Thoughts on the ruling

I don't have a whole lot, except for amusement at the comical reactions of some of my conservative and libertarian friends. But I did post this on facebook that you might be interested in:

"A pretty good day, I suppose. I've never been particularly thrilled with the content of Obamacare, but I have also not appreciated the cafeteria Constitutionalism of opponents that decides inconvenient clauses don't exist.

The mandate was actually one of my least favorite components of the law, but in the long run it's better that we stick with the Constitution.

For those of you who (understandably) care a lot about coverage and are celebrating because of this, one thing that's worth remembering is that we really have two problems: coverage and cost. Arguably, the former depends on that latter more than the latter depends on the former. Arguably, Obamacare does much, much less for the latter.

My thought is we should have done health reform more like we did welfare reform - with substantial state-level implementation flexibility. In that sense Romney has a point, and in that sense a Romney/Obama hybrid plan probably would have been better IMO. But the future is our oyster - the world doesn't come to an end in 2012. We have a good framework, a good president, and a good ruling to build off of."

I don't know if I'll post much more on this. But obviously the discussion isn't going to end in the forseeable future and you know me - I may post after all. But, since I don't have any immediate plans to I thought I'd extend the invitation for guest posters if you want to sound off and don't have a blog of your own.