An interesting point from a blog I read:
This reasoning suggests that the penalty for failure to carry health insurance can count as a tax for constitutional purposes only if it is kept so small as to be ineffective. Justice Roberts has thus transformed what was effectively a “bug” in the ACA into a “feature” of the statute — one that is required for the Act to constitute a valid exercise of congressional power. He has damned the ACA in the process of saving it.Lots of conservatives made the point in 2010 that the system created by the law is unsustainable, and the Roberts argument in favor of constitutionality requires it to remain unsustainable. So those who argue that Republicans are "wasting time" trying to repeal the bill are wrong; the bill will have to be repealed. Unfortunately, I disagree with Thom Lambert that this was a "bug" in the bill. He writes that these requirements now make it possible to completely replace private insurance when the ACA fails. I'd say it was written this way for that very reason. Single-payer wasn't going to pass Congress, so what we got instead was a house of cards that will require single-payer to solve its problems. This was a major reason that the most transparent administration in history told us we had to pass the bill to see what was in it; because even a cursory reading (can a reading of 2,000 be anything but cursory?) shows the law to be the pile of puke that it is.