In comparison, Rasmussen has Obama's approval at just 47%. It's becoming more and more apparent that "Hope and Change" isn't selling anymore; America wants substance, freedom, and liberty, and just might be waking up and realizing what Obama's radical agenda means to our nation's way of life and our future.

In addition to the top five Demcare bribes that are listed at the above link, it will be interesting to watch for Demcare bribes/offers for the votes of Democrat Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska; Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas; and Evan Bayh of Indiana.

I find this to be no revelation, for anyone that thinks otherwise is living in la la land amidst unicorns and daisies, and overdosing on Obama Kool-Aid.

As Megan McArdle points out:

[...] ... according to the CBO, the savings achieved by Subtitle A, the main delivery system reform part of the bill, are trivial--not really distinguishable from zero, when you consider the uncertainties inherent in the estimates.

What passes for delivery reform consists mostly of slashing reimbursement rates to providers, and then putting Medicare Advantage on the same plan. There are two problems with this. The first is that there's no reason to believe that providers will find ways to efficiently provide care at the new, lower rates, rather than just stop serving Medicare patients. That was the core point of the recent report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--and though a lot of bloggers developed sudden suspicions about the integrity of government reports, in fact, this pretty much jibes with the warnings that Doug Elmendorf has been issuing, and also, reality. There are already shortages of geriatricians which can be substantially attributed to the fact that Medicare has ensured it is one of the lowest-paid specialties. When the guy who oversees your provider payments says that your new payment scheme is probably going to lead to providers dropping out of your program, you need to take that seriously.

The second is that the treatment cuts--and any further cuts recommended by the cost effectiveness commission--can be undone by Congress. Not only can, but almost certainly will. There's some attempt to get around this by forcing Congress to do only an up or down vote on the recommendations. By bundling the really unpopular stuff with other reforms, the hope is that they'll be able to push them through.

Unfortunately, the commission's recommendations do not save much in any one year, which means it's not actually going to be all that difficult to vote "no" in any one year--and by the time it actually is hard to vote "no", we'll face the same problem we have with the Sustainable Growth Rate cuts for physicians--the cuts needed are so big that it has become impossible to vote "yes", because the providers can't deliver those kinds of cost savings.

Jennifer Rubin sums up the reality that Americans are faced with; there's really nothing in sight that will influence the cost of health care, because the Democrats refuse to address two issues:

tort reform (with the ensuing problem of defensive medicine and unneeded procedures) and expanding markets (e.g., interstate sales, changing tax treatment of individually purchased plans).

What we are doing here is spending gobs of money, raising hundreds of billions in taxes, slashing Medicare payments, and empowering government bureaucrats to influence health-care treatment all in the name of expanding coverage. It isn't remotely what Obama promised, and it's not what voters seem to want. But we may get it anyway.

Related: Why the Healthcare Bill Will Include Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

Unbiased readers need only to read the evidence themselves, and they'll find it hard to arrive at any other conclusion.

H/t - The Patriot Room

Looks to me to be somewhere between a D and an F.

More Chip Bok cartoons here.

Lest readers forget, American taxpayer dollars are going to ACORN for this kind of crap and ACORN is essentially the organized crime wing of the Democratic Party and Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, Andrew Breitbart has a clear message for Attorney General Eric Holder:

I want you to know that we have more tapes, it's not just ACORN, and we're going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don't give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.

Besides, expecting Barack Hussein Obama to act against a Muslim nation is like asking a kid to hate ice cream - it's simply against his nature.

As the Post also points out, there's little wonder that the new Quinnipiac Poll shows that Americans disapprove of that plan by 51 percent to 35 percent -- with independents opposed by 2-to-1. However, the big questions are whether or not the Senate is listening and will Americans make their voices heard in time to stop the Dems deformation of our health care.

[...] On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for "certain states recovering from a major disaster."

The section spends two pages defining which "states" would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that "during the preceding 7 fiscal years" have been declared a "major disaster area."

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana's Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Related: Culture of corruption: Holder, terrorists, Covington & Burling

Apparently, the era of Obama has brought with it the loss of Americans' right to express their constitutional guaranteed free speech.