The impact of ObamaCare on doctors and patients, companies inside and outside the health sector, and American workers and taxpayers

“The Susan B. Anthony List, responding to Rep. Steve Driehaus’s defamation lawsuit against the anti-abortion group, said his vote for healthcare reform — and not the group’s messaging — cost him a seat in Congress.”

“Mr. Obama declared at the time that ‘uninsured Americans who’ve been locked out of the insurance market because of a pre-existing condition will now be able to enroll in a new national insurance pool where they’ll finally be able to purchase quality, affordable health care—some for the very first time in their lives.’ So far that statement accurately describes a single person in North Dakota. Literally, one person has signed up out of 647,000 state residents. Four people have enrolled in West Virginia. Things are better in Minnesota, where Mr. Obama has rescued 15 out of 5.2 million, and also in Indiana—63 people there. HHS did best among the 24.7 million Texans. Thanks to ObamaCare, 393 of them are now insured.”

The Washington Post performed a “fact check” on claims about the new health law. Many of their conclusions were less than factually based.

“In short, Obamacare marked a decisive pro-abortion shift. Representatives who voted for it should not be surprised if their constituents hold them accountable for doing so.”

ObamaCare’s Medicare Advantage cuts will especially hit the Latino community. “In fact, according to my colleagues’ estimates, nearly 300,000 Hispanics will lose or be dropped from their Medicare Advantage plan, or find that the plan they were in is no longer financially attractive, facing an estimated $2.2 billion loss in annual benefits. Plus, approximately 56 percent of New York seniors would lose their Medicare Advantage plans. So much for the President’s repeated promise that we would be able to keep our current health coverage if we liked it.”

“These are the enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans, health plans operated by private insurers (Cigna, Aetna, United Health, etc.) that provide extra benefits to the elderly and the disabled on top of standard Medicare coverage. The price they will pay for health reform will be a double whammy: less spending on Medicare coupled with reduced subsidies for their Medicare Advantage plans. In many areas, Medicare Advantage enrollees will lose about one-third or more of their health-insurance benefits.”

By tying its subsidy program to the federal poverty rate, ObamaCare strongly discourages marriage. The level of subsidization is based on a family’s income as a percentage of the federal poverty level, which changes based on a person’s marital status. Thus two individuals living together would receive a substantial decrease in their subsidy were they to get married.

Obamacare would offer major financial rewards for couples who live together but avoid marriage — and it’s extreme marginal tax-rates on a marriage’s second income would provide a strong incentive for the lower-earning spouse (most often the woman) to leave the workforce.

While ObamaCare doesn’t explicitly declare that it would fund abortions with taxpayer dollars, its end run around Hyde Amendment protections would provide that result — which is why Planned Parenthood is declaring “victory” in the wake of ObamaCare’s passage.

“Is the Pill preventive, in the sense meant when preventive medicine got debated during ObamaCare?  Not at all.  Democrats specifically called out early diagnosis of diseases such as diabetes….That never included an explicit argument that lowering the birth rate would be an overall cost-saver, or that it was a legitimate government interest to suppress the birth rate. “