BUS YOUR OWN TRAY

Bears Hunted

The Joys of Blocking Medicare

Ask a Clean-Souled Person

Listicle Without Commentary: Reagan’s Jellybeans, In Order

The Moon Is Terrible (Because It’s Associated With Women)

Korean Christian Punk Songs From the 90s

Don’t Feed Feral Cats Because Then They’ll Never Look For A Job

If You Like Drynuary, You’ll Love Abstaintober

Get Your Chocolate Out Of My Peanut Butter, Obama

How A Yelp Review Brought Me Closer To Jesus

Saturday Night’s Children: Victoria Jackson

And Iran, Iran So Far Away

Qongress

1. What we really wanted was a single-payer system, anyway.

2. Even if you preferred the mandate to single-payer, the bill that got passed was rushed and pretty sloppy because of it.

3. It makes it harder for Republicans to privatize social security. They won’t be able to force you to put money into a private savings account. It also makes it harder for Republicans to do crazy Republican things, like forcing every man and woman to own a gun. 

4. Republicans will be less likely to show up to vote in November. Obamacare is a rallying cry, and if it’s no longer an issue and Mitt Romney is the nominee, there’s no reason for Tea Partiers to get out of bed that day. Unless, of course, there’s a Matlock marathon on TBS. James Carville agrees that this helps Obama.

5. The Court will probably leave the “no discriminating against pre-existing conditions” part untouched. We’ll just have to find another way to pay for it.

6. An encroachment on liberty is an encroachment on liberty, even if it is for the common good.

5. The Declaration of Independence And What It Expects From You!

4. Why Abstinence Works & How It Can Work For You!

3. Glee: Songs, Sex, & Sleaze

2. Ronald Regan [sic!], Our First Black President?

1. Understanding Liberals

(Yes, it’s a real thing.) (via)

jasencomstock:

your analogy is not correct.

The Government’s argument to the constitutional individual mandate’s constitutionality is that persons not purchasing health care have an effect negative on the whole- despite the fact that society as a whole still currently pays for care if you don’t have insurance. the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that regulating behavior that has this effect is constitutional.

Yes, but only in the context of restricting goods or services from the stream of commerce. This is forcing people into the stream of commerce. Different thing.

Fair point on the Goldman analogy, but my analogy of a tax penalty for not making a mortgage payment still holds up. Everyone is affected by the housing market whether they rent or own. Failure to pay your mortgage affects everyone. But it’s still a private matter.

Better yet, what about Congress forcing you to put money into a savings account?

the-lost-texan:

Since no individual exists outside being a participant in the health care industry (anyone can get sick at anytime or fall victim to a serious accident) this is a fair use of the commerce clause.  

No individual exists outside of the banking system either. I’m really liking this savings account analogy now. 

mikehudack:

There you go with your intellectual consistency and honesty again. Can’t you just blindly support your president and party in the face of an overwhelming assault by the forces of evil? This is the problem with Democrats.

My apologies, comrade. How much should I deposit into Bank of America

If Congress has the power to force people to buy insurance, then doesn’t Congress also have the power to force people to invest in Goldman Sachs?

The rationale would be the same. More people buying into the insurance pool results in economic benefits for everyone, and Goldman is too big to fail so preventing it’s failure results in economic benefits for everyone.

I don’t like the idea that Congress can force me to invest in Goldman Sachs.

Or what about Congress levying a tax penalty if someone doesn’t make a mortgage payment? I’m trying to figure out what exactly is the nature of my objection other than “where do you draw the line.”

Insight! (cc: Matt Langer)