There are many frightening aspects of the new healthcare law hidden around every corner of its legislative labyrinth, camouflaged behind dense impenetrable briars of legalese. But, like the purloined letter of literature, there plenty of the law’s detestable provisions hiding in plain sight.

Any document that runs over 2,000 pages (unless it is a young adult book about angst-ridden vampires) discourages even the most cursory of readings. Even skimming such a tome would likely precipitate carpal tunnel syndrome. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law last week by President Obama is no exception.

As House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) asked impassionately (and given the audience, rhetorically) from the floor of the House just prior to the vote on the measure, “Have you read the bill? Have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager's assessment?" he asked. "Hell no, you haven't!"

Well, Congressman Boehner, I have read the bill and apart from impaired vision and a sense of loss for irretrievable hours of my life, I have discovered a few particular pernicious provisions that I believe deserve special attention.

First, despite repeated promises to protect the middle class from any species of tax increase, President Obama’s prize piece of legislation does just that. According to analysts at the American Enterprise Institute, the law as enacted makes healthcare more expensive for the middle class by forcing every American to purchase a qualifying healthcare insurance policy. These policies will not come cheap and families earning more than $88,000 a year will not benefit from the vaunted subsidies proffered to facilitate the enrollment in a plan.

As a matter of fact, a family earning in excess of $100,000 will forcibly spend over 20 percent of its net income on compliance with healthcare mandates.

Second, all of those Americans fortunate enough to have saved any money despite the numerous insuperable governmental impediments, will see that wealth diminished through the new law’s increased charges for healthcare insurance policy premiums. The Congressional Budget Office’s review of the cost of the act reports that healthcare premiums for those purchasing coverage within the private insurance marketplace will increase by anywhere from 10 to 13 percent in the next five or six years.

While 57 percent of Americans will receive subsidies to ameliorate the sting of being forced to purchase an insurance policy, that leaves 43 percent of Americans who will not qualify for the assistance and will be compelled to pay full price for a qualifying plan.

Third, notwithstanding the exaggerated claims made by proponents of the law regarding the potential increase in employment spurred by the implementation of the legislation, a recent study by an affiliate of Suffolk University in Boston found that small and large businesses burdened financially by compliance with new mandates will reluctantly lay off anywhere from 120,000 to 700,000 jobs over the next decade. Similarly, the Heritage Foundation reckons that nearly 700,000 jobs per year will be lost during the life of the new healthcare law.

Next, as reported in by The New American, the law is pocked with gaping loopholes through which federal funding of abortion may pass unchecked. Regardless of the President’s executive order reiterating the national government’s proscription against the use of federal monies in the funding of abortion services, any student in seventh grade civics class knows that Congress could trump an executive order through a new bill.

Fifth, owing to the penalties assessed to insurance companies offering benefit rich plans (the so-called Cadillac Tax), many employers will no longer offer medical plan benefit packages rather than be subject to the increased fees insurance providers are likely to try to pass on to their institutional consumers. Again, according to data provided by the CBO, 4 million people will lose employer-funded healthcare and be forced to recur to the government-administered health insurance exchange for a qualifying policy.

Sixth, the bill includes billions of dollars of cuts to the Medicare program, formerly only available to the elderly, shoving senior citizens out of the private marketplace and into the exchange managed by the federal government.

Seventh, no aspect of the law was more touted by the president and his congressional water carriers than the enormous budget reduction accomplished by the act. This trumpeted parsimony is only possible because nearly $208 billion that should be used to reimburse doctors for the services they provide to Medicare patients will now not be paid. That is, until the various medical care lobbyists get a hold of legislators and lean on them to enact additional legislation restoring that funding. If and when that law passes, the new law’s surplus becomes a $59 billion deficit over the next decade.

The eighth disturbing provision of the law I came across was the ironic shifting of the healthcare costs to the states (despite simultaneously depriving them of their sovereignty). Under the bill, anyone earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level will qualify for Medicaid, formerly only available to the elderly. By 2020, the bill demands that 10 percent of this new burden be paid by the state governments.

The penultimate provision is the portentous revolt by doctors to the increased compliance requirements set forth in the new law. According to responses to a survey of doctors, 46 percent said they would “quit or retire” if the healthcare bill became a law. I imagine there was a marked increase in the booking of cruises on the day after the bill was signed into law. The loss of just one good doctor can have fatal effects on the health of individual Americans.

Finally, the tenth and perhaps most untenable part of the healthcare law is the increase taxes payable by middle class families. The cost of insurance plans costing more than $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for families will balloon as the 40-percent excise tax is imposed on insureds.

Businesses will feel the bite, as well, as employee paychecks will undoubtedly be reduced as mandatory Medicare withholding taxes are increased and a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income is assessed on Americans earning more than $200,000. Companies will pass along these new charges to consumers and employees in an effort to offset the enervating roster of increased fees.

All the foregoing elements of the new healthcare law combine to crush the wealth and health of Americans. There is hope sweeping through the nation, however, as several state attorneys general and over 30 state assemblies seek to reassert the natural sovereignty of the states by passing legislation refusing to implement the unconstitutional mandates extant in the act.

Since the signing ceremony, President Obama and his allies have consistently mocked this movement and they underestimate the firmness of the states’ resolve to maintain (or regain) their sovereignty. If they persist in this tack, perhaps the one or more of the obstinate states will successfully oppose the unconstitutional accumulation of power and willful disregard of the Tenth Amendment and their sister states will smell blood in the water and attack the federal government’s assault on the timeless principle of federalism upon which the Constitution was founded.

Photo: President Obama signs the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ": AP Images

Related articles:

New Healthcare Law: "Change" for the Worse

New Taxes, Tax Increases in Healthcare Law

Dingell: Healthcare Law Will "Control the People"

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (10)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

what survey, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Paul said:

I'm no fan of this bill, but... I think you got one thing wrong. You wrote "Medicaid, formerly only available to the elderly." I'm not expert, but I think it's MediCARE which was formerly only available to the elderly. MidiCAID was formerly only available to the poor. But... I may be wrong, since I'm neither elderly nor poor.

March 29, 2010

Lustous Jackson said:

You be paying for my healthcare I be all for this health care reform. I be needing the biggest subsidy to match my prowess for consumering health care. I don't got to take care myself no more, because you be paying for my free care, Honkey

March 29, 2010

god said:

yea right You hadn't read the flipping bill either, you liar. The source for every one of these things you mention comes from somewhere other than the bill. Out of ten arguments, youd think atleast/maybe/possibly ONE would reference language from the the actual bill!

March 29, 2010

Going Broke said:

Beware of April 15, 2012 In all the reporting that is being done about this healthcare bill I haven't seen any mention as of yet about Section 9002. What this section describes is how employers providing coverage to employees is that the cost of the employer portion of the premium has to be added to the employees wages as reported on the W2 beginning in tax year 2011. This is a huge tax increase that will affect ANYONE who has employer provided health coverage. In plain english what will happen is your gross income will increase by the amount of the premium. For example if your employer pays $10,000 per year for you to have health insurance your gross income will increase by $10,000 per year without putting any extra money in your pocket. Assuming the employee is in the 25% bracket which is about average this will translate into a $2,500 increase in your income taxes beginning in 2011. For those whose state income taxes are based on the Adjusted Gross Income on line 38 will have this additional $10,000 exposed to the state tax rates. The bottom line is the average taxpayer is going to get SLAMMED with extra income taxes starting in 2011. We are so screwed!

March 29, 2010

John Maloney said:

There is a cost for everything I am surprised that the author did not mention "Death panels" or Socialized medicine, but glad to know that "Federal funding of abortion" deserved a mention. Anything produced by our esteemed elected representatives is bound to have loopholes and issues. The Republicans did a huge disservice to the country by not bringing up legitimate issues, instead of posturing and false propaganda. The Republicans also failed to address the ongoing cost of paying for emergency visits for the uninsured, or the absolute atrocity of a sixth of the population in a developed country going without insurance. Sure, fight for the unborn - but have an ounce of consideration to those that are already here.

March 29, 2010

Dan Klein said:

god is right I agree with god's statement. If Joe really has read the bill, it would be nice to see some references and a link to the actual bill so we readers could check for ourselves (http://democrats.senate.gov/re...re-act.pdf for the senate bill, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...:H.R.4872: for changes passed by the House). The real problem with health insurance is that it is not like any other service or product and is not affected by individuals, but by companies. If you as an individual get health insurance on your own, pay for it on time, your insurer may drop you when you get cancer at the age of 50 and suddenly there you are unable to get any one to cover you because you have a pre-existing condition. Plus, just try asking a clinic or hospital to give you a quote on how much a procedure or treatment costs. They won't tell you because the rates they charge vary depending on who your insurance company is; the insurance companies with the most users at a particular hospital or clinic negotiate lower rates than those with fewer users. It has nothing to do with individual consumers and hasn't for a long time. If 4 million people lose their company-sponsored insurance as Joe suggests, that will force the industry to come up with competitive rates to attract those customers who, by law, must carry insurance. In the long run, this should increase competition and lower insurance rates. It will be a big mess while we transition to the new system, but better in the long run.

March 29, 2010 | url

frank said:

... "the law is pocked with gaping loopholes through which federal funding of abortion may pass unchecked" I thought you said you read the bill. Did you miss section 1303, or did you not understand it, or are you just pretending it's not there?

March 29, 2010

Australian said:

... 46% of doctors quitting practice? What's next, Rush Limbaugh leaving the US now that the bill has passed :-)

March 29, 2010

JB said:

Make them sweat... No doubt this is part of the delay tactic for full enactment. In the interim costs will skyrocket along with your taxes, which means people could feel forced to want a government plan. Then there is the class warfare it should create. Oh what fun in utopia!

March 29, 2010