John, there are several inaccuracies here. Your characterization on "checks and balances" and "end run" are ironic, given the history of how AHCA was jammed through in violation of the Constitution. I'm going to provide some history, and then I'm going to ask you some specific questions.

The Supreme Court in fact ruled that AHCA as written was unconstitutional. Roberts himself stated that the individual mandate cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause, which only allows Congress to regulate commerce, NOT TO ORDER INDIVIDUALS TO ENGAGE IN IT (emphasis mine).

But he then gave the mandate legitimacy by writing that Congress could tax those with a tax penalty who earned an income but declined to enroll. In effect, he tried to provide a political solution. And here is the fundamental flaw in Roberts' decision (which has been ripped by constitutional experts). First, he gave definition to the enforcement as a tax, something that Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and others argued it was absolutely not. But even aside from this blatant judicial overreach, his decision violates the Origination Clause, which states that all new taxes must originate in the U.S. House of Representatives. AHCA originated in the Senate. Because Democrats maintained all along in Congress that AHCA was NOT a tax, the legitimacy (or not) of ACHA as a tax was never explored in the House!!!

So much for checks and balances. (Additionally, the AHCA as passed into law never received a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate)

It is patently obvious that ACHA is nothing but a tax shell game and a method for collecting govt revenue, for which the Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause. Obama's absolute refusal to negotiate a delay on the mandate is proof positive of that - he knows that any delay will reduce the amount of revenue he can steal from young healthy people. So AHCA's enactment was induced by fraud — a tax shell game disguised as legislation so Obama could state it wasn't a tax - and then re-branded by the Supreme Court "post facto" and thus a participant in the fraud.

John, these are compelling arguments against claims that AHCA is constitutional and that efforts to repeal it are "end-runs".

It is also a fact that a greater % of Americans oppose AHCA and the mandate, than the % of Americans who voted for Obama in 2012. Even liberal media outlets acknowledge this. The House Republicans who are trying to repeal AHCA or even delay the mandate are, in fact, representing the strong interests of their constituency. With each passing year, the votes to defund ObamaCare have included an increasing number of House Democrats. Even labor unions oppose AHCA.

Yes, Americans (sadly) re-elected Obama in 2012. I submit that many who voted for him would have voted differently had they been able to foresee events in 2013 (payroll tax increasing, lies by the administration on sequestration, lies on illegal immigrants with criminal records being released, lies on IRS targeting of the Tea Party, and the false promises of AHCA). Obama also won because the Republicans just didn't have a good candidate. Just like the Democrats could have won in 2004 with a good moderate candidate over a very weak incumbent, same can be said for the Republicans in 2012.

So John, I have some questions.

1) Barack Obama has often stated that health care is a right. There are tax penalties (that will get higher over the years) for not enrolling. Fundamentally, in a free society, how can someone have a "right" and yet suffer penalty for electing not to exercise that right?

2) How can you defend the ACHA as written as constitutional, when...
- The Supreme Court ruled that the mandate (as written) was not protected by the commerce clause?
- The attempt to provide a loophole (by stating the penalty for not enrolling is a "tax") violates the U.S. Origination (Revenue) Clause?

3) A related question - if the Supreme Court states that the individual mandate can only be sustained as a tax, should it not pass the Constitution’s tests for valid taxation (which would mean a full vote in the U.S. Congress)?

4) How can you blast the Republicans in the House of Representatives for fighting for repeal (or even delay) of a mandate that is clearly unpopular with a majority of Americans and extremely unpopular with U.S. Physicians?

5) How can you attack House Republicans by stating, "ACHA is the law", when the Obama administration has frequently changed the laws (without going to Congress), based on his ability to tolerate political pressure? Why is Obama against negotiations of any kind on the individual mandate, when he has changed so many other aspects of the law through executive orders???

ACHA is a total disaster - and being administered by the IRS at a time when the credibility of the IRS is zero.

Final note: there are still numerous lawsuits in Federal Court over AHCA, including lawsuits by doctors that the mandate violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Many predict that when taxes start happening, the lawsuits will increase.