Advocacy / AMAC Action On Capitol Hill

Passage of the “Protect Medical Innovation Act”

capital-building (2)On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 160, the Protect Medical Innovation Act, which was introduced by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN). This bill repeals the 2.3% excise tax put in place by ObamaCare that has had a disastrous impact on American small businesses and manufacturers that produce life-saving medical devices used every day by doctors and patients. Upon passage, Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) issued the following statement:

“This tax is a prime example of ObamaCare’s flawed priorities. Taxing medical devices not only stifles innovation and threatens American jobs, but drives up health care costs and makes treatments less accessible for those who need them most. By repealing this tax, American medical innovation can refocus on encouraging discovery and finding solutions for the health challenges—and emergencies—so many Americans face. I applaud Rep. Paulsen for his work on this legislation, and I’m proud to support it.”

AMAC is very pleased to see that H.R. 160 passed with bipartisan support, and we thank the 7,400 AMAC members who called and emailed their Representatives to unburden the public from this harmful ObamaCare tax. Your participation in the legislative process remains immensely important, and we look forward to engaging the AMAC membership in future call-to-action campaigns when issues significant to seniors arise!


If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Leland Kendrick MD
7 years ago

Only Idiots would kill innovation in medicine.
It actually should be encouraged.
we also should not let inferior generics on the market with the big lie Generics(oral) are just as good as trade name
I was a Pharmacist for 8 years and Know the importance of Comparing apples to apples.
Inferior generics that do not mimic Bioavaliabilty can mean non controll of BP,depression,stroke etc.
and generic companies boast we are cheaper because we don’t do expensive research,
I suppose just wait to innovators hard work.(leaches)
they should pay royalties to innovators but if inferior absorbtion etc to trade name meds. FDA cannot posibly monitor
quaailty of drugs made in India etc and generic co don’t give samples or have programs to help people with their meds.
I feel Trade name product co should wise up and drop price and compete with generics and actually get all the buisness.
and if physicians would drop all insurance companies and gain control of Dr and patient personalized care instead of insurance dictated control.People are not carbon copies of each other and care has to be for the patient with patient
making final decision.Physicians should keep patients first.
If physicians quit all insurances ,then they will be freed to spend time with patient and quit wasting time getting bureaucreat authorization etc,
GUESS WHAT. Lets see insurance co and government practice medicine.
They need us,we don’t need them.
of course all physicians should selfless and do our best for them
price of care would also decrease by costly and ineffective mandates.
Where has socialized medicine worked, no where.

Janice Munkres
7 years ago

I am SOOOO PROUD of our House members for passing H.R. 160. Now if we can just do the same with H.R. 1190! These two have been true “works of art” of our alleged President! Bit by bit, maybe we can keep him “at bay” until the end of his “tenure of terror”! Thank you AMAC for all you have done and do for we Senior Citizens!

Janice (Jan) Munkres

7 years ago

Waiting to see how it fares in the Senate. Will enough Dem’s vote for it to get the needed 67 veto proof votes? Time will tell but I, for one, won’t hold my breath. Obama WILL veto it IF it’s passed and sent to his desk.

Will it be an orchestrated vote by Dem’s so the vulnerable ones can say, “don’t blame me, I voted FOR it”, so they can play the game with their constituents? OR so the Dem’s can say “see, we are willing to work in a bi-partisan way” to get bills passed? Obama has nothing to lose by vetoing (unlike Dem’s coming up for re-election) as he’s at the end of his presidency and wants to keep his healthcare legacy alive. How better to do that but by orchestrating votes on volatile issues?

7 years ago
Reply to  HAM

A great many libs believe that health care should be free and that there exists a rock candy mountain of money, wonderful devices and skilled docs. So far, there have been nothing but kabuki dances as regards the repeal or dismantling or defanging of the aca. The Rs have made great shows of voting against the acas provisions, but, so far, they have been show votes. I can easily imagine the Ds in the house doing the same thing now, secure in the knowledge that even if a few Ds in the senate vote with the Rs they will never reach a veto proof status, thus enabling them to go back to constituents who may wonder when we started to go backwards in medical advancements and to explain that, ‘it wasn’t my fault’.

7 years ago
Reply to  DA

HAM and DA,

I agree with both your comments. The political theater being carefully played out in Washington, to mollify the vast majority of “uninformed voters” (those either too apathetic or disinterested in anything not directly affecting them at the moment to try and educate themselves on any of the issues), is far too predictable.

As to the rest of this week’s articles, they seem to be largely recycled and focused on the same limited range of issues. Not worth commenting on as they’ve all been discussed to death at this point. There are certainly more issues of relevance to seniors than the limited set presented almost every week.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x