>Ok, so the Supreme Court will have to rule on this now. However, for now couldn't they just remove those pieces that are unconstitutional (the requirement to purchase) and leave in the good stuff like no caps on coverage, senior rebates, no refusal of coverage, insurance pools, requirement to allow children to stay on their parents' insurance plan, etc that are not in violation of the constitution?
>
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576116361022463224.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

In a word, no.

In a few more words : From Judge Vinson's ruling:
In considering this issue, I note that the defendants have acknowledged that the individual mandate and the Act’s health insurance reforms, including the guaranteed issue and community rating, will rise or fall together as these reforms “cannot be severed from the [individual mandate].” See, e.g., Def. Opp. at 40. As explained in my order on the motion to dismiss: “the defendants concede that [the individual mandate] is absolutely necessary for the Act’s insurance market reforms to work as intended. In fact, they refer to it as an ‘essential’ part of the Act at least fourteen times in their motion to dismiss.”
...
The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law. “Where Congress includes [particular] language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed that the [omitted provision] was not intended.” Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23-24, 104 S. Ct. 296, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1983). In other words, the severability clause was intentionally left out of the Act. The absence of a severability clause is further significant because the individual mandate was controversial all during the progress of the legislation and Congress was undoubtedly well aware that legal challenges were coming. Indeed, as noted earlier, even before the Act became law, several states had passed statutes declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and purporting to exempt their residents from it; and Congress’ own attorneys in the CRS had basically advised that the challenges might well have legal merit as it
was “unclear” if the individual mandate had “solid constitutional foundation.” See CRS Analysis, supra, at 3. In light of the foregoing, Congress’ failure to include a severability clause in the Act (or, more accurately, its decision to not include one that had been included earlier) can be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized the Act could not operate as intended without the individual mandate.


Here's the whole 78 pages. Enjoy!
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html