Sooner, rather than later...

Because the sooner you go back to the drawing board, the sooner you have a chance to make a credible policy, once the funding stool that is non-consumers-paying-mandated-premiums is kicked out from under the ACA, the whole thing falls. People are already used to the proposed promises -- hard to take away entitlements they say, painful to people who have become dependent on them, especially think of the children!-- and then surely you'll see whining in the streets, maybe some violence too, when people can't just take what they want from other people's pockets...

Appeals Court Strikes Health Insurance Requirement
A federal appeals court has struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law.
...
The states and other critics say the law violates people's rights. The Justice Department counters that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.

An appeals court and three federal judges have upheld the law, and two have invalidated it. Experts say the debate ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

ADDED:
Law professor Jonathan Adler comments:

Some prominent academics have argued that the individual mandate is a clearly constitutional exercise of the federal government’s taxing power. Some of these same academics have argued that opponents of the individual mandate’s constitutionality are well outside the legal mainstream. Yet as of today, there has not been a single federal court — indeed, perhaps not even a single federal judge — who has accepted the taxing power argument. Not a one. And yet a half-dozen federal judges have found the mandate to be unconstitutional. So which arguments are outside of the mainstream again?

and Law Professor Ilya Somin:

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued a 2–1 ruling striking down the individual mandate in a suit brought by 26 state governments, the National Federation of Independent Business, and others. This is the first court of appeals decision striking down the mandate, and creates a circuit split with the recent Sixth Circuit decision going the other way. The opinion is available here. It’s easily the most important victory for the anti-mandate side so far.

Significantly, Judge Frank Hull, a Clinton appointee has now become the first Democratic-appointed judge to vote to strike down the mandate, balancing Republican Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton who voted to uphold it. The decision further undermines claims that the individual mandate suit is a sure loser that goes against a supposed expert consensus that the mandate is clearly constitutional.

It is now extremely likely that the Supreme Court will end up hearing the case, as the Court cannot allow a situation where the mandate is valid in some parts of the country but not in others.

P.S. Have I ever given the impression on this blog that I'm sorry I gained a law school education for myself? I'm not. With a Bachelor of Science in journalism from a reputable school (NU), we learned how to ask hard questions and how to write clearly. (NU focused primarily on a print education, believing that was the foundation of all media jobs -- writing well.)

Now, it's pretty much impossible to bullshit someone with a basic knowledge of the Constitution, precedent, and how the government works (much different than how laypeople/media think the government is supposed to work. That's why one can see Citizens United was clearly not a judicial powergrab, as so many media libs would have you believe. (You don't have to be a believer in a Strong First Amendment, as I most definitely am, to understand the Court got that one correct either. Just have to turn off the whining spin, and understand why it would not be a good thing if the Court had instead stifled speech; McCain-Feingold definitely overreached.)

Also helps explain, clearly, that the Bush v. Gore decision was an overreaching powergrab, not consistent with precedent, which would have had them kick the decision back to the state court of Florida, to determine the winner. No need for the Court to ever have stepped into that cowpile.)

Plus, even if you're pro-choice, a good course in Constitutuional Law will cure you of the idea that Roe v. Wade was properly decided too... Talk about making it up as you go ... the "penumbral" thinking -- clearly a lot of people got away with a lot of things in the free-wheeling 70s. Today, and not just for political reasons, but because the judiciary has been forced to dispense with the "creative" decisionmaking ("Do you choose this white doll to play with, little black girl, because you feel inferior to whites and only a total revamp of our country's educational system will help you overcome". Why of course we need to rule in this child's favor...)

Again, while you might like the results, it really does pay to play close attention to how they're manipulating things, only in some Very Special Cases, to get the results one desires. A solid legal education -- even if you use the books and materials in your own way, reading that not assigned, and following informational leads past required readings -- pays off, if only because it makes you a more educated citizen, and clearly, a more cautious consumer.

Who knows? One day, the premiums you save, just might be your own! So yeah, totally worth it. (Even if I might have done better to initially pass on UW's full scholarship, and explore my options at Marquette...)