As to High-Court-discussed pros and cons concerning (and not
"regarding") the presently-adjudicated unconstitutionality of the
non-constitutional "Affordable Care Act" (commonly referred to as
Obamacare, or Obamacare), it should be noted that
United States citizens from coast to coast are not dependent upon
Obama nor his Obomination to supply and continue United States
citizens with amount and quality of free gravity, sunlight, and even
breathable air and drinkable water. Nor are they the
providers of good health.
Even if they, in some minute ways, attempted to regulate - with a few concocted devices - and infinitesmally mis-adjust gravity, sunlight, air, and water - and then, on top of that, impose taxation and fines or penalties using that excuse - their phenomenally puny and practically insignificant manipulations would not significantly affect nor deter the entire planet's population from continuously being provided with life-sustaining natural resources for survival having been bestowed by their Almighty Creator.
It is possible, but would similarly be non-constitutional (as some judges on the High-Court judges pointed out) enslave and constrict Americans, with some kind of Individual Mandate, to commercially buy cellphones for more prompt police and fire assistance, or have to buy commercially-purchased burial or cremation insurance.
What makes ObamaScare anti-constitutional, and completely different than widespread Social Security paycheck deductions for those having Social Security affiliation with the United States Government (in view of a general positive consensus of the vital usefulness of such, particularly for seniors unable to get entrepreneurial employment when in hospice), is that the Government (and not any private, or group of private, commercial companies or corporations), receives, processes, and disburses Social Security benefits to those who have paid into it.
Therefore, a repeal and complete abrogation of Obamascare, replaced by Scripturally-adjustabable and fraud-free cradle-to-grave Social Security and Medicare provision, administered in totality by the Government and not any private, or group of private, commercial companies or corporations, is the appropriate substitute.
The monies needed for such would first and initially be supplied, and adequate, by the amount saved by obliterating $500 billion Obamascare, refusing service to illegal aliens, and withdrawing foreign aid from countries who vote against America in the United Nations, green-energy pork projects, and with militaristic misdirected fervor blasting bullets and mortar rockets into the barren and non-inhabited sands of Afghanistan.
It is a non-constitutional integration of church and state, mosque and state, and synagogue of state . . . and a clear violation against both the anti-Establishment and the Non-Prohibition Clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution . . . to designate Obamascare to anti-Biblically fund anti-pregnancy contraceptives for fornicators and adulterers and sodomites; pay for abortion homicides; subsidize abusive and needless mammograms and side-effects-causing pharmaceuticals for drug dependents who can and should instead get their anti-toxin nutrients simply from a balanced combination of trustful faith in God, moral obedience to his Divinely-declared "Operating-Manual" directives, healthy foods and drinks, adequate rest and sleep, plus sufficient exercise.
Health insurers make a profit by going on the assumption, and (in a legitimate sense) gambling, that the premiums they get from voluntarily-contracted customers will exceed expenditures to those customers when such customers occasionally get mildly to more-severely sick or injured.
But to force gaming-by-chance-similar health insurance companies to insure everyone with so-called "pre-existing [poverty] conditions," plus forbidding coverage limitation caps, is like strong-arming managers who profit from legalized gambling casinos to dole out jackpots to every pre-existing-poverty person who enters and pulls slot-machine handles.
Those especially those who deliberately cause themselves (through their own illegal carelessness and irresponsibility) to have "pre-existing conditions" . . . and thus to blame for handicapping themselves . . . must NOT be given a free handout by sane and sensible, law-abiding, health-conscious citizens would absurdly waste their precious and hard-earned incomes mandatorily deposited into some universally-required insurance-payments pool for antisocially hostile or mischievous ne'er-do-well riffraff, and thus not "throw their pearls before swine" nor "give dogs what is holy."
The New-Testament book of Acts tells about a sort of Christian "socialism" where everyone shared everything they had and no one called anything they owned their own. But that plainly was a voluntary option, and once it was "bought into" the understood requirement was thereafter across-the-board sharing.
In that case, St Peter put it right when he stated to Ananias: "While the profits of the sale of your property was with you, did it not remain your own? But once you joined our Holy-Covenant-Share-All, and supposed to declare all that you got from that property sale saying that it was the total amount of that property sale, when it was not the total amount, why did you perjure yourself and lie about the amount withheld?"
Not everyone under Obamascare would be under obligation nor forced to commercially purchase their own commercially-available health insurance (and if not becoming penalized by the IRS), being that those very poor whose registered (in contrast to non-declared) W-4 income was under $3700 annually, OR receiving nothing but up-to-$10,000-annually birthday or other gifts, OR having their self-employment Form 1099 state that they earned less than $400 annually . . . do not even have to file Form 1040 nor Form 1040A nor Form 1040EZ, along with those not living with their spouses anytime during the year.
Even IF the IRS rules changed regarding those exemptions-of-sorts, so that everyone had to declare ALL monies annually acquired (including birthday gifts in non-serial-numbered coins or bartered goods or services), the extremely poor would, of necessity, be thrust into declaring complete bankruptcy because of having to "pay their fair share" (whatever that means or doesn't mean) into the Obamascare insurance-coverage pool.
Moreover, the touted claims of purported current(?) "benefits" of Obamascare, when it comes right down to it, are piffle and relatively insignificant...even counterproductive often times.
"Free checkups and exams for 'preventative' 'care'?" (or is it instead I.D.-disclosing and/or invasive abuse)?
"Free pharmaceutical drugs" to further debilitate addicted seniors to eventual and cumulatively-fatal side effects, without them simply relying on God-given natural remedies, good foods and drinks, trust in God, and both sufficient rest and exercise?
WHO needs such? WHO actually uses such?
"Free mammograms" (which abusive procedures males thankfully cannot have, but which generally-needless "nurse"-inflicted torture actually causes more harm to women enduring and suffering through such than they are worth)?
"Insurance coverage for [mature-adult 'children' up to age 26" (who are irresponsibly dependent upon their financially-oppressed-and-overburdened parents)?
Why "up to age 26?" Why not up to age 37? Or 44? Or even 58?
Not everyone needs Obamascare coverage in case of a rare heart or liver or kidney transplant, or some other extraordinarily-expensive operation. Not everyone becomes a crippled quadriplegic, with all the massive financial drain that involves.
"Free colonoscopies" (which many times are fatal for older seniors)?
No more Social Security checks for them!
If the failure of some of us to eat individually-mandated broccoli? makes us less healthy in a way that raises costs for others in our insurance pools, then the failure of us to eat other types of individually-mandated? vegetables, drink certain types of water, breathe certain types of air, and expose ourselves to certain amounts of sunlight also raises costs for others in our insurance pools.
The judicial remedy against the enactment of non-constitutional laws is for the High Court to deem them non-constitutional and vote out the subversives who enacted such absurd and needless laws.
None of the 50 states has ever required us to buy individually-mandated? broccoli, cell phones, cars, eat other types of individually-mandated? vegetables, drink certain types of water, breathe certain types of air, and expose ourselves to certain amounts of sunlight or anything else from the parade of horribles offered by the challengers.
Does the Commerce Clause give Congress any power to ban purchases of any product? If Congress has such power, couldn't they enact outrageous laws prohibiting us from buying broccoli, GM cars, cell phones, drink certain types of water, breathe certain types of air, and expose ourselves to certain amounts of sunlight or for that matter health insurance or even health care?
If Congress could make us buy broccoli, they cannot make us eat it. All they can do is force us to pay money to arbitrarily-selected commercial sources to procure broccoli and/or whatever else. Likewise, the health insurance mandate does not require anyone to actually get or use medical treatment. It only makes the already-impoverished pay money.