you cannot afford two cents on the dollar then perhaps you should reconsider whether or not you can afford a pet in the first place.

[humbled_opinion]

60. Sanctimoney much?

I should rethink if I should have a pet? Haven't you noticed the cost of living?

[dballance]

61. Well, Yes. I Have Noticed the Cost of Living

I have noticed that wages have not gone up in relative proportion to the prices of food, clothing or fuel. Mine have not.

I do, however, stand by my comment that if you cannot afford two cents on the dollar for your pet then you should rethink having a pet. It is a choice and not a requirement. Just as one should not adopt a child if they cannot afford to provide for the child then one should not adopt a pet.

I am not sanctimonious I'm realistic. Perhaps you should take the advice of your user name and be humbled.

[humbled_opinion]

65. You know I can't just let that go...

OK so lets say you are doing fine have plenty of money good job great outlook so you get a pet.... or have a kid..... Than things turn terrible you know because of this thing called LIFE.... well your reality says no one should ever own a pet or have a child because things may not always be perfect..... I am glad that 90 percent of the people don't actually live like you think or as your logic seems to dictate once you have the pet but the economy goes to shit costs go up your job doesn't pay more or you get cut hours and you now can barely make ends meet, is your course to then turn the pet out to a shelter? Destroy it? What about the child?

[LiberalFighter]

63. The Excise Tax on Medical Devices

Congress carefully designed the ACA so that it will not add to the budget deficit. To help pay for the expansion of health coverage to 27 million uninsured Americans, the ACA either reduces Medicare payments or increases taxes for a wide range of industries that will benefit from health reform, including hospitals, home health agencies, clinical laboratories, health insurance providers, drug companies, and manufacturers of medical devices.

The ACA imposes a 2.3-percent excise tax on the sale of any taxable medical device by the manufacturer or importer of the device starting in 2013. The tax does not apply to eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, or any other medical device that the public generally buys at retail for individual use.[4] Sales for further manufacture or for export are also tax-exempt.[5] The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published proposed regulations in February 2012 and final regulations in December providing detailed guidance on how the tax will be applied.[6] The IRS has also issued interim guidance for determining the price of a taxable device and providing transition relief from penalties for failure to pay the tax.[7]

Lawmakers initially considered a higher tax, but the medical device industry succeeded during the health reform debate in halving the amount of revenue that a fee or tax on devices would raise. Since the excise tax was enacted, lobbyists for the industry have been pressing for its delay or repeal. Last year the House passed H.R. 436, which would have repealed the tax, and bills to repeal the tax have been introduced in both the House and Senate this year.

Medical devices encompass an extremely wide range of products, such as surgical gloves, dental instruments, wheelchairs, coronary stents, artificial knees and hips, defibrillators, cardiac pacemakers, irradiation equipment, and advanced imaging technology. The U.S. medical device industry has estimated total sales of $106 billion to $116 billion a year.[8] A few large firms account for the lion’s share of this revenue. For example, Johnson and Johnson’s worldwide sales of medical devices and diagnostics totaled $27 billion in 2012; the firm had total sales (on both medical devices and other products) of $67 billion, on which it earned profits of nearly $11 billion.[9] Medtronic had $16 billion in sales and profits of nearly $4 billion in its 2012 fiscal year.[10] One trade group has estimated that the ten largest medical device makers will account for 86 percent of the sales of covered medical devices and hence pay 86 percent of the receipts from the excise tax.[11]

11. Q: Are veterinary devices considered taxable medical devices?
A: A device intended exclusively for use in veterinary medicine is not a taxable device. However, if the device is intended for both human and veterinary use, is on the FDA list (see Question 5) and is not otherwise excluded, the excise tax must be paid.9

Check to see if the device is listed at the FDA below.
FDA Device listing