ObamaCare, with its various new or increased taxes on middle-class Americans, would violate many times over President Obama’s pledge to not raise “any form of taxes” on those making less than $250,000.

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.

The Administration has been using taxpayer funds to have the IRS promote ObamaCare under the guise of informing the public about the effects of the new law. But if the Administration is really just trying to inform and not to propagandize, why isn’t the IRS advertising the new tax on indoor tanning services, set to start July 1st?

A former CBO Director says that ObamaCare would likely raise deficits by $600,000,000,000 more than the CBO projects, could result in 40 million more Americans being shifted from employer-provided to government-provided insurance than the CBO projects, and would impose such high effective marginal tax-rates on those who are shifted onto government-provided insurance that it would be very hard for them to pursue the American Dream of making a better life.

Though ObamaCare’s “Cadillac plan” tax was designed to affect only employers with extravagant health benefit plans, an analysis by the global professional services company Towers Watson, using data from its 2010 Health Care Cost Survey, reveals that more than 60% of large employers’ health-care plans could be subject to this tax when it goes into effect in 2018.

Medical device manufacturers say they would have to lay off workers and curb the research and development of new medical tools as a result of ObamaCare’s 2.3 percent tax on medical devices — a tax which would cost these companies an estimated $20 billion over the next decade.

After a series of projections by independent experts and revelations by businesses, Americans are becoming increasingly aware that ObamaCare is anything but a cost-cutter.

“Should everyone be required to have health insurance? The short answer is no.”

The Senate health care bill (which, along with the Reconciliation Act, became law) would overhaul the entire health-care sector of the U.S. economy by erecting massive federal controls over private health insurance; dictating the content of insurance benefit-packages and the usage of medical treatments, procedures, and devices; altering the relationship between the federal government and the states; transferring massive regulatory power to the federal government; and restricting Americans’ personal and economic freedom by imposing unprecedented mandates on businesses and individuals, including an individual mandate to buy insurance.

House passage of the Senate version of ObamaCare means higher health costs, higher deficits, higher taxes, higher premiums, incentives for employers to drop employees’ insurance, incentives for employers to avoid hiring low-income workers, financial penalties for entering into marriage, further expansion of Medicaid and the launching of a new entitlement program, and the ushering in of a culture of statism and dependency in lieu of limited government and liberty.