Yes, the individual mandate is legal...

[elfs]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. - The Second Militia Act of 1792.

If an individual mandate was legal for George Washington, it's legal for Barack Obama.

Comments

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

You know... Apparently our massive and incredibly expensive military is deemed 'constitutional'. I'd opt-out of paying for it's useless bulk in a second if I could.

But let's pretend that both exist for the 'common good' for a moment. Now ask this:
In the past year, how many americans have died from an invading army on US soil? How many have died due to diseases that were treatable if caught early?

Heck, why stop at the past year? Let's look at the entire history of the united states. More people have died from Influenza, Polio, Smallpox, mumps, and dysentery than have died in all the wars and police actions combined and that's without even bothering to count the indigenous people.

[wendor.livejournal.com]

And if the current health care bill were going to have any effect on early detection and treatment I would be behind it 100%. But I will bet anyone that 10 years from now there will have been no direct result on those same fatality statistics.

It's not that change isn't needed....it's that THIS law is a BAD law. It will not accomplish the change that is needed. The Patriot Act was the same situation in my opinion. A bad law got railroaded though on the momentum of "quickly, we must do something".

My prediction is that within the new few years the vast majority will look back at this law and ask how anyone in their right mind could have voted for it in the first place (just as most do with regards to the Patriot Act now). Members of Congress who fought long and hard for this law will be quoted saying "If I had realized the repercussions of the law I would never have supported it"

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

Yeah so maybe you might consider blaming the Republicans for acting like spoiled children and screaming "I OBJECT I OBJECT I OBJECT" before the speaker from the other side could even state their position. 'Quickly' is a load. The Republicans pulled this same tantrum routine when healthcare was discussed during the Clinton administration. The debate on public healthcare has been open since the 1940s. Obama has been pushing for this legislation for over TWO YEARS. 'Quick' my ass. Please stop parroting FOX talking points. The Patriot Act was signed into law barely a MONTH after Sept 11th. I confess that in geological time, 2+ years is NEARLY the same as 1 month but what can I say? My head isn't full of rocks.

And your prediction? Uh. Duh. Politicians will say anything to get re-elected. Of course, they've extended and expanded upon the Patriot Act so perhaps there's yet hope that we'll get decent national healthcare now that there's a starting point. Wouldn't that be just awful!

[tagryn]

The GOP will get their chance when they regain control of Congress at the end of this year, as seems likely. We'll see then if they were serious about their HCR ideas like tort reform and purchasing insurance across state lines which were blocked from consideration in this round. Ideally out of the ugliness of the political process we'll reach a point where both sides will have had their chance at HRC, and the ideas that work will outlast the ones that don't.

The Democrats can take pride in having passed the initial HRC bill, even with its imperfections. Tom Delay's GOP Congress ignored the problem for their entire tenure.

Re:

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

If it weren't for the supreme court ruling about corporate contributions, I would really not expect the Republicans to gain much ground in the upcoming elections. In six months, the sky won't be falling. The tax changes won't kick in for quite some time (and no one earning under 250K/year will see a negative effect anyhow) Also, a lot of parents will likely rush to get care for their children under the new plan and once they have that, they're going to put up a fight not to give it up. From a brutally strategic view, the way the reform is deployed is pretty sharp tactically in those regards.

Now that the bill is passed, most of the drama will slip off the screen. The american public's rage is notoriously short-lived. They'll be well on to railing about something else by then.

Of course, the economy is a huge factor. If employment numbers stay down, Republicans have better odds for success. If employment improves, they would normally be good and royally f***ed. Though the corporate campaign finance is definitely a wildcard. It will certainly be bad for some things (The marijuana legalization bills on a couple of state ballots, for instance. Prisons, police, alcohol distributors, and many others have a vested interest in barring passage of those bills whereas there's little corporate support on the other side) but at a political level, it's less clear. Not all corporations are bloody evil and it's difficult to put a price tag on the kind of value the right wing has been getting from FOX News and it's ilk in the form of propaganda as things stand so it may actually do a little to level the playing field, though I'm pretty skeptical this is a likely outcome and suspect it will probably skew heavily in favor of the Republicans. Time will tell though.

Re:

[tagryn]

I think there's a natural balance/ebb-and-flow to the political stage, its always easier to energize the people who actually will volunteer, send $$$, man call centers, etc. when out of power than when in. Once a party is in, there's a natural "whew! well, we got Our Guys in there, things will be OK, I can move on to something else" reaction, whereas I think the party that's on the outside looking in can say "Did you see what THEY did? It's outrageous! Are you going to join us to stop THAT?" One's a lot more energizing than the other.

Side issue: I think the Tea Party will probably skew heavily GOP in '10, but after that its anyone's guess. Their bloodline is more in populist movements like Perot's than in either party, and they're probably going to be against the ruling party no matter who is in control. No surprise: they are a protest party at this point, they haven't had to grow into anything else yet.

Re:

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

I'd actually really like to see a third party evolve out of all this. Greater diversity could really only be good for democracy.

On the other hand, I suspect that what's likely to happen is that 'Tea Party' is just slightly rebranded version of GOP much like the difference between a Ford and Lincoln. The Tea Party doesn't seem to really have any kind of coherent message that makes it stand out from the GOP. When I try to define what they're for or against, I can't find anything that makes them unique from the GOP.

I imagine they will continue on as a brand for a little bit but when they realize that having 'Democrat, Republican, and Tea Party' on the ballot is reducing their odds of getting their way, they'll be reabsorbed back into the Libertarians and the GOP. If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch.

Re:

[tagryn]

Thanks for the reasoned reply, BTW. I may not agree with all the conclusions, but the tone is much appreciated & it gave me more to think about.