There is a well known (for those in the know) comic strip concerning the person stressed out that someone on the Internet is wrong, believing it is his/her duty to prove it. I fall under this spell at times and certain issues really touch my buttons in that department, leading me to start taking breaks from various blogs that specifically stress me out in that sense. The ACA, apparently the true threat to freedom for some people (as limiting abortion rights, inequalities inflicted on gays, etc. do not, such selectivity leading "libertarians" to favor Perry over Obama), is a major cause of annoyance here. This includes the use of the term "Obamacare," when actual Medicare isn't named after LBJ, who had more to do with it than Obama did the PPACA.
Three appellate courts decided on this issue and the majorities of two (the outlier the conservative 11th, where a Reagan appointee took the Charles Fried sane route) held (or in case of the 4th, argued, the cases decided on standing) it to be constitutional. The standing route might actually be what is used by the Supreme Court, having the added charm of being the most reasonable route in deciding something that would not even be applied for years. Now, there are various parts of the law that are in place now, though some on the left who complain Obama et. al. didn't do anything of note repeatedly ignore it. On the don't worry about one Internet idiot front, unfortunately, this reflects the thoughts of a certain group of idiots.
Most of the excitement here has been over a single aspect of the law -- the requirement of some people to pay money (collected by the tax system -- the law goes out of its way to take other routes like garnishing or seizure of property out of the picture) if they don't have insurance. Not a particular brand (like all those "GM car" or broccoli hypos), mind you, and lots of people do not even have to purchase or even have insurance. The idea that the insurance requirement ("mandate" never used*) holds even if you aren't penalized (and various people, such as religious dissenters, aren't covered even there) is silly, since if you don't have anything done to you, what sort of burden is it? All the same, other aspects (again, there are many more provisions) are affected as the recent district court ruling showed, if the insurance tax/penalty falls, "provisions mandating community rating and banning exclusions based on preexisting conditions are also [logically] void."
Is it not fitting that "Bachman" is in the title of the case? The argument, working off the summary in the previous link, is telling, if tiresome in a "yet again, this is b.s." sort of way. The exception is that the court, as did the one appellate court that struck down the provision (the so-called mandate; see footnote), rejected the action/inaction test that is brought out by some opponents as a type of golden rule that unfortunately for them no one really heard of until recently. Still, the judge tries to find some other artificial dividing line (that arguably is the same line in new dress) to limit the government, since without it, apparently the Commerce Clause won't have a limit or something. The fact that the legislation already has limits (e.g., regulation of an economic interstate market) is not good enough. Some new limit much be found. The message I get from the summary is that Congress should not try to be innovative since new legislation will be struck down since old powers are being used in new ways.
I remain convinced by analysis, including each opinion in this case, that refutes such arguments for the unconstitutionality of the ACA provision. Regulation of those who are not "in" the insurance market can be in place if necessary and proper for the overall security of the market, particularly if it is eminently reasonable that the person will enter it. The choice to risk it and go it alone DOES affect the interstate market. The person who does so also chooses to be involved in alternative commercial activity with an interstate reach, particularly the average person who does so while working in some business that falls under federal powers over commerce. The health market in particular is so, providing one of many limits, and unlike mere possession of guns near schools (Lopez) or violence against women (Morrison) has a clear interstate reach.
I don't think this is a close constitutional question, even if one thinks the policy at stake is ill advised. The tax argument, even though most of the judges have avoided if not rejected it, remains in my mind quite strong as well. Suddenly thinking this is that nebulous thing (outside of a few things), the "direct tax," or some other convoluted argument is not convincing. At some point, especially given the insistent tossing out of canards ("everyone" has to "purchase" insurance, forcing us to buy something from private vendors is somehow unconstitutional, some sort of horrible "commandeering" is going on here, people really aren't in or directly affecting the insurance market enough to federally regulate it ["ridiculous to so claim!"], this isn't a tax, etc.), it gets annoying. "Obamacare" is a well used trope by the Republican Party in particular as if helping millions to have health care in a way that if anything is too conservative is some threat to liberty. It is outrageous. And, badly reasoned constitutional law.
Anyway, same sex marriage and the ACA business is getting mighty old. We need new fodder. But, that is not how it works, huh? The same old themes tend to come up again and again.
---
* As the helpful ACA Litigation Blog notes regarding the recent district court ruling striking down the provision: "There actually is no mandate as such. Individuals actually are not required to acquire health insurance. If they so choose, they can pay the applicable penalty instead." [See here for the discussion of the update, though I think the point still holds. The two are connected.]