We know that none of the Democrats who voted for the bill yesterday have actually read all 1900 pages of it. If they did, they are traitors to the future health of our economy. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Betsy McCaughey lists some things you’d better know:

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

Now. There are a lot (millions) of individuals who choose not to have insurance. Mostly they are aged 18 to 40-years-old and are in good health. If they are now forced to purchase insurance, that is (let’s use the example above) $5,300 dollars less that they will have to spend on clothing, dining out, electronic gadgets, car payments, etc.

Myself as an example. My fixed monthly expenses are about $1205 per month; rent, utilities, car payment and insurance. Car sales have been in the dump for a year now so I wind up with about $340 dollars left each month for such trivialities as food (cats and me) and gas for the car, clothing, laundry, car maintenance (oil changes, tires) and the odd tube of toothpaste.

And now I have to squeeze out another $220 dollars for mandatory health care?

I could enroll in my company’s health plan and instead just cough up about $160 instead. I should do that (especially at my age) but, at the moment I can afford neither.

I”m sure there are a hell of a lot of single folks in exactly the same position.

By the way, how do I come up with figuring a 50% subsidy from the government? Just an optimistic guess. Whenever the government tries to figure out what constitutes a “poor person” who might qualify for a 100% subsidy, they always use someone from the inner city or Mississippi or Alabama who can live on a heck of a lot less. They never realize that some areas of the country are a lot more expensive to live in, say large cities or the urban areas surrounding them or, yes, many rural locales.

This gets to my next point.

“Well, Jeff, why don’t you just move to a cheaper area of the country?” A fair question. I like this area and I have a job. Not a good one but one day it might get better when folks start buying cars again.

But, let’s say that everyone in my position now moves to cheaper areas of the country. What happens when the “cheap” labor force dries up in pricey neighborhoods? Who will wait on tables or be sales clerks at Walmarts? Suddenly, Walmart will have to pay sales people $18 dollars an hour if they want anyone to apply in those high cost-of-living urban areas. Result? Cost of goods goes up. Inflation. Less jobs, maybe some store closings. Certainly the small business owners are going to close; restaurants, local hardware stores, convenience stores, small farms, etc. Loss of jobs, again.

“Ah-ha!” Democrats will say, “We are requiring that all businesses offer health plans! No need to worry.”

Here’s why you should worry:

Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a “qualified plan” for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

I’m sure there are some large companies that already spring for 72% of the cost of their employee’s health plans, but not many. Most are contributing about 50%. If they now have to contribute a lot more, guess what happens? First, the cost of goods goes up or else they have to cut some employees. Maybe both. Inflation and loss of jobs. Again.

Small businesses — the Mom and Pop stores that maybe employ one or two other people, usually as sales clerks — will eliminate those sales clerks because they have no health plan and can’t afford the “fine” for not providing one. Or, do they cut those clerks’ wages? But remember, those clerks would be required to purchase insurance themselves if there is no employer plan. How can they afford that? I’ve used myself as an example. The small stores disappear (at a greater rate than they already are) and so do any jobs they provided.

One more example. For years I worked for a medium-sized furniture company. I left them two years ago in a dispute with them over the elimination of my position. Since then, they (like all furniture manufacturers) have hit very hard times. They’ve had forced pay cuts and last Winter had to scrap the company health plan simply to survive. They are, barely, but it’s week-to-week. If they are now fined 4-8% for not providing a health plan, or they have to reinstate it and pay 72% of the costs, that company will go into bankruptcy. They can’t raise prices and still be at all competitive with imported furniture. They are in a no-win situation and will close down. There goes about 100 jobs in an area that can’t afford to lose 100 jobs.

Folks, I’m not an economist and maybe I’m reading this stuff wrong or figuring the ramifications incorrectly. If so, please enlighten me because all I see ahead with Obamacare is pure misery for our nation. Inflation, loss of jobs, loss of small businesses, etc.

You know who benefits the most from all of this? Illegal immigrants. Companies, especially small ones, might survive by hiring more of them. Of course, they don’t contribute to the bottom line of this health care plan and that still won’t provide jobs for all of us real Americans and that could result in higher deficits for the plan.

Oh, here’s another couple of gems buried in those 1,900 pages:

Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of “medical items and services.”

[…]

Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should “give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population.” And secondary-school grants should go to schools “graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities.”

Have a nice day . . .