"It is really historic. It's transformation. It's momentous."

The health care bill that will usher in Obama's own special brand of reform is gaining momentum in both houses of Congress.

At a press conference earlier today, Speaker Pelosi gushed about all the goods things that are to come with this legislation, which has been approved by both the Ways and Means and Education and Labor committees.

The Senate is already working on similar legislation, which has gotten out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee by a narrow margin.

Obama claims that the bill will change everyone's lives for the better, giving us all access to better and cheaper medical care, but at what cost? The legislation is supposed to cost $1 trillion to enact. Where would we get that money? From taxes. Now, for the people who follow Obama religiously and agree with the statement, "because everyone deserves some of what you've worked hard for," raising taxes for the higher income earners is not a problem. But of course that's not the end of the story.

Even HuffPo has problems with ObamaCare.

"We need to evaluate the message more than the messenger. The Republicans are
currently the 'bad guys.' They may oppose the President's Plan largely on partisan grounds. Nonetheless, when they say this Plan will not work, that statement (regardless whose mouth it comes out of) is true. Whether it is CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf or Rush Limbaugh saying that ObamaCare will fail, both are right."

There is a lesson here. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Listen to the people. Leave the people alone. Don't trip acid. Pick one- they're all applicable here.

another monstrosity brought to us by the douchebag from California

As if HR 2454 wasn't bad enough, Rep. Waxman is trying to socialize America's markets even further with the help of some buddies- this time the health care system. Obama hasn't made it a secret that health care reform is at the top of his list of prospective changes. In his health care section of "Issues," it says,

"President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform in his first year in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee choice of doctor, and assure high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans."

Now, that's a nice sentiment, isn't it? It sounds nice- Obama wants to make sure that all Americans have affordable coverage, and access to competent doctors of their choosing. There's a small rub, though. Outside of the ambiguous "promote the general welfare" in the Preamble, the US Constitution says nothing about requiring the government to provide health care to its citizens. And so, like the many bills and resolutions before it, the current health care reform bill (not yet a resolution in the House) has no grounding in the Constitution.

The unnamed health care bill is getting lots of play around the blogosphere at places like TLP and United Liberty and organizations like Reason and Cato Institute. The good news about the bill is... well... the good news must be that Congress knows that something must be done about health care. And that's about it. They are horribly misguided as to how to fix it; and of course, are suffering under the misapprehension that they should be fixing it. The bad news is that this "reform" has potential to make cap and trade look like a respite from government intrusion.

Even though Obama has been touting his "public option"-speak and claiming that citizens' private insurance coverage won't change (it'll just get better!), the truth is that the bill provides a limit. After the law is passed and becomes effective, it is no longer legal for a citizen to enroll in new private insurance. That means that the citizen, in order to have coverage, must enroll in the insurance provided by the government.

Now, for those who cannot afford health care now, and for those who don't mind having decisions made for them, this plan isn't so bad. For those who don't want a lot of freedom, and are more comfortable with the government stepping in and taking care of things, this legislation will make the way smooth.

But do we want everything the same? Do we really want to give up our choices? Those who think that this country is not walking down the road to socialism are deluding themselves, and this bill is the perfect example of that. It's a dangerous bill. I hope Americans wake up and realize the ramifications before something stupid happens, like the bill is passed.

Five votes

We lost by 5 votes.

HR2454 passed today at 6:18 pm CST by 219-212.

Fuck Congress.

Vote NO on HR2454!

My friends, family, and fellow citizens,

The United States Congress is voting on HR2454 today, and we must all do our civic duty and urge them to vote NO.

HR2454, or the Waxman-Markey Bill, is a piece of socialist horror that will not only raise gas prices and the unemployment rate, but the majority of the taxes collected under it will go to special interest groups, and not the government.

According to The Heritage Foundation,

"Analysis of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey projects that by 2035 the bill will:

-Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion,

-Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs,

-Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation,

-Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent,

-Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent,

-Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500, and

-Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation. "

I don't think it needs to be said that this bill must be defeated. Here is a link to contact your Congressman. Call him, fax him, email him, do whatever it takes to convince him that he (or she) needs to vote NO on HR 2454.

Thanks from the bottom of my libertarian heart,
Kat

ED ads: Begone!

Once upon a time, parents were involved in their children's lives, and monitored what they watched on tv or listened to on the radio. Parents decided for themselves what was objectionable content for their own children, and limited their children's exposure to such content.

But now, in an age where the government raises our children, parents don't need to worry about objectionable content. Last month, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) introduced H.R. 2175 to Congress and it now sits in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Moran's inspiration for H.R. 2175, or the "Families for ED Advertising Decency Act," is his concern over his grandkids seeing commercials for ED medications like Viagra and Levitra. So, he wants to be able to limit ED ads to only airtime between 10pm and 6am.

I'm not that big of a fan of watching old guys smile and crook their fingers at their female partners who are apparently ecstatic that their men have taken a pill that makes them available for sexual activity for 36 hours at time. (Though I do admit to always being amused at the 4-hour erection disclaimers. Would you really wait 4 hours?) But when I see something on tv that I don't like, or that I don't want to see, I change the channel, or don't pay attention to it. I don't call the FCC.

Moran claims to have some perspective on his bill:

"While it’s not as important as the economy, or what’s happening militarily around the world, it is an intrusion into the quality of life that we like to experience."

I do agree that ED ads are not as important as a recession, or an unwinnable war we shouldn't be involved in. But the issue isn't really about ED ads. The Families for ED Advertising Decency Act" wants to have the FCC consider ED ads obscene and modify its existing code.

Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall revise the Commission's interpretations of, and enforcement policies concerning, section 73.3999 of the Commission's regulations (47 CFR 73.3999), relating to indecent material that no licensee of a radio or television broadcast station shall broadcast on any day between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., to treat as indecent for such purposes any advertisement for a medication for the treatment of erectile dysfunction or for male enhancement. This section shall not require treating as indecent any product placement or other display or mention merely of the trademarked name or generic name for such a medication.

At the heart of the issue is censorship- a group of people deciding what a larger group of people can see or hear. H.R. 2175 is going to take away citizens' rights to decide for themselves if ED ads are too obscene for viewing between 6am and 10pm. What's going to be next? Will birth control ads be restricted as well? What about STI medications? Where does it end?