You’re correct. Orrin Hatch has raised this point, Daniel Akaka has acknowledged it, and here’s a fairly decent write-up on the issue from the Washington Post, of all places http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html.
However, even if the individual mandates are thrown out, pieces of legislation generally include “severablility provisions” which provide that the rest of the law stays in intact if one portion is found unconstitutional. That unconstitutional portion is “severed” out and the rest continues.
“That unconstitutional portion is “severed” out and the rest continues”
That’s exactly what worries the poster! Insurance companies have reluctantly endorsed reform as a quid pro quo: “we’ll accept guaranteed issue requirements IF you impose an individual mandate.” If the mandate is eliminated and guaranteed issue remains, premiums will skyrocket along with the number of uninsured. And just as the financial crisis “made” us do REALLY stupid things that we never would have considered under calmer circumstances, you can rest assured that in the resultant health crisis, Congress will leap to the rescue by placing caps on premiums or imposing other restrictions that effectively drive private plans out of business. The public plan will be the only game left in town.
Of course, the CBO never scores scenarios such as this as they are forced to assume that a pending bill will work exactly as advertised and that all provisions will be enforced by the courts.