David Leonhardt has a new column highlighting how the historical tension between the two American traditions of laissez-faire and progressivism have led conservatives to oppose every expansion of the social safety net from Social Security to Medicare, and of course, the Affordable Care Act:

The federal income tax, a senator from New York said a century ago, might mean the end of “our distinctively American experiment of individual freedom.” Social Security was actually a plan “to Sovietize America,” a previous head of the Chamber of Commerce said in 1935. The minimum wage and mandated overtime pay were steps “in the direction of Communism, Bolshevism, fascism and Nazism,” the National Association of Manufacturers charged in 1938.

After Brown v. Board of Education outlawed school segregation in 1954, 101 members of Congress signed a statement calling the ruling an instance of “naked judicial power” that would sow “chaos and confusion” and diminish American greatness. A decade later, The Wall Street Journal editorial board described civil rights marchers as “asking for trouble” and civil rights laws as being on “the outer edge of constitutionality, if not more.”

This year’s health care overhaul has now joined the list.

In this sense, the 20 or so legal challenges and the conservative opposition to reform is in no way unusual. But what’s still unique about this effort, I would argue, is how Republicans are still re-litigating the health reform debate after losing the legislative struggle.

As James Morone — a professor of political science at Brown University — told Lester Feder back in June, “interest groups always continued to fight to get the best deal possible in implementation. But that’s very different from it being Democrats versus Republicans or liberals versus conservatives.” “I’m not sure the Democrats have been quite this insistent after losing legislation. To have the Republican Party be this forceful about a position after the normal political process has run its course is pretty extraordinary.”

And, Republicans are doing all of this with an incredible amount of passion. Repealing the law has become the GOP’s top priority and if you speak to Republican staffers on the hill, they’ll tell you that their bosses will never, ever, accept that reform has become law and will work very hard to repeal the measure. “Why should we accept something that’s unconstitutional,” they ask. There may be a long history of opposition to progressive ideas, but I don’t’ think it’s ever been this well pronounced or coordinated after a major legislative victory.

Earlier today, Republicans twice objected to repealing the 1099 reporting requirement, which would require small businesses to report transactions of more than $600 to the IRS. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) tried to attach the repeal provision to the just-passed tax compromise but Republicans — who have argued that the provision would burden small businesses — struck down the request. Separately, Sen. Max Baucus’ (D-MT) attempted to move the Senate to consider a repeal measure was also shot down after Republicans requested to replace his amendment with a Republican alternative offered by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE):

STABENOW: I would ask for another 10 seconds to offer a unanimous consent request in order to set aside the second degree amendment to the Reid McConnell substitute to offer an amendment number 4773 that would repeal the 1099 reporting requirement for small business.

KYL: I object.

Watch a compilation of the two objections:

Ultimately, this isn’t very surprising, since Republicans see the 1099 repeal issue as a good way to start the ball rolling on unwinding the health care law and a convenient way to frame their more general argument about the Affordable Care Act. The administration and Congressional Democrats have all condemned the provision as burdensome and overreaching and Republicans are hoping to extend that argument to the entire law. In this sense, the longer the 1099 remains an issue, the better.

What’s more, including the amendment in this tax compromise would could allow both parties to take credit for the measure. Should it pass individually — in the way that Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) has suggested — the party can wrap themselves in small business respectability and use it to build momentum to go after other provisions in the law.

The only substantive difference between the Johanns and Baucus amendments is that Johanns is paid for and Baucus isn’t. But given the fact that Republicans supported an overall tax agreement that would add some $850 billion to the deficit, their objection to the Baucus bill shouldn’t be taken too seriously. But even if we do, Johanns can simply do what Baucus tried — go to the Senate floor and attach his measure to the tax agreement. Asked why he’s not interested in doing so, a spokesperson for the Senator said Johanns respects the “framework” of the existing agreement.

Since Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, several progressives — some of whom have long opposed the measure — proposed alternatives to the provision. Jon Walker of Firedoglake offers the most comprehensive list (which I’ve shortened a bit below):

1. Single Payer/Medicare for all – The constitutionality of the government taxing people and using that money to provide a service is not in doubt.

2. Add a public option or Medicare buy-in – If you want to leave the new health care law basically intact, all you need to do is add a public option or Medicare buy-in.

3. Default enrollment in a basic public insurance plan – Instead of the mandate, the government could create a very basic default insurance plan. If you fail to get health insurance through other means, the government would automatically place you in the default public plan and charge you a special tax to pay for it.

4. Back premium payments – The point of the individual mandate is to eliminate the incentive to hold off buying insurance until you get sick, but this can be dealt with using other systems besides a government-imposed fee for not buying a private product or even a public program.

5. Temporary higher deductibles for late sign ups – If an individual signs up for insurance after previously being uninsured, the company could be given the right to charge them a dramatically higher deductible for the first five months they are insured.

6. Multi-year waiver – This is an idea put forward by Paul Starr that should eliminate Hudson’s constitutional objections. If the individual doesn’t want to pay the mandate penalty, they wouldn’t be forced to as long as they sign away their right to guaranteed issue, community ratings, and subsidies for a set period of time, like five years.

7. Open enrollment period – You can have one month open enrollment period each year. People who sign up that month get the basic rate. The insurance companies would be allowed to charge a set higher premium for people who sign up at any other point for the rest of that year.

8. Extremely strong employer mandate – Even if forcing an individual to buy a private product is declared unconstitutional, it is likely a tough employer mandate regulation couldn’t be declared an over-extension of the Commerce Clause.

Since there is no guarantee that the mandate will pass muster at the Supreme Court, I’m happy to see that we’re discussing alternatives to encouraging healthier individuals to take up coverage and join the risk pool. But it’s worth pointing out that not only are the aforementioned ideas politically unlikely — to put it very mildly — but they would also cover less people than the individual requirement (because of lower participation and higher premiums caused by the lack of healthy people in the risk people.)

I spent some time this morning looking for real coverage numbers, but economists I’ve contacted who typically model these things told me that no such estimate existed. Unfortunately, it is very hard to “score” these alternatives. We know that they would definitely cover fewer people, but we don’t know how many. One big advantage with the mandate is that we have experience in Massachusetts where, as Austin Frakt pointed out yesterday (at the ever expanding Incidental Economist), 98 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance.

So, one additional solution would be to encourage states to adopt their own version of the individual mandate. Another, as Aaron Carroll points out this morning, would be to add the “penalty” for failing to buy coverage to the tax deal currently moving through Congress.

But in considering these solutions it’s worth remembering that not all mandate replacements are created equal. Most of these ideas would cover far fewer people than the mandate and would thus create a far less progressive bill than what we have today.