The S.G. did start off badly, but got better. Really, probably deserved better though. I don't know why they needed two hours. It didn't seem like that much productive was done with the extra time. Little on the tax power. The "it is clearly a direct tax" argument was just tossed there. No one really cared about the blatant b.s. that it was so crystal clear that Hamilton/Madison would have thought a tax based on income and choices you make regarding behavior is a tax "directly" on people. The third advocate seemed particularly gratuitous. The conservative four started at the S.G. early on with various talking points that were refuted ad nauseam various places long before now, Scalia really coming off as lame.
Some thought Roberts (some real questions for the opponents) and Kennedy are goners, but I'm am not ready to sign them both off. Sotomayor was helpful (Breyer was strongly pro-government here, rightly so, but on some level, who cares? we expect him to be). Kennedy at one point noted -- perking up the S.G. on what I see as a core irony (among other things) -- that if the government could just do basically the same thing via the tax power, it makes some sense to give it flexibility. I still don't see what difference it makes if the same thing is done via a tax break. Why exactly will it concern people if not having insurance will cause the same monetary burden under a different name? It's moronic really.
Ginsburg raised Social Security, noting many didn't want to be "mandated" to get that either. Alito badly played insurance analyst. There was little evidence he was much of a "yes" vote. Thomas didn't ask a question. I think a supporter would be quite worried early on; things got more cloudy later on. This makes tomorrow's severability argument (ninety minutes) of particular importance since if merely the individual requirement is overturned but not guaranteed issue, it would be limited f-up time. There are various methods used to spread the cost and insurance pressure might exactly result in Congress finding an alternative by 2014, even some form of tax measure that you know does the same thing with the right "magic words" used.
I'm sort of with the person here in noting that part of what the confusion is about is that -- as Sotomayor noted was noted by Marshall back in the early 19th Century -- the commerce power is plenary in itself.* Trying to form a "limiting principle" is like trying to limit the war power (btw is a "police action" not really a "war" under that?) by saying you need one or you will attack major nations that didn't attack you. This still isn't a "plenary police power," since it has to be tied to commerce, which this very well is. Not that the S.G. didn't offer other limits, besides those found in the Constitution (Bill of Rights etc.) or political in nature.
Anyway, things end up with the sleeper Medicaid issue.
---
* So, it is not necessary to limit things to "cost shifting" for individual users of health care. Health care is like 1/6 of the national economy and it affects things in any number of ways, though not all as directly as individuals purchasing care themselves. It is folly to pretend that the feds do not have the power to act as they did here, even if (like defense) the result is a whole lot of regulations, potential or otherwise.