Hilarious video reminder of ObamaCare rationing. Economic proof that centrally-planning health insurance will only result in less access and rationed care here.

Since passage of health-care "reform," many in the media have been quick to point out the supposed positive effects of the new law. Take for example this recent article from Stacy Johnson at Money Talks News touting the "positive changes" stemming from Obamacare.

After listing the perceived benefits, the article then displays this list of taxes that will be used to pay for this new government power grab:

• Fees on drug companies and insurers.
• An excise tax of 10% on overly generous health plans.
• A 2.9% tax on the sale of medical devices.
• A 3.8% tax hike in your Medicare payroll taxes and on your investment income if you make more than $250,000/yr.
• Fees on employers who don’t offer required coverage.
• Fees on people who don’t get mandated coverage.
• A 10 percent excise tax on tanning salons.

Despite this list, the author displays a typical economic fallacy when attempting to argue that these taxes won't really affect the average person:

Not a penny coming from any individual taxpayer other than those who don’t comply or those that are making more than $250,000/yr.

The newly passed health-care "reform" bill and the amendments to be made to it through the reconciliation process should be great fodder for lawyers around the country. ProPublica has posted a side-by-side comparison of the passed Senate bill and the proposed changes.

The most important form of litigation, of course, should be challenging the constitutionality of the bill. Besides its uncomfortable level of paternalism, "Obamacare" is in truth unconstitutional in several aspects -- particularly the individual mandate.

Proponents will no doubt try to justify the bill using the two clauses in the Constitution often used by those seeking dubious justification for their expansions of government power: the commerce and general welfare clauses (both found in Art. 1, Sec. 8). Expansive interpretations of those two pieces of the document have been used countless times in the past to bolster the scope of the federal government's authority to regulate and tax.

Pardon the “when,” but I’m feeling pessimistic.

Regardless, Reuters provides a summary of what provisions will take effect when should the health care bill make it to Obama’s desk.  Not to be lazy, but I’ve copied the complete list below.  While reading this summary, keep in mind Thomas DiLorenzo’s interesting point on LewRockwell.com about the votes this health care bill is undoubtedly meant to buy:  the legislation “promises to cut Medicare spending by hundreds of billions of dollars while increasing Medicaid spending by hundreds of billions.  At least half of all Medicare enrollees vote Republican; almost all Medicaid enrollees vote Democrat.”

Dan McCarthy at the American Conservative paints an unfortunate picture of the prospects of the health care bill’s eventual repeal:

[W]hat does anyone seriously expect from the next batch of Republicans to take power? If the GOP takes back one chamber of Congress this year, that won’t be enough to make significant revisions, and if the party manages the minor miracle of taking back both House and Senate, you can be sure Republicans would amend the legislation only to the point of offering their own big-government “solution” to the healthcare “crisis.”

He’s a little more optimistic about the possibility of a revival of nullification, and I have to agree.  There are encouraging reports coming out of the Tenth Amendment Center, such as this map of health care bill nullification legislation.