[WS:] Two observations:
1. It is paradoxical that conservatives argue a more "liberal" position (i.e. one limiting federal power to mandate private purchases) than Democrats who passed the abominable health care reform.
2. This case provides a good illustration of the argument that I made earlier on this list about the legal limits to any reforms. In the unlikely event of the administration (or congress) passing a truly progressive reform, it is virtually certain that this reform would be effectively challenged and gutted in courts. In this light, expending political capital on passing a truly progressive reform would be a really bad strategic decision. That may explain why O wanted to proceed cautiously and build "bipartisan support."
It seems, however, that O strategy that relied on dubious innovations such as introduction of a federal mandate to buy private insurance will backfire, if the SCOTUS rules against it (and I hope it does.) A far safer approach would have been simply to expand the Medicare program which, although opposed by Blue Dog Democrats, would not face any legal challenges.
It seems that O's administration turned to be neither good strategists nor good tacticians - they wanted to play it safe, but in the end they face losing it all. And the irony is that I would not mind if they did.
Wojtek