Further, let's not forget that the Health care "reform" that David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are ramming through Congress will not only not result in any savings for taxpayers - it cuts billion from medicare and raises taxes:

... analysts said the updated Senate bill would spend [AN ADDITIONAL] $871 billion over the next decade to extend coverage to the uninsured by dramatically expanding Medicaid and by offering federal subsidies to those who lack affordable coverage through employers.

Those costs would be more than covered by nearly $400 billion in new taxes over the next decade and by nearly $500 billion in spending reductions, primarily cuts to Medicare, the federal health program for people 65 and older

And even worse, the Reid bill, like the House bill approved earlier, puts the lives of older Americans and persons with disabilities at great risk:

Under current law, Medicare recipients have the legal option, if they choose, of adding their own money on top of the government contribution in order to obtain "private fee-for-service" Medicare Advantage plans that can use the additional premiums to avoid "managed care" limitations on treatments and tests and to ensure access by paying providers market rates. Presently, the Medicare statute prevents the government from second-guessing or imposing limits on the premiums for private fee-for-service plans, allowing beneficiaries to balance cost, benefit, and affordability in making their own decisions whether to purchase such plans.

However, Section 3209, on page 920, amends that provision so as to empower the federal government to exclude from competing in Medicare Advantage those plans whose bids it does not like. The consequence is to give the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) the discretion to deny older Americans the choice of plans whose premiums CMS disallows. This amounts to the imposition of price controls, thus limiting what older Americans are permitted to spend for health insurance. Again, being prohibited from paying what may be needed to obtain unrationed health insurance amounts to government-imposed health care rationing.

The provision duplicates the little-noticed section 1175 of the bill passed by the House of Representatives. Neither provision was in bills reported by the committees of either chamber; at the last minute, both were slipped into the versions sent to the floor for action.

The fundamental question is whether seniors will be prevented from using their own money, if they wish, to gain access to insurance that will not ration medical treatment. The significant cuts that the Senate and House health care bills make in Medicare increase the importance of protecting the right of older Americans, if they choose, to use their own money to save their own lives. It is critical that seniors retain this right which would be eliminated by the Reid bill as introduced.

So, just how bad is the health care plan on the verge of being passed in Congress? In the Heritage Foundation's analysis of the Manager's Amendment of Harry Reid's Managers Amendment, the Foundation wrote:

The Senate health care bill 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 use of medical treatments, procedures, and medical devices. It would alter the relationship between the federal government and the states, transferring massive regulatory power to the federal government. The bill would also restrict the personal and economic freedom of American citizens by imposing controversial and unprecedented mandates on businesses and individuals, including an individual mandate to buy insurance.

And the Foundation went on to point out that, in effect, the Senate bill would produce the greatest concentration of political and economic power over one major sector of the U.S. economy in the nation's history, and shape the character and quality of life in America for generations to come.

As Professor Jacobson suggested in his post, a legal insurrection by the American people is indeed needed. At this point, it has become an imperative.

(H/t- James Joyner).