Obamacare: The more you know, the more you dislike it

James Capretta:

"While it is true that the program is a massive entitlement, specifically designed to get the American middle class fully hooked on another expansive government benefit, Obamacare also — unlike the Medicare drug benefit — creates millions of losers. Democrats riddled it with budget gimmicks and sleights of hand to create the illusion of a fully financed program; but what it really does is redistribute resources within the health sector away from those who have good coverage today.

As millions of today’s happily insured citizens begin to find out that their current arrangements have been disrupted, and, in some cases, terminated, to pay for the Obama administration’s government-centric takeover, their views of Obamacare will only sour further."

Remember that "we have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it", as prevaricated by one the essential cogs of the most transparent administration in history's agenda.

Think that's bad? Just wait until all the nonsense in the new "financial reform" law becomes known. And just think of the secret delights Dems/Lefties/"Progressives" have in store for us with their renewed Cap 'n Trade, "net neutrality", "fairness doctrine", illegal immigrant amnesty, and VAT "enhancements" if we don't castrate their destructive agenda this November.

Talking Points

Net "Neutrality" Truth of the Day

Center for Individual Freedom:

"'Net Neutrality' is nothing short of an effort to place yet another sector of our economy under federal control. But don’t take our word for it. Consider the words of Robert McChesney, founder of Free Press and the leading activist voice supporting 'Net Neutrality:'

'What we want to have in the U.S., and in every society, is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility. We want an Internet where you don’t have to have a password and that you don’t pay a penny to use. It is your right to use the Internet.' "

The so-called "Net Neutrality" heads south

Rasmussen:

"Just 27% of Americans now believe the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does television and radio. That marks a 22-point drop in support for federal regulation of the Internet since June 2008."

That's bad news for those "progressives", particularly those of the Google GaGa brigade, who think that increased government control of the internet is a "good thing".

Since when does increased government control over ANYTHING that "progressives" want controlled in fulfilment of The Agenda (TM) amount to being a "good thing"?

#

More on the dangers of "Net Neutrality" and "Big Broadband"

The Thugocracy currently in power thinks they now have carte blanche to move The Cherished Agenda (TM) forward on all fronts. It won't be long now before they turn their attention to "net neutrality" and "big broadband"


Noteworthy re: "net neutrality":

"However Genachowski and the Obama FCC are placing these kinds of sensible cost-cutting and efficiency-gaining innovations in jeopardy with their talk of heavy-handed government regulation of the industry. The Internet has flourished since it came out from the thumb of government control when it was the ARPAnet, and became the free-wheeling marketplace it is today. Clearly, that scares people who want government to be in control of things.

And it’s total control they want, too. Because the second principle Genachowski asked for, 'transparency,' doesn’t mean transparency of government. No, it means that the government is to claim the right to have access to every router in America, every switch, and every other piece of hardware that makes the Internet go. Public or Private, the FCC wants to be able to snoop on how it runs, to be able to control how it runs.

Does that scare you? It should. When you connect to the Internet, your home computer network (even if it’s just one computer) is now on the Internet. The Internet is not like a public road. It’s a vast series of private networks, all connected together. Government wants control over the whole ball of yarn, how everyone configures and runs their own private computers routing the packets of the Internet."


On "big broadband":

"It’s the same reason that American Internet access varies from Europe and Asia, that our need for the automobile varies from the rest of the world. We’re spread out, and we value our freedom to be spread out. And just as you can’t run public transit to every little suburb and rural area, so too can’t you immediately and cheaply get the best Internet access out to everyone at the same time. Higher costs, delayed implementations. These are facts of geography, and no amount of FCC regulation can fix that."

Our local Google GaGa crowd doesn't seem to worry about any unintended consequences of what they so fervently wish to happen.

#

More on the dangers of "Net Nuetrality"

From the Heartland Institute, this well thought out treatise on the dangers of "Net Neutrality" explains why this movement is so popular among "regressive" internet users.

Noteworthy:

"....From the founding of the 'copyleft' movement, to the publication of The dotCommunist Manifesto, to modern attempts to foist net neutrality upon the Web and wireless technology, the neutralists have made their aims clear. 'Big Business' must be brought to its knees – all the better to pray for mercy (or at least permission to operate) from government bureaucrats who will replace the free market in deciding how broadband networks are run and how content will flow.

Neutralists cynically promote the false notion that broadband providers should be regulated provided like public utilities. Yet access to the Internet is not similar to electricity, water, or natural gas. Internet access and technology is a complicated service delivered by competing private companies that have spent hundreds of billions of dollars bringing ever-faster broadband and wireless innovation to consumers. Upsetting this market-based model of service will lead to less innovation, slower broadband build-out, and a poorer technological experience for all.

Neutralists view the wireless sector as virgin territory in which to advance their goals. But the wireless sector is even more competitive than the land-based ISP marketplace, and innovation is
occurring there at a torrid pace. The market, not government, brought the Internet to the palm of our hands, and the government, not the market, has slowed the spread of wireless communications services by its mismanagement of the spectrum. Neutralists have cleverly exploited the language of freedom to advance their goals – calling for a 'free' and 'open' Internet, and declaring the market guilty of 'discrimination' and 'unfair practices.'

But the Internet is already 'open' and 'free' in the sense that the technology sector is open to the next competitor to produce the next groundbreaking innovation, and individuals are free to accept or reject it. Not all discrimination is bad, and the market is well-equipped to swiftly punish any unfair practices."

"Net Neutrality" equates to "Government Control"

When Net Neutrality came into the spotlight as a public issue, it sounded like a reasonable proposition. Who could argue with such noble principles like these stated at a website called Free Press?

"The future of the Internet as we know it depends on maintaining freedom and openness online. This crucial legislation will help to ensure that the public -- not big phone and cable companies -- controls the fate of the Internet.

The rules that govern the Internet must protect economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. If we don’t make Net Neutrality the law once and for all, we could see the innovation and promise of the Internet derailed forever.

An army of lobbyists has been unleashed by the phone and cable companies to kill Net Neutrality so they can become the Internet’s gatekeepers. But the momentum is shifting in the public’s favor. President Obama has repeatedly called for Net Neutrality; we have a new pro-Net Neutrality chairman now heading the Federal Communications Commission; and popular support is growing every day....."

The pertinent points turns out a little differently though when some critical thinking and a little research and perspective are brought to focus on the subject.

Noteworthy:

"Masked beneath the comfort language of the net neutrality bill are provisions that will effectively turn over management of the internet within the United States to the federal government via the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It's a power for which the FCC hungers. Perhaps it envies China.

So there's nothing neutral about the Obama administration's push for net neutrality. 'Neutrality' is a D.C. comfort word for control. "

In the end, it all turns out to be just one more cog in the construction of a "regressive" political, economic, and social control agenda, doesn't it? And, as always, the people and our nation pay the price and give up more rights for "the greater good".

Are you really surprised to find this out?

"Free Press"! As if......

#

Yet another look at Net Neutrality

Nick Schulz says the debate is getting more interesting.

Quoting computer scientist David Farber:

"The problem here is everyone talks about reasonable network management, but if you look at it from a technical perspective, someone trying to build new ways of operating networks is going to sit there saying, 'I wonder if this new brilliant idea is reasonable or not. And if I go through all the energy of implementing it and testing it, will someone in Washington say that that violates some reasonable network management criteria?' "