Obamacare Created a Police Force Directly Under Presidential Control

bearcatOne section of Obamacare you may not have heard of, creates another national police force, with officers appointed directly by the President. Section 5210 of H.R. 3590 (“Obamacare” or the Affordable Care Act) established yet another national police force, this time supposedly in case of a health emergency. While the “Commissioned Corps” for healthcare emergencies already existed, it was amended in the AFA to remove a cap on the number of individuals in the Corps, as well as include police personal instead of just doctors, nurses, etc. Another problem is the altered requirement for hiring, which allow the President to handpick anyone he wants to be in the Ready Reserve Corps. The following can be found in the text of the final bill.


Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:


‘(a) Establishment-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

‘(2) REQUIREMENT- All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.

Notice that officers will be appointed “without regard to the civil-service laws” (emphasis added). These are laws designed to remove politics as a consideration when hiring in the public sector. They also establish guidelines based on merit, impartial hiring criteria, and safety from arbitrary firing and unwarranted disciplinary action. Officers will also be chosen “without regard to the Classification Act of 1923” (emphasis added) which established merit pay and compensation based on performance. To be clear the bill states these laws will be disregarded when appointing this police force. So these officers will be hired based on no known criteria, without any known qualifications, can be denied for no known reason, can be fired for any reason whatsoever, paid without regard to merit, and punished or rewarded independently of performance.

The following section explains that it will be the President and the President alone that will appoint officers in the Ready Reserve Corps, while he needs Senate approval to appoint officers in the Regular Corps.

‘(3) APPOINTMENT- Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

And under any medical emergency, real or manufactured, these troops will be out in full force to maintain martial law, and follow the President and Surgeon General’s orders. This special corps will be the administrative right hand of the president after their “involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises…as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and (D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities”.

I am sure I do not need to spell out the similarities between the RRC and other police forces which answered directly to Chief Executives of various countries. But I will point out that there is currently no shortage of national police to handle the types of situations which the CC and RRC are supposedly needed for. The DHS, FBI, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals, ATF, TSA, DEA, National Guard and other armed police in multiple agencies not generally thought of as police agencies, would seem to overlap enough to fill any responsibilities of the CC and RRC. The only difference is that the CC and RRC will be overseen, appointed, and controlled by the President himself, and are allowed to be hired and fired for political purposes. If the President wanted to, he could fill this force entirely with people he knows will follow his every command, and fire anyone who says they would not. If he chose to, the President could exclusively hire Democrats, or criminals, or Nazi’s, or girl scouts—the law makes it clear that no criteria are needed for hiring and firing Ready Reserve Corps officers.

So if all the other aspects of Obamacare were not enough to convince you that it is about control, and not about affordable care, perhaps the newest expansion of the police state will.

New Pro-Obamacare Argument: Good Enough for Government Work

syringeObamacare is a law that was passed by a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and Democrat President. But that doesn’t stop Jamelle Bouie from focusing his pro-Obamacare argument on the opposition to the law. His article called, “They Just Don’t Care if Healthcare.Gov Works or Not” is a whiny argument that attempts to make the law’s implementation look good, by comparing it to how bad it was 2 months ago. After acknowledging the “massive glitches” that accompanied the rollout of Obamacare, Bouie complains that Republicans haven’t noticed how much progress has been made since then.

The administration responded to all of this criticism—and more—with a promise that Healthcare.gov would work for the majority of users by December 1st.

Obama has promised a lot of things, like that if you like your plan you can keep it, but apparently Americans should believe him, this time. And in true Democratic form, only the majority matters.

And it does. According to the administration, a five week “tech surge” has doubled the capacity of the online interface to the health care exchanges that form the core of the Affordable Care Act. As of this month, the website can handle 50,000 simultaneous users, for a total limit of 800,000 users per day. The site is functional more than ninety percent of the time, up from fifty-five percent of the time in October.

According to the administration! So that is a reliable source. Oh the administration says that the administration is doing better? Well nothing to see here. If this were a private company, they wouldn’t get a second chance, the site would have failed, investors would have fled, stocks would have tumbled, and everyone who had anything to do with this failure would have been fired. But this is the public sector, and we are captive investors who cannot flee but for renouncing our citizenship (a step more and more people are taking).

And a website that works 90% of the time is only good when you compare it to the same website that used to work 55% of the time! This is insane that people actually tout a 90% functional website as a good thing. Is that how Google, Amazon, and Twitter made it big, by working 90% of the time? We would never have heard of those if they only worked for 50,000 people at a time, 90% of the day.

Bouie continues, “the White House has achieved more than 400 of the 600 fixes”. It’s been two months since the laceration you suffered, and the hospital has placed 400 of the 600 stitches you needed. We can handle having roads closed while our incompetent government fixes them. We cannot allow the same “good enough for government work” mentality to seep into our healthcare system.

Bouie then whines a little more about how the Republicans won’t “concede any good will to the President’s health care law”. That is like complaining that Jesus wouldn’t even compliment Satan’s horns. But Bouie’s not finished yet.

The Republican complaints of two months ago were purely opportunistic. For them, it just doesn’t matter if Healthcare.gov is working, since Obamacare is destined to fail, reality be damned!

What reality is Bouie living in? Certainly not the one where millions of people have lost health insurance because of Obamacare, and millions of others are paying higher premiums. And we don’t know yet if it matters “if Healthcare.gov is working” because in addition to the 10% of time it currently does not work, and in addition to the past 2 months when it didn’t work, the administration has refused to brief congress on the security risks that they know put people’s security and personal information at risk! The website does not meet security standards, and people’s identities have already been stolen due directly to a terrible website. And Bouie wants Republicans to nod to the “progress” made, after their concerns have been ignored and marginalized by the administration time and time again?

And don’t even get me started on which party is “purely opportunistic”. Who was it that saw opportunity in the murders of children to pass gun control laws that wouldn’t help? Who played on the sympathies of the green movement to hand out taxpayer dollars to cronies who pretend to run solar companies? Was it Republicans who stoked racial tensions to win elections? But I digress.

Bouie continues on apparently arguing that a terrible law with a pretty name and a barely functioning website it better than nothing, which is what he claims Republicans have offered. He admits “at most” Republicans have offered some ““market-driven” reforms, like changes to the tax code, and allowing insurers to sell across state lines”, which are already in the ACA. Well then why screw it all up with an individual mandate? Just because there are 2 good ideas in a thousand plus page bill does not mean the whole law is good. Disney World is great, but that doesn’t make all of Florida a magical amusement park.

And just like Disney World Bouie’s article is a nice bit of fantasy, designed to allow an escape for disappointed Obama fanatics who would feign illiteracy in order to ignore the writing on the wall.

Congress Forces Obamacare on USA; Congress Exempted from Obamacare

Tyranny is not just such an abundance of laws that we must go through our lives as robots to avoid prosecution. A key aspect of tyranny is the rule of law being applied unevenly. The closest thing to a caste system or class system in America is created by allowing one group to decide who laws apply to, and who is exempted from those laws. This is tyranny when congress can pass a law which applies to every American, and then exempt themselves from it. Joining congress in the top tier class are their cronies who are also given exemptions from laws applied to the rest of the USA. Some businesses must abide by a law, while others are exempt from that law. Guess which businesses will succeed, and which will fail?

I am talking about why Obamacare gives congress and the president unprecedented control over the economy. The government can exempt businesses and individuals from the requirements in the Affordable Care Act. This means that if one company donated to politicians, and another company in the same field did not, the President or Congress can exempt the company who payed to play, and force the competitor to foot the increased costs of Obamacare. Since the two companies now have different costs imposed by government, the one that donated to politicians can undercut their competitor, who must pay the additional costs of the health care law.

The rule of law is probably the single biggest reason why places become economic powerhouses. When the fruit of one’s labor is protected from plundering hordes, thieves, and government, one creates more fruit. In a system where the government can come down on your business at any given minute and ruin it with a law that does not apply to your competitors, the rule of law does not exist. If the Sheriff of Nottingham can decide which businesses to take the profits from for the King, how long until those select businesses close for good?

Although the 14th Amendment was aimed at state governments, it also applies, like all the other amendments, to the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment ends by stating that the government cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Since the president and congress like to pretend the Affordable Care Act is a good thing, it seems those being exempted from the law are having their Fourteenth Amendment violated. And since everyone is scrambling to have their Fourteenth Amendment violated in regards to the protections offered by Obamacare, the true nature of the law is revealed. It was never meant to protect anyone, rather only those exempted from the law would benefit. Since the law was written as to allow unequal protection for individuals, it is unConstitutional based on the fact that it can be applied or suspended, therefore violating the 14th Amendment.

The bill is even being used in the Senate in an attempt to strong arm Senators into allowing exemptions from the law. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) was able to include a provision in Obamacare that forced Congress and their staff into the Obamacare exchanges even though he was against Obamacare, saying “The more that Congress experiences the laws it passes, the better”. But his provision was watered down, and allowed for subsidies for congress. Two other Republican Senators have now drafted a bill that would force all of congress and their staff into the exchanges without subsidies. Senate President Harry Reid (D-Nevada) then proposed that any Senator who votes for the provision removing subsidies for congress and forcing congress into the exchanges, be forced to use the exchanges subsidy free, whether or not the vote passes. Essentially he wants unequal protection of the laws for members of congress depending on how they vote in the legislature.

So this is tyranny, when a protected political class gets to decide when the rule of law is applied, and when it’s suspended. As the economy spirals the drain, we will see with our own eyes that without the rule of law, there can be no strong economy.

More Accurate Obamacare Advertisement

I came across this short comical video which pretty well sums up the attitude of our current administration in selling Obamacare. They ignore all the negatives it will create, especially for young college aged people and recent college graduates, and use the terms affordable over and over again. The video jokes that the fact that employers are cutting hours to avoid buying their employees healthcare is a good thing, since “work sucks, that’s why we at Obamacare want to trade your full time job, for a part time one!”. The short “Obamacare advertisement” also makes fun of the Obamacare mandate, which forces people to buy health insurance or be taxed or penalized–Obama had claimed many times that this would not increase middle class taxes; the mandate is just one of many tax hikes in Obamacare.

Professors Angry Over Obamacare Requirements


Similar to the Teamsters and other Unions now complaining about the Affordable Care Act (after helping to pass it), Professors at some universities are now less than pleased with some requirements being dished out because of the law. Keep in mind college professors by a large margin supported the healthcare law, and support the democrats who implemented the law by and large, just like the unions. But, what’s that? When they feel something negative coming their way from the law, they don’t like it anymore? I thought professors were the smartest among us, who should have been able to look past stage one and see where the rules in the law would lead. Or did the professors not read the law, just like the politicians who passed it? Did they just look at the name and assume we would finally create a utopia? Apparently nobody bothered to think for 5 seconds that if employers have to cover their employees healthcare after a certain number of working hours, they would cut those hours back to avoid the requirement, leaving the employees with less pay, and no insurance. Many people pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to be taught by these people. Viva intelligentsia!

And now some of these instructors are finding themselves among the first to be ensnared by a requirement of Obamacare — the Affordable Care Act — as their employers are planning to cut their teaching hours to make sure they don’t qualify for health care benefits under the new law…

Here’s the problem: Starting next year, Obamacare will require companies that employ more than 50 full-time workers to provide health insurance to employees who work 30 or more hours a week, or else pay a fine.

But what’s an “hour” for a college teacher? Depending on the subject matter, level of interaction with students and other factors, one hour in the classroom can require two, three or more hours of preparation, grading, conferences and so on.

So the people who supported the health care bill the most will suffer with the rest of us. The article continues to detail how specifically adjunct professors will suffer because of their hours and pay simultaneously being cut while their costs rise: having to pay either the mandated no-coverage fee, or buy insurance. But that isn’t the only problem professors have with the Affordable Care Act. Some professors at Penn State are outraged that their employer will require intense health screenings, or force employees to pay $100 a month. This is because Obamacare had built into it incentives for employers to have healthy employees.

“I resent that my employer requires that I submit to medical exams, essentially,” said Matthew Woessner, a political science professor at PSU, in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “There’s a fine line between encouraging employees to be healthy and requiring them to comply with health screenings.”

Mark Pauly, a professor of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, said PSU’s policy was uniquely authoritarian.

“It is a mystery to me why Penn State would start irritating their workers,” he said in a statement…

Ironically, the Affordable Care Act – -which most university professors overwhelmingly supported — encourages employers to enforce healthier workplace environments by increasing coverage when such policies are implemented.

Of course all this would have been quite foreseeable if the professors had read the bill and applied economic principles to its requirements. It is scary that professors are being blindsided by something that was so obvious and predictable, unless your brain is clouded by idealistic utopian collectivist ideology.

Unions: Obamacare Will Ruin Health Benefits

Some key labor unions who were the “boots on the ground” that got democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act are now concerned that “Obamacare” may prove detrimental to their current health plans. In a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy “we-have-to-pass-it-to-see-what’s-in-it” Pelosi, three major labor unions including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters expressed their concern that they would be subjected to the same rules they forced on the rest of the country. Part of the letter read, “you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat”.

Just for a little context, here is James Hoffa, President of the Teamsters, speaking at an event in 2011.

Hoffa refers to a “War on Workers” from the Tea Party, apparently not realizing at the time that the Tea Party, which he claims to be “at war with” was formed in no small part because of opposition to Obamacare, and the ravages it would cause on the economy, and to individuals. He apparently missed the irony when penning his letter to Pelosi and Reid complaining that:

The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe… Perverse incentives are causing nightmare scenarios. First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

So what these unions are saying is that despite having no idea what was in the Affordable Care Act, they supported the politicians who voted for it, apparently only paying attention to the name of the bill, instead of the thousand pages inside which would become law. (Of course if you read VigilantVote, then you already knew that employers were cutting hours to avoid paying health benefits, and that the cost is already on the rise.) The letter whines, “In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision. Now this vision has come back to haunt us.” Or, now your chickens have come home to roost. Essentially the major problem the unions have with Obamacare is that they are not exempted from it, being able to keep their current cushy health plans. So then why would they be so cruel as to subject the rest of the country to a terrible bill which pretends to improve American healthcare?

The letter concludes:

…on behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

Oh, there it is, “along with millions of other hardworking Americans”, the unions do care! The full story appears on Forbes.com, and includes a table which shows how many Americans have had employer sponsored health insurance from 1999-2011. A steep drop in employer based health insurance can be seen in the same year, and years following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act–which has apparently made care less affordable. So if Obamacare was the solution to declining access to healthcare from employers, then why immediately following its implementation was the situation made worse?


And this is what is so aggravating about politics, that despite a bill making health care less available and less effective for millions of Americans, people believe that it will be beneficial. Based solely on the misleading name of the bill, unions and millions of other people supported the passage of Obamacare without bothering to think for themselves if it would make the healthcare situation in America better or worse. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Obamacare will not help Americans, instead it will make health care less affordable, and less effective. Thanks unions, for realizing this a little too late. Maybe if they spent less time demonizing the Tea Party, and more time looking into the politicians they support and the bills those politicians vote for, we wouldn’t be in this mess.


Health Insurance Premiums to Rise

A new study has concluded that the cost to health insurers per claim could rise 32% as they are forced to cover preexisting conditions, and other newly mandated coverage. This means that in the majority of states in the U.S. premiums will rise, because the cost of healthcare will be spread more evenly between sick and healthy people. The rise in premiums will be most obvious to the currently uninsured, and to people who purchase their own insurance, but in the long term companies who offer insurance could drop it or share more of the cost with employees, as costs rapidly rise. Most states like California and Ohio will see a 62% and 80% rise per claim by 2017, while other states like Massachusetts, where purchasing health insurance was already a requirement, will see a double digit drop in the cost per insurance claim, according to the study.

The Obama administration claims the study failed to take into account subsidies, which was acknowledged by the actuaries who carried out the study. Subsidies however, are just taxpayer money that has already been collected, so all this really means is more costs will be hidden. The overall cost per person is expected to rise, especially when subsidies are taken into account. And what is worse, is that when people are no longer responsible for their own healthcare, they will use more of it, and do less on their own to improve their health. Essentially the cost of care will be spread out so that healthy people and sick people will pay the same amount. Maybe this would be a bit more justified if everyone with bad health was a random victim, but many of these increased health costs are brought on by the individual.

Smoking and obesity are some of the biggest causes of health problems and death in the U.S. and both are preventable. But if you are on the hook for your own medical expenses, people may stop smoking decades earlier, or make the effort to get in shape. Behavior will not stay the same when incentives are changed. If the cost of insurance to a smoker is the same as to a runner, fewer people will bother quitting or taking up running. If the cost of insurance to a smoker is double to that of a runner, more people will quit smoking and take up running. Yes, I know that many people run to feel good, and many people quit smoking to feel better, but incentives do not always play out consciously in people’s heads. More likely a smoker would have the attitude, well I’ll quit next week, or just one more pack. But if they were faced with mounting medical bills or insurance costs that would be cut in half within six months of quitting smoking, that obviously encourages them to quit.

Likewise if an overweight person begins to see a surge in healthcare costs or the initial premium for coverage is monumental, and they are responsible for the costs, they are much more likely to alter their behavior: eating less and exercising more. If the cost is the same to an obese person with many medical needs, and a young healthy person with no medical needs, why bother getting into shape? This also sends the message to younger people that taking care of your health is not something that will effect your wallet. Unfortunately, people have a sense that they are invincible, but everyone knows their wallet has a bottom. Fewer people will curtail unhealthy choices when their wallet will not be affected no matter how much they drink, smoke, or eat.

Then there is the matter of making economical choices with the type of care you would like to receive. With the same cost no matter what care you get, of course you will say, do every test in the book. But when each test costs you more money, people may rule out the 3 tests that check for a rare disease found in 1 in a million people. Then, there would always be the option of going back and taking those tests later if everything else comes back negative, but the vast majority of people will find out what is wrong with them without ever having to take those extra 3 tests. To an individual in charge of their health and wallet, this makes sense to forgo the extra tests. When healthcare is “free” or the same cost no matter how much care you get, why not get the extra tests? And this is why patients must be pay at least part of the costs of health care.

And finally when the government is in charge of our health payouts, that will be the excuse to regulate every aspect of life, because it all has to do with health. Remember 1984 when every morning the proles would get up and do some calisthenics in front of the video screens? And not to be cliche, but Hitler planned to institute a national menu as soon as the war was over. And all these negatives do not even take into account the decline of care when there are not enough doctors, and more patients. It is very scary moving forward toward government controlled healthcare, because when has government really gotten a program right? The costs are always way higher than expected, and the quality is usually lower than desirable. With welfare it hurts our wallets and creates a permanent underclass. With healthcare it will literally kill us.

Obamacare: Part Timers Go From Limited Coverage to No Coverage

Obamacare will force about 500 part time Universal Orlando employees out of health insurance by the year’s end. Currently part time workers at Universal pay about $18 a week for a limited coverage plan, sometimes called a mini-med plan, that provides $5,000 of yearly coverage. The Affordable Care Act will make healthcare unaffordable for these and many other part time workers, because it bans mini-med plans, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

Beginning in 2014, the law will prohibit insurance plans that impose annual monetary limits on essential medical care such as hospitalization, or on overall spending.

The reasoning behind this is that the mini plans do not cover enough medical emergencies, so the solution was to force these part time workers into having no health insurance. We are all apparently too dumb to decide what type, if any, health insurance we have, so the government will force a hard decision on these part time workers–go broke buying a plan with “proper” coverage, or pay a fee to the government comparable to the old cost of you sub-par plan. These workers will go from paying insurance companies $18 a week for limited coverage, to paying the government $13.50 a week for no coverage. Good job Obamacare.

Universal Orlando actually will not save any money, because they did not spend any on their workers’ plans before. Universal would get their part time employees who wanted coverage a group rate so that they could have some coverage instead of no coverage. What Obamacare does is say, “you can’t have limited coverage, your choices are full coverage or no coverage”. To many part time workers, and people with low income, this effectively translates to one choice: pay the $695 yearly fee–I’m sorry, tax–if you are single and make less than $37,000/year. Otherwise your tax for not owning health insurance will be bigger. And it isn’t just Universal Orlando,

A spokesman for Orlando-based Darden Restaurants said Tuesday its limited-coverage plans will “go away after this year,” as well.

“We’d like to have the option to continue offering them, since they are popular with our part-time employees, but the ACA doesn’t offer that type of flexibility,” spokesman Rich Jeffers said.

Its absurd to me that people can pretend the Affordable Care Act improved anything to do with healthcare. Insurance costs across the board have risen and are still rising, while affordable alternatives have been removed as an option. How is it an improvement for part time workers to now have no health insurance, instead of a “sub-par” plan? Wouldn’t they be better off putting that money towards a minimal plan than handing it to the government? Or better yet, wouldn’t that money be better saved in a medical account for when something does go wrong? Why can’t people pay their medical bills with a payment plan for years after, instead of paying an insurance company for years before? At least then money would be going directly toward medical treatment, instead of some being siphoned off by the insurance middle-man.

Some of you may have seen Dr. Carson’s speech at a recent prayer breakfast that Obama attended. Dr. Ben Carson, the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, spoke in favor of a health savings plan, giving individuals control over their health care, and therefore reducing costs because people would be responsible for their own medical decisions and expenses. This does not mean that money couldn’t be contributed to a person’s account from elsewhere, just that a person would have to work within the constraints of their account to decide the best medical options from a cost benefit perspective. When something is free, people use more of it, and this is dangerous in healthcare because it means skyrocketing costs, and lower quality care. Something can appear free when it is paid for upfront through insurance, or when the government covers the costs with tax dollars; but in reality, nothing is free. Click here to read more into why the patient needs to share the costs of medical care.

How Obamacare will Ravage the Economy

It is starting, we are seeing some of the first jobs lost and hours cut due to Obamacare, but expect this to become a trend. A Wendy’s franchise owner in Omaha Nebraska has said that he will have to cut 300 employees’ hours to 28 per week, because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) requires employers to begin paying for employees’ health insurance when they work 32 hours per week. Thanks to Obamacare, 300 people will now work fewer hours, making less money, while having the added expense of purchasing health insurance, or paying a fine to the government. This should not be a surprise.

Another aspect of how Obamacare will kill jobs is in the debt it creates. When the bill was being considered Obama liked to go around lying about how it would reduce the deficit. Of course this was blatantly false, it will increase the deficit by about $75 billion a year, which according to the Heritage Foundation will lead to approximately 670,000 lost jobs annually. This is because debt creates interest payments, which need to be paid, instead of that money going toward investment and job creation.

Higher interest rates mean that more American tax dollars will go toward paying the interest on the federal debt rather than paying down the principal. Simulations using dynamic analysis estimate that the government would spend an average $23 billion more per year on interest rate payments over the 2010–2020 year window than it would without the PPACA.

According to the same Heritage Foundation article on the impact of Obamacare on the economy, the taxes, fees, and penalties in the bill will cause our “economy to produce $706 billion less worth of goods and services”. After ten years in effect, “debt held by the public will be $753 billion higher than it otherwise would have been”. Premiums for individuals will also rise due to requirements that insurance cover more things.

Another article from the Heritage Foundation called “Obamacare: Impact on Businesses”, discusses what these extra burdens and taxes will mean for different size businesses. Medium sized businesses with 50-199 employees, will begin paying a tax in 2014 to offset the cost of individual employees receiving premium subsidies. Again, this will hurt the workers the most, even though the bill was purported to help them.

Employees will likely bear most of the burden since these costs will likely be passed on to them in the form of reduced wages, discontinued hiring, or loss of employment. Instead of adding more regular full-time employees, some businesses will simply increase hours for current employees, hire low-skilled and low-income labor, or opt for more temporary or seasonal workers.

And for small businesses–companies with fewer than 50 employees–Obamacare will likely mean that employees do not get coverage; as it currently stands, the bill includes nothing to stop small businesses from not adding coverage, or dropping current coverage, due to the increased costs. Uncertainties about the true costs of compliance with the law are another harmful piece of this legislation. After all the exclusions, only firms with 20 or fewer workers, or low income workers will receive the “small business tax credit”.

In terms of the regulatory burden, most small businesses will need to hire someone to make sure they are complying with regulations–which means a job which previously contributed to the productivity of the business, will instead go towards complying with government mandates. The costs will also be increased in the accounting department. There is also a medicare payroll tax, not indexed for inflation, that will end up hitting many small businesses, and further hurt economic growth with a new medicare non-payroll investment tax.

But how could the lawmakers who passed this bill have known all this when they did not even read the bill before voting on it? Nancy Pelosi infamously remarked, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it”. Were all these detrimental effects considered in the 72 hour period that congress had to read the 1000 page bill? I think not. We have an irresponsible legislature that has sold out the American people, and broken their oaths to support and uphold the Constitution. Otherwise, why would the bill have included an exemption for the very people who passed it?