Clint Bolick at the Goldwater Institute has this analysis of the House bill. 

As with any proposed law, the devil is in the details of the health
care bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. At 1,990 pages,
8-1/4 inches in girth, and according to Arizona Republic columnist Doug MacEachern with the word ?shall? appearing 3,425 times, the bill contains devilish details aplenty.
 
Dr.
Eric Novack, a local orthopedic surgeon who authored the Arizona Health
Freedom Act that will appear on the 2010 ballot, charges that the bill
would impose chilling new regulations on physicians. A review of the
pertinent provisions shows he?s right.
 
The bill requires any
entity providing ?covered items or services? to provide the government
with detailed ?information concerning the entity?s ownership,
investment, and compensation arrangements? (p. 482). Hospitals must
provide ?a detailed description of the identity of each physician owner
and physician investor of any other owners and investors of the
hospital? (p. 483).
 
Under certain circumstances, the percentage
of physician ownership and investment in health care facilities is not
allowed to increase (p. 486); and the entity is forbidden from
providing loans or financing for physician owners (p. 487). Upon
requesting payment for services, hospitals and health care entities
must report on the ownership share of each physician investor (p. 894).
 
Although
physician participation in the government health care system ostensibly
is voluntary, the bill contains numerous inducements and penalties to
promote participation. One section of the bill, for instance, limits
those who can order durable medical equipment and home health services
to Medicare-enrolled physicians and other ?eligible professionals,? and
allows the Secretary to expand the categories of services restricted in
that manner (pp. 982-83). This provision could coerce physician
participation and reduce the number of health care professionals who
can offer services and equipment to individuals.

Most worrisome is a provision allowing the Inspector General to
obtain any information or examine any record the Act requires be
disclosed (pp. 1003-04). Assurances of patient or physician privacy
could be compromised by this provision.

Limiting physician freedom means limiting options for patients. The
bill?s supporters have seized upon ?choice? as a mantra, but the bill?s
details reveal it will make health care choice an endangered species.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.