55% of likely voters favor repeal of Obamacare

55% of likely voters favor repeal of Obamacare

55% of likely voters favor repeal of Obamacare

michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

Thursday, March 25, 2010 

Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.

In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly favor repeal while most Democrats are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 59% favor repeal, and 35% are against it.

Most senior citizens (59%) also favor repeal. Earlier, voters over 65 had been more opposed to the health care plan than younger adults. Seniors use the health care system more than anyone else.

A number of states are already challenging the constitutionality of that requirement in court, and polling data released earlier shows that 49% of voters nationwide would like their state to sue the federal government over the health care bill.

Rasmussen Reports will track support for the repeal effort on a weekly basis for as long as it remains a significant issue. The next update will be released Monday morning.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Sixty percent (60%) of likely voters believe the new law will increase the federal budget deficit. Only 19% disagree and say it will not. Twelve percent (12%) think it will have no impact on the deficit.

Throughout the legislative debate, advocates of the reform expressed frustration about the fact that voters believe it will increase the deficit. Many, including the president, pointed to Congressional Budget Office projections to argue that the plan will actually reduce the deficit. However, voters are skeptical of the official government projection, and 81% believe the actual cost of the program will be higher than projected.

Voters have consistently said that reducing the federal budget deficit is a higher priority than health care reform. They also believe that deficit reduction is the goal Obama is least likely to achieve as president.

Overall, 41% of voters believe the new health care legislation will be good for the country, while 49% believe it will be bad for the country.

While 64% of Mainstream voters think the health care plan will be bad for the country, 90% of the Political Class see its passage as a good thing.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters nationwide say the legislation will have a positive impact on them personally, while 43% expect a negative impact. Twenty-five percent (25%) say the massive overhaul of the health care system will have no impact on them personally.

A total of 24% believe it will be good for the country and good for them personally. Forty percent (40%) believe it will be bad for the country and bad for them personally.

Generally speaking, the partisan and demographic breakdowns have shifted little since passage of the health care bill. Those groups who opposed the bill tend to support repeal and those who supported the bill oppose repeal.

The president has enjoyed a bounce in his Job Approval ratings in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll following passage of the legislation. However, the bounce has come from increased enthusiasm among Democrats rather than increased support from Republicans and unaffiliated voters.

While some aspects of the new health care law are popular, most voters oppose the measures required to cover the nearly one trillion dollars in additional spending called for over the next decade. Fifty-six percent (56%) oppose the reductions in Medicare spending, a figure that includes 70% of those over 65.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.

Dingell: Obamacare will 'control the people'

Dingell: Obamacare will 'control the people'

Dingell: Obamacare will 'control the people'

michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Healthy tax increases, not only on wealthy

Healthy tax increases, not only on wealthy

Originally published 04:00 a.m., March 24, 2010, updated 04:11 a.m., March 24, 2010

Healthy tax increases, not only on wealthy

David M. Dickson

When it comes to the taxes associated with the new health care bill, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s assessment stands: It's a big — very big — deal.

The historic overhaul of the nation's health care system that President Obama signed Tuesday, when combined with the fixes making their way through Congress, will raise taxes over the next 10 years by more than a half-trillion dollars.

The tax increases range from hundreds of billions of dollars in new Medicare levies, including one that taxes investment income such as capital gains and dividends for the first time, to a 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services that will raise less than $3 billion over the next decade.

Imposing a Medicare tax on investment income "would reduce demand for investment, which is the last thing that the economy needs right now. It would slow [economic] recovery, reduce employment opportunities and hinder wage growth," said Karen Campbell of the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Less investment, lower investment values and lower wages hinder the ability of households to build wealth."

Under a procedure that doesn't require a 60-vote majority for approval, the Senate is considering a package of changes to the new health care law to placate House members' concerns about the Senate bill, which the lower chamber approved Sunday with no Republican support. Among other things, the Senate must approve the numerous tax-law changes that the House passed in a second bill Sunday to fix the upper chamber's December proposal.

By far the biggest tax increase — more than $210 billion from 2012 through 2019 —. involves Medicare, the $500 billion federal health care program for the elderly and disabled. Medicare taxes would be raised in two ways.

First, the new law increases the Medicare payroll tax on employee wages and salaries from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent on earnings above a certain amount — $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples who file jointly. The employer's share would remain at 1.45 percent for all wages and salaries — creating an effective 3.8 percent tax rate for income in those higher brackets.

Second, for the first time ever, the bill would apply Medicare taxes to several forms of "unearned income" — capital gains, dividends, interest, royalties and other sources besides wages and salaries — above the $200,000 and $250,000 thresholds. The individual or couple must pay the whole 3.8 percent Medicare tax because there is no employer with whom to split the bill on "unearned income."

Consider a married couple who earn $300,000, divided evenly between salaries and capital gains. Their total salary income of $150,000 would be subject to the combined 2.9 percent Medicare tax — split evenly between employee and employer. The first $100,000 in capital gains would not be subject to any Medicare tax, but the couple would have to pay a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on the last $50,000 in capital gains.

The two Medicare provisions "would improve both tax equity and economic efficiency," said Chuck Marr of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who notes that the two taxes would affect "only the 2.6 percent of U.S. households with the highest incomes." Mr. Marr reports that 91 percent of the increase in Medicare taxes would be paid by people earning more than $500,000.

Broadening the base of the Medicare tax for high-income households by extending it to capital gains, dividends and other unearned income would be "sound economically," Mr. Marr said, because it would "modestly reduce incentives for economically unproductive tax sheltering."

Today's top income-tax rate for wage-and-salary income (35 percent) is more than twice as high as the top rate for capital gains and dividends (15 percent). This big difference encourages high-income earners to pursue unproductive tax sheltering by converting salary income to capital gains, Mr. Marr said.

Although only high-income households will pay the new Medicare levies, Republicans say, billions of dollars in other new taxes will be paid by individuals earning less than $200,000 per year and married couples earning less than $250,000. That would violate a 2008 campaign pledge by President Obama, Republicans say.

Portions of a multitude of new taxes totaling nearly $250 billion over 10 years would be paid, either directly or indirectly, by workers with incomes below those levels, Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee said.

For example, both the law signed by Mr. Obama and the reconciliation bill raise money by taxing generous health-insurance policies, though the numbers differ.

But even the proposal sitting before the Senate, which taxes these "Cadillac plans" less than the bill signed into law, expects to raise $32 billion during the 2018-19 period. The "fix" heavily penalizes health-insurance plans costing more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families — imposing a 40 percent excise tax on the value above those amounts.

Many of these "Cadillac plans" are held by union workers in the private sector and by state and local government workers. Most families of both groups earn well below $250,000.

While the excise tax will be directly paid by the insurance company, economists of all persuasions expect the costs to be passed along to policyholders.

Middle- and working-class Americans, Republicans say, also can expect to pay a big portion of the numerous fees that the health care bill will impose on the pharmaceutical industry ($27 billion from 2011 through 2019), on medical-device manufacturers ($20 billion from 2013 through 2019) and on health insurance providers ($60.1 billion from 2014 through 2019), and on indoor tanning services (a 10 percent excise tax).

The new law also limits deductions for medical care, requiring people, including middle-income households and seniors, to have spent more of their own money on health care expenses before they become tax-deductible. Currently, expenses above 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income can be deducted for tax purposes; the bill Mr. Obama signed raises that threshold to 10 percent of income.

The legislation imposes mandates on employers with more than 50 workers to provide health insurance to their workers and on individuals and families to carry health insurance. The bill would impose penalties on those employers ($52 billion from 2014 through 2019) and households ($17 billion from 2014 through 2019) who do not comply with the mandates.

In part because these penalties would be administered and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, Republicans consider them taxes and violations of Mr. Obama's campaign pledge.

The White House declined to respond to a request for comment on the charge that the president broke his promise not to raise taxes on middle-income households.

Oops! Kids with pre-existing conditions not covered

Oops! Kids with pre-existing conditions not covered

Oops! Kids with pre-existing conditions not covered

michaelsavage.com

link to the story

Gap in health care law's protection for children

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.

"This is a patient's bill of rights on steroids," the president said Friday at George Mason University in Virginia. "Starting this year, thousands of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the very first time. Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions."

And Saturday, addressing House Democrats as they approached a make-or-break vote on the bill, Obama said, "This year ... parents who are worried about getting coverage for their children with pre-existing conditions now are assured that insurance companies have to give them coverage — this year."

Late Tuesday, the administration said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would try to resolve the situation by issuing new regulations. The Obama administration interprets the law to mean that kids can't be denied coverage, as the president has said repeatedly.

"To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the secretary of HHS is preparing to issue regulations next month making it clear that the term 'pre-existing exclusion' applies to both a child's access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan for all plans newly sold in this country six months from today," HHS spokesman Nick Papas said.

The coverage problem could mainly affect parents who purchase their own coverage for the family, as many self-employed people have to do. Families covered through employer plans typically do not have to worry about being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

Parents whose kids are turned down by an insurer would still have a fallback under the law, even without Sebelius' fix. They could seek coverage through state high-risk insurance pools slated for a major infusion of federal funds.

The high-risk pools are intended to serve as a backstop until 2014, when insurers no longer would be able to deny coverage to those in frail health. That same year, new insurance markets would open for business, and the government would begin to provide tax credits to help millions of Americans pay premiums.

An insurance industry group says the language in the law that pertains to consumer protections for kids is difficult to parse.

"We're taking a closer look at it to see what exactly the requirement will be," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the main industry lobby.

'USE RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS TO CHALLENGE OBAMACARE'

'USE RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS TO CHALLENGE OBAMACARE'

MARCH 5, 2010: SAVAGE SAID:'USE RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS TO CHALLENGE OBAMACARE'

Link to the story

USE RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS TO CHALLENGE OBAMA CARE

By MICHAEL SAVAGE

(MichaelSavage.com) OBAMA IS PREPARING TO SHOVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE DOWN OUR THROATS. AND IN ORDER TO DO SO, HE’S DECIDED TO BLOW UP THE U.S. SENATE. HE ANNOUNCED THAT RATHER THAN FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE U.S. SENATE, WHICH REQUIRE 60 VOTES TO END DEBATE ON ANY ISSUE, THE DEMONCATS WILL USE A METHOD CALLED "RECONCILIATION" TO PASS THE BILL WITH ONLY 51 SENATE VOTES. OBAMA HAS DECIDED TO USE THE NUCLEAR OPTION TO FORCE HIS WILL ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. NOW YOU KNOW THAT THE DEMONCATS ATTACKED THIS SAME METHOD WHEN THEY THOUGHT THE REPUBLICANS WERE GOING TO USE IT IN 2005. BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER TO THEM BECAUSE THEY’RE IN POWER NOW.

ON TOP OF THAT HE’S GOING TO MAKE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO DON’T NEED HEALTH INSURANCE PAY TO SUPPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO DON’T PAY FOR HEALTHCARE AT ALL. MAYBE YOU DON’T KNOW THIS, BUT MAKING INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS BUY HEALTH INSURANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT’S TRUE THAT ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE. BUT IN ORDER FOR THIS TO APPLY, CONGRESS MUST BE REGULATING SOME KIND OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. BUT A HEALTHCARE MANDATE DOESN’T REGULATE ANY SORT OF "ACTIVITY.” JUST BEING AN AMERICAN WOULD TRIGGER IT.

THIS ISN’T THE FIRST TIME THAT BIG GOVERNMENT HAS TRIED TO FORCE NONSENSICAL AND DRACONIAN REGULATION ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THIS WAS FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT’S APPROACH IN THE 1930s UNDER HIS SOCIALIST “NEW DEAL” PROGRAM. BUT HIS DICTATORIAL SCHEMES CAME INTO CONFLICT WITH FOUR JEWISH BROTHERS IN NEW YORK, THE SCHECHTER BROTHERS WHO RAN TWO KOSHER BUTCHER SHOPS IN BROOKLYN.

ROOSEVELT CREATED THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION (NRA) DURING THE DEPRESSION TO SOCIALIZE AMERICA. IT DREW UP ALL KINDS OF DETAILED CODES FOR INDIVIDUAL INDUSTRIES, TELLING HOW FIRMS HAD TO DO THEIR BUSINESS. THE SCHECHTER BROTHERS, THE KOSHER BUTCHERS FROM BROOKLYN, FELL UNDER RULES WHICH SAID CUSTOMERS COULD BUY A WHOLE OR HALF COOP OF CHICKENS, BUT COULDN’T MAKE A SELECTION OF PARTICULAR BIRDS. THIS WAS IN CONFLICT WITH JEWISH KOSHER LAWS, WHICH REQUIRED THE REMOVAL OF UNHEALTHY ANIMALS FROM THE STOCK. IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THEIR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. BUT THE COURTS FOUND THE SCHECHTER BROTHERS GUILTY OF ALLOWING THEIR CUSTOMERS TO BUY INDIVIDUAL CHICKENS INSTEAD OF WHOLE COOPS AND THEY ALL SERVED JAIL TIME.

BUT ON APPEAL, THE CASE MADE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT, WHERE THEY FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE SCHECHTER BROTHERS BY A UNANIMOUS DECSION. THE COURT HELD THAT FDR’S REGULATIONS WERE IN EXCESS OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND INVALIDATED THEM. SPEAKING TO AIDES OF ROOSEVELT, JUSTICE LOUIS BRANDEIS REMARKED THAT, “THIS IS THE END OF THIS BUSINESS OF CENTRALIZATION, AND I WANT YOU TO GO BACK AND TELL THE PRESIDENT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THIS GOVERNMENT CENTRALIZE EVERYTHING.” THE SAME MESSAGE SHOULD BE SENT TO OBAMA.

IT’S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IN THE CASE OF THE SCHECHTER BROTHERS, GOVERNMENT REGULATION CAME INTO CONFLICT WITH JEWISH DIETARY LAWS. IF THEIR LAWYERS HAD TAKEN ANOTHER TACK, THEY PROBABLY COULD HAVE WON ON THE BASIS THAT THEIR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WAS BEING VIOLATED. BUT THIS TIME AROUND, OBAMA THE DICTATOR HAS MADE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS FOR HEALTHCARE INSURANCE. THE AMISH WON’T BE REQUIRED TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS WON’T BE REQUIRED TO BUY IT, AS MODERN MEDICAL CARE VIOLATES THEIR RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS.

SO HERE’S MY SUGGESTION: IF THEY CAN MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR THESE RELIGIOUS GROUPS, LET’S FIND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS THAT THEY’LL HAVE TO FIND EXCEPTIONS FOR UNTIL THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE EXEMPTED FROM THE SYSTEM, THAT THEY WON’T POSSIBLY BE ABLE TO PAY FOR IT. LET’S THINK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES:

WILL RELIGIOUS JEWS BE FORCED TO PAY FOR MEDICAL CARE ON SATURDAY, THE JEWISH SABBATH, ON WHICH THEY’RE NOT ALLOWED TO RECEIVE MEDICAL CARE?

WILL OBAMA CARE PAY FOR RELIGIOUS CIRCUMCISION IN JEWISH FAMILIES?

DEVOUT MUSLIMS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE PRESENCE OF ALCOHOL? DOES THIS MEAN THEY WON’T BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN AN OBAMA CARE PROGRAM WHICH COVERS ALCOHOL SWABS?

THE POSSIBILITIES ARE ENDLESS. WHAT OTHER RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS DO YOU THINK YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE TO AVOID OBAMA’S SOCIALIZED MEDICINE PLAN?

AMERICA MUST ACT QUICKLY ON THIS, BECAUSE OBAMA IS SHOVING THIS THROUGH THE SENATE AS WE SPEAK. OBAMA’S NUCLEAR OPTION FLIES IN THE FACE OF OVER 200 YEARS OF SENATE TRADITION. REQUIRING ONLY 51 VOTES INSTEAD OF 60 FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. WHEN THE FOUNDERS DESIGNED THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, THEY MADE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THE BODY THAT WAS MEANT TO BE DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY RESPONSIVE TO THE VOTERS. THAT’S WHY THEY HAVE SHORT, TWO-YEAR TERMS. THAT’S WHY THEY REPRESENT SMALL DISTRICTS AND HAVE A MORE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE VOTERS.

THE SENATE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS DESIGNED TO BE A MODERATING INFLUENCE ON THE PASSIONS OF THE ELECTORATE. THAT’S WHY THEY HAVE SIX-YEAR TERMS, LONGER THAN THAT OF THE PRESIDENT, SO THEY COULD WEATHER THE STORMS OF A POPULACE STIRRED UP BY A POTENTIAL DICTATOR. THAT’S WHY THEY REPRESENT ENTIRE STATES INSTEAD OF JUST DISTRICTS. UNTIL THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY, SENATORS WEREN’T EVEN ELECTED DIRECTLY BY THE VOTERS.

EVEN GEORGE WASHINGTON UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SENATE WAS MEANT TO ACT AS A BULWARK AGAINST THE ACTIONS OF THOSE WHO WOULD TRY TO QUICKLY IMPOSE THEIR WILL ON THE NATION. IN A LEGENDARY CONVERSATION, THOMAS JEFFERSON HAD RETURNED FROM FRANCE AND WAS BREAKFASTING WITH WASHINGTON AS THE CONSTITUTION WAS BEING CREATED. JEFFERSON ASKED WASHINGTON WHY HE AGREED TO HAVE A SENATE. “WHY,” SAID WASHINGTON, “DID YOU JUST NOW POUR THAT COFFEE INTO YOUR CUP BEFORE DRINKING IT?” “TO COOL IT,” SAID JEFFERSON; “MY THROAT IS NOT MADE OF BRASS.” “EVEN SO,” SAID WASHINGTON, “WE POUR OUR LEGISLATION INTO THE SENATORIAL CUP TO COOL IT.”

THAT IS WHAT THE U.S. SENATE WAS DESIGNED TO DO – STOP BABY DICTATORS LIKE OBAMA FROM RUNNING TOO HOT AND PUSHING THROUGH THEIR RADICAL AGENDAS BEFORE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HAD A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON. BUT OBAMA HAS DECIDED TO BLOW UP OVER 200 YEARS OF SENATE TRADITION, BLOW UP THE INTENT OF GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THOMAS JEFFERSON, AND BLOW UP THE ESSENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO PASS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WITH THE NUCLEAR OPTION.

YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS COULD BE MORE THAN JUST A DEFEAT FOR CONSERVATIVES OR REPUBLICANS. IF OBAMA SUCCEEDS IN DROPPING HIS BOMB, IT WILL DESTROY THE VERY CORE OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT’S AN ATTACK AGAINST EVERYTHING GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS, EVEN THOSE CHERISHED BY LIBERALS. BECAUSE IF OBAMA CAN DESTROY ONE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, HE CAN DESTROY ANY PART OF IT. AND DON’T THINK FOR A MINUTE THAT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL BE THE LAST STOP ON THE TRAIN BOUND FOR PERDITION. © 2010 SPI

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

Link to the story

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

By David Hogberg

Sun., March 21, '10 3:24 PM ET

Tags: Health Care - ObamaCare - Freedom

With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).