I hesitated to come back and throw out a bunch of told-you-sos, but I'm going to do it anyway. Virtually every Union has been granted a waiver from implementing the law for the next 2 years. As has GM, which conveniently enough has a CEO that's beholden to the president. The law will be ruled unconstitutional, period. You cannot regulate economic inactivity! If you have not read the Virginia judge's ruling in its entirety, you really should. Don't rely on the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Jon Stewart, or FOX News to tell you what to think. It's a beautifully written defense of the federalist system. Imagine for a moment the precedent this would set (and recall that I specifically warned this would happen); affirmation of the law's constitutionality would grant the federal government the right to regulate money YOU haven't spent yet! In other words, laws could be passed demanding that you buy something with this law as a precendent. Note that this is different than taxation. The argument that this judge is an "activist" is nothing less than a hysterical reaction meant to insult the average person's intelligence and the definition of judicial activism. I believe the judge put it best when he said he could hardly imagine a scenario where a country that was in part founded because of Britain's mandate to buy a certain amount of tea and/or salt would permit government to mandate that citizens purchase a good or service. I warned that the result of this law would not result in a shift to the political left in this country, but a HARD push to the RIGHT. Anyone care to disagree that this is happening in states across the country? If you buy the spin that the elections were about "general discontent with the economy," then you're fooling yourself. Only a sudden turnout by unions in Nevada saved Harry Reid, and Joe Manchin from West Virginia ran as a Democrat in open defiance of Cap and Trade; plus he tap-danced around where he stood on the health care law itself. The complete dominance by the right in state-houses across the country in a census year will doom the left's political outlook for generations. 26 states are suing the federal government saying this law is an infringement on their sovereignty and is not financially sustainable. I warned that the law was so sloppily done and done in so much secrecy that it would undo itself. That's exactly why the entire law fails if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional. Because the law had to be "deemed" as passed, severability could not be established and was not included in the final bill. Now even the good things about the law will be wiped away when the individual mandate fails. This bill is such a budget-buster that the Democrats, for the first time in history, didn't even present a budget outline last year, and the president's budget this year has been mocked by the likes of The Economist as "laughable" and "unserious." And by the way, Gitmo is still open, Cap and Trade is dead, the government wants an Libyan-style Internet "kill-switch," we're still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Middle East is on the verge of a complete collapse, gas prices are projected to be $5 per gallon by summer, the Stimulus Bills were complete failures (unless you define the goals of the bills as political payoffs to unions, in which case they were successful), and now even Unions themselves are at risk of losing their grip over public employees. By the way, representation of public employees by a union is not a constititionally-protected right; further, the unions themselves happily made concessions on wages, but what they're REALLY stoked about is that the states will no longer act as their dues-collectors. Think about this for a moment; states collect union dues from public employees on behalf of the unions, and the unions then almost exclusively support Democratic lawmakers who themselves then "negotiate" union compensation with the people that funded their campaigns! Don't YOU wish you only paid 5% of your health-care costs?? I personally do not view private-sector unions in the same light; while not Constitutionally protected, I view it as a right to peaceably assemble-further, these companies agreed to union contracts by their own right so they have no room to complain. What choice did anyone have in making public-employees eligible for union representation? If you're still a fan of this mess, then that's your right. But the argument that "something had to be done" is akin to saying that the best way to solve the problem of bugs in apples is to demonize the apples themselves so that people just won't buy any.