God I love that woman...

They're saying that reconciliation is being used to pass the bill. My understanding is that it would be passed by super-majority before reconciliation ever enters the equation... ie, it would only alter a bill that had already been passed. Is this incorrect?

Also, what is unconstitutional about the individual mandate? It seems that would depend on the implementation. If it is a set-amount tax for everyone, and then a tax "rebate" of the same amount for people with health insurance, then I'm not sure I understand how that would be unconstitutional.

It seems like that would make a lot of tax incentives unconstitutional, but perhaps the mandate has a different structure.

@Psychologic, you're pretty much on the mark about reconciliation. The main bill already passed the Senate under regular order with 60 votes (pre-Brown). They're going to pass a second, smaller bill that modifies the Senate bill under reconciliation. Then the House will vote on both bills, and send both to the President's desk where the Senate bill will be signed, then the reconciliation "sidecar" will be signed shortly thereafter.

The mandate is technically set up as an excise tax on the "luxury" of not carrying health insurance. That seems a bit weird to me, but your way would presumably work just as well. A straight 2% increase in income tax, with a 2% income tax break for people who have health insurance would work fine.

Disembowels? Really?

You're seriously doing that even after the Daily Show bit?

^ I assumed it was intentional. =)

Do you think it'll make a difference?

As I have said before, the people who vote for these hypocrites don't have the brain capacity to recognize it, and the damage it does to our country. They can say whatever they want, as long as it is what their constituents want to hear at the moment, that is all that matters. In fact, they would be voted out of office for telling the truth, because their people don't want to hear the truth, and will not believe the truth.