While I do understand that some of the provisions in the ACA are good and could have been passed with wide support such as the "pre-existing condition" provision and others. What I don't seem to understand is the logic applied in a tax on medical devices as a means of funding. If the intent of the bill is to cover more people and deliver medical care to more people as well as lower costs then this method seems a strange way to go about it. It would seem that a medical device company would simply pass along the costs of this new tax to their customers, i.e. the hostpitals, doctors, etc. who in turn will pass them along to the patients which will then be passes to the insurance companies, and if they are taxpayer funded the costs will be in the form of more debt and more spending to cover that cost.
The company in question here like every company that decides to go offshore although they have every right to do so, in my humble opinion should then lose the benefits accorded to American companies in the tax code , such as allowable deductions. Frankly we should be giving American businesses like this one tax cuts for doing business here, medical and otherwise not imposing a tax on them that has a questionable benefit. I am also of the opinion that if this company is working on such small margins that a rise in cost of 2.3% will force them to move new facilities overseas then suffer the same tax when they bring it back here, seems more than a little suspect. That said as I mentioned above any healthcare bill that is focused on lowering costs on the front end and not at the delivery point is going to have questionable results.
Navy1960, I am worried about that too, to me any medical insurance bill that didn't address malpractice insurance reform is just putting lipstick on a pig. But that doesn't mean we can blame it for this company's decisions.