Arundhati Parmar
- 12 comments
- 1 likes given
- 1 likes received
Bio not provided
Jonathan, thanks for your kind words and for taking the time to read my bio.
@rachelr Like the story mentions the flexibility allows the stent to expand on its own and provide better fit while more rigid, conventional stents leave gaps leading to malapposition that has significant risks from what I understand.
@rachelr Yes you are right. I was explaining how a stent functions to remove a clot and not the catheter, although I see how the sentence can be taken that way. Sorry ...
Not knowing what names were called in the initial comment let me address this - :-) I have thought about the impact on smaller firms. If the consequences of the tax are so dire, the industry would have been up in arms right from the start ensuring that this piece never made it to the final legislation. The industry has not reacted like that - check website http://no2point3.com/ for evidence of lukewarm response. As for smaller firms, many innovative device firms are start-ups that are pre-revenue. Tax doesn't affect them. I have written previously about the tax needing clarification because I understand that distributors are concerned about whether they have to pay the tax too. I am not sure what level of innovation occurs at distributors.
@Maggiecampbell Thanks much for your comment to my story.
Hi, Sorry I was just informed of your query. Unfortunately, these are analyst reports and only available to institutional investors who pay for it. Once, I posted the whole report and was asked to take it down. So sorry.
You are absolutely correct. In the initial version of the post on Friday, I goofed and confused the two. Later on Friday, a vigilant St. Jude spokeswoman alerted me to it. I fixed the error and then added the italicized portion below the story telling readers of the change I made to the first version. Thank you, for bringing this to my notice however. This one of those daft moments that journalists feel they should never fall prey to.
You make a fair point. I agree that not everyone has the time or the buying leverage that WalMart has, especially startups. I know I am being slightly provocative with the headline (maybe even hopeful) thinking that if WalMart can bring these folks to the table, maybe over time these discussions over cost may not be so onerous. But Stewart was making a larger point about employer-based insurance and single payer systems. ACA was such a huge challenge. I can't imagine how single payer would fly. In the meantime, for companies to retain talent, and yes that's true for startups too, employers will more than likely stay involved.
@bobajoul I think this is a fair point too. What goes for objective journalism these days is putting out information from two sides that are biased and not connecting the dots to show which is closer to the truth. But the public is happy with this approach since they can pick the bias that they agree with and go on about their day. I wish we had more orgs like CBO that is truly non-partisan. Problem with economics is that it is not a true science in the way mathematics is.
@MissFit2BTied You make a fair point. I should have made more of an effort to show the other side.
Hi, Actually the first point is from the CBO. And here is the actual CBO report - http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
Hello,
The phrase "institutional schizophrenia" was part of a quote that the KPMG executive used. I believe KPMG was trying to say that there is tremendous dichotomy within the industry. I understand your sentiment however.