The Affordable Care Act: What happens without individual mandate? “When the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments next week about the constitutionality of the 2010 health care reform law, the most controversial element the justices will consider is the imposition of a financial penalty on people who decline to buy insurance,” write Carter Price and Christine Eibner. (USA Today)

“This week marks two years since of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and if the Obama administration has chosen to all but ignore the second anniversary of Obamacare, the rest of us should pause and reflect on just what a monumental failure of policy the health-care-reform law has been...After all, when health-care reform was passed, we were promised that it would do three things: 1) provide health-insurance coverage for all Americans; 2) reduce insurance costs for individuals, businesses, and government; and 3) increase the quality of health care and the value received for each dollar of health-care spending...Two years in, we can see that none of these things is true,” writes Cato’s Michael Tanner. (National Review)

Room for Debate asks: If redeployments were reduced, would the United States be forced to reconsider staying in Afghanistan? Could a draft spread the burden of combat and its reality to more Americans? (New York Times)

John Bolton: P.T. Barnum and the nuke talks. (New York Post)

Peter Orszag: Atlanta’s water war is first in a gathering flood. (Bloomberg)

“Federalism — the process whereby you push most political questions to the lowest democratic level possible — has been ripe on the right for years now. It even had a champion in Texas governor Rick Perry, and Ron Paul still carries that torch,” writes AEI’s Jonah Goldberg. (National Review)

The roots of the Bipartisan Policy Center: Dole on Baker and Baker on Dole. (Politico)