Yes, I can hear many conservative friends saying to me right around this point: "Jim, we agree with you that ObamaCare is going to wreck the country, but elections have consequences." I have three responses [...]We had to wait several election cycles to end the Republican war in Iraq, because that's how democracy works. The party in power implements stuff, and if people don't like it, they take it out on that party at the polls. It's called D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y.
[T]he lives of most Americans are not dominated by the electoral cycle. They shouldn't have to wait three more years for Congress to give them relief from this law, especially when the president has so frequently given waivers to his friends. Full legislative repeal may not be possible while President Obama remains in office, but delaying implementation by withholding funds from a law that is proven to be unfair, unworkable and unaffordable is a reasonable and necessary fight.
DeMint dismisses the 2012 elections as a "mistrial on ObamaCare" which is rich. If it was a "mistrial," it was because Republican primary voters didn't care enough about the issue to nominate one of the architects of Obamacare, Mitt Romney, and the American public didn't consider it the second coming of Hitler. But the law was certainly litigated.
But the more fundamental problem here is DeMint's utter rejection of our nation's democracy. He doesn't like something, he shouldn't have to use the democratic procedures enshrined in the Constitution he (and every teabagger) claims to revere. Wait for the next election? That's for chumps!
Expect their hostility toward democracy to grow as demographic changes make it harder for them to win anything outside of rural and southern states and heavily gerrymandered districts.