Krauthammer predicted this a month ago. He said that the democrat hold-outs would cave in, basically because that’s what democrats do. I never really had any doubt that he was correct. That IS what democrats do.
It’s also what Rinos do. It is what makes Romney so dangerous.
I guarantee you that if a (God forbid) President Romney had a supermajority in both houses and a bill to sign revoking national health care that he would NOT sign it.
No matter what anyone says at this point, I believe the only way to turn this back is to have the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional. Since they didn’t use reconciliation, the only constitutional argument they have is the forcing of Americans to buy something.
One democrat pointed out last night that the commerce clause has already been used to force us to buy things. I don’t know what those things are. Does anyone have any idea?
Seatbelts? Helmets? Car insurance? I don’t think so. I think those are all state.
What?
You lawyers: what is the argument regarding unconstitutionality? Who has standing to advance it? How STRONG of an agument is it?
The same question occurred to me. How did we get into the current situation where it's customary for employers to offer health insurance? Wasn't there some Federal mandate for employers of a certain workforce size either to offer it or pay a tax? This isn't quite the same because the commerce clause can be used here to involve the employers because their businesses are "deemed" to touch interstate commerce. Also the employee can choose to skip the insurance without any penalty.