ObamaCare and the individual mandate

Ben and I wrestle with the lawsuit against the health reform bill in our Scripps Howard column this week. My take:

Let's be clear: Conservatives didn't think the individual mandate was unconstitutional in the 1990s -- when the conservative Heritage Foundation came up with the idea, then pitched it as an alternative to President Bill Clinton's health proposals. No Tea Partiers shouted about "tyranny" just a few years ago, when GOP Gov. Mitt Romney made the requirement a centerpiece of Massachusetts' health law.

While some conservatives sincerely see the mandate as an intolerable infringement upon American freedom, it's not unreasonable to think the GOP is cynically moving the goalposts in its never-ending opposition to Democratic policy ideas -- even if those ideas were originally Republican.

The irony: The mandate was an effort to leave health insurance in the hands of private industry and avoid a true government takeover of the health care system.

During the 2009 debate, after all, many Republicans agreed reform should include a rule that insurance companies couldn't deny coverage to customers with pre-existing conditions. But that left open the likelihood people would wait to get sick before buying insurance -- saddling companies with the costs of sick patients without enough healthy customers to help pay the way. That would've driven the companies into bankruptcy and, in all likelihood, triggered the rise of a government-run "socialized" health insurance system.

So there are good policy reasons for the individual mandate. But as a political matter, many liberals recognize that the mandate is a particularly ugly way to make the sausage of health insurance reform -- more likely to trigger protests against the bill rather than make Americans grateful for the welfare state.

There less-burdensome ways to replace the individual mandate. Insurers could offer financial incentives for early sign-up and penalties for late arrivals, the way parts of Medicare work now. Other, market-friendly ideas abound. But never fear: Republicans would certainly oppose those ideas, too. They always do.

 

Reading the whole dang bill

Republicans will paralyze the Senate floor for 50 hours by forcing clerks to read every single paragraph of the 1,924-page, $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill.

Senate clerks are expected to read the massive bill in rotating shifts around the clock — taking breaks to drink water and pop throat lozenges  — to keep legislative business on track, according to a Democratic leadership aide.

via thehill.com

Mostly, I think this is cute. But if the clerks decide to skip a few paragraphs or pages here and there, who the heck is going to notice? It's not like senators -- even the Republican ones -- will be sitting in the chambers, listening to the whole thing. And I guess it's kind of funny when so much of the Congressional Record is made up of "speeches" that members never actually gave, but entered in the record. Maybe it's time Jim DeMint be forced to deliver his paeans to 3M's specialty film and media products division during actual Senate time.

About the "I (Heart) Boobies" school speech case

U.S. District Court saw some awkward moments today as a judge heard arguments about whether the word "boobies" is vulgar and therefore can be banned by school administrators.

The case came to court after the Easton School District forbid the wearing of the "I (Heart) Boobies" bracelets, and suspended two 8th grade female students who refused to remove them.

The teenagers said the word wasn't offensive to anyone, and a ban violated their right to free speech.

via philly.com

Given the Supreme Court's various precedents, I can't imagine the students will win their suit. And while I'm usually pretty staunch on the side of free speech, I do wonder what kind of *families* these kids come from -- that they'd go to court in pursuit of their right to be so flagrantly stupid. God bless the ACLU for standing up for even the most unsympathetic cases, but really: I can't muster any sympathy on this one.

NO MORE CAPS LOCK

THE END IS NIGH.

That's the message Google sent last week when it unveiled its new laptop, the Google Cr-48 notebook. The computer has all kinds of new features—Chrome OS, a simplified design, and free broadband. But perhaps the boldest change is Google's decision to ditch the Caps Lock key. In its place is a Search button, denoted with the image of a magnifying glass. Users can still designate the search key as the Caps Lock—they just have to take the time to change a few settings. But the default is that if you want capital letters, you have to hold down Shift.

via slate.com

The Cr-48 has been in my hands about a day now -- I'm blogging on it right now! -- and the lack of caps lock hasn't been an issue. I only use it for irony, anyway. And letters to the editor that end like so: WAKE UP PEOPLE!

If they want to have Jesus start waving a rainbow flag, I'm actually pretty cool with that

Anti-gay rights groups are accusing the gay rights movement of stealing the rainbow from them. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse: "We can't simply let that go by. Families put rainbows in their children's nurseries. Little Christian preschools will have rainbows...Noah's Ark and all the animals.... Those are great Christian symbols, great Jewish symbols."

via talkingpointsmemo.com

Me @Macworld: Flipboard adds Google Reader support, array of new features

Flipboard announced Thursday that it’s adding Google Reader support to its iPad application, part of a major and much-anticipated upgrade to an offering that has already been named Apple’s App of the Year for 2010.

via macworld.com

I'm pretty excited about this one.

Gail Collins on Boehner's tears

Besides the crying gap between men and women, there’s also one between Republicans and Democrats. On the one hand, you have the folks who can’t afford tears because it makes them look weak, and on the other, the people who are presumed to be tough and hard-nosed, for whom crying is an attractive sign of complexity.

Boehner is opposed to extending unemployment benefits for the jobless, and he wants to kill off the law that guarantees health coverage to all Americans. So you know when he starts weeping when his wife says she’s “real proud” of him, it’s not a sign of softness.

In 2007, he cried while delivering a speech on the floor of the House, in support of funding for the war in Iraq. “After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on?” he sobbed.

Then this year, he voted against providing money to take care of our fellow citizens who became ill while doing rescue and reclamation work at ground zero after the terrorist attack.

Twice.

via nytimes.com