In summary, Esquire pretty much sums up what I'd be saying about the obstructionist do-nothings in the House of Reprehensibles: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/S
If there is an argument to be made against the half-assed solution that the ACA represents, it's that it's half-assed, and not a true single-payer program. Every other argument against it sounds like variations on the theme of "fuck the poor people," and that's not how I roll, nor a society in which I am proud to participate.
I have seen numerous arguments in several flavors of stupid this morning from people trying to denounce or cripple the ACA (it's illegal, it's Obama's fault the budget isn't being passed, death panels, ad foxium), and the only one with a modicum of traction was "It's got 14th Amendment (Commerce Clause) problems."
On the subject of the personal mandate, let's pry the lid off that:
Do you have to have car insurance, if your car is under lien? How about homeowner's insurance if you're still paying off your mortgage? Pretty much anywhere you live, you are required to carry insurance because some third party is owed money on something of value in your possession... that is, yes, required by the states (so, in the States' Rights argument (which I was refuting, becase a Bookface commenter was drawing parallels to the ACA and the grounds for the Civil War, because hyperbole sometimes gives Hitler the day off), you would be OK with the states requiring this, but not the central government?). Those insurance requirements aren't for your protection, they are to protect the debts you owe.
Put it like that, and who benefits from someone's good health? The individual, obviously, but not their creditors if they need to pay for treatment out of pocket on plastic or with a home equity loan or incur some other debt... their employers benefit as well, because they're healthy and working, but not the insurance companies who have to pay for a portion of the costs. At the end of the day, tens of millions of individuals and millions of small businesses benefit a lot, and a small number of huge, wealthy companies don't (except for outfits like Wal*Mart, whose employees will be able to use the ACA to purchase the insurance that their shitty employment practices deny them).
Maybe I'm missing something, but the party that likes to quote the Bible and claims to be doing God's work sure as fuck seems unhappy about the possibility of taking care of the sick and the poor. Some asshole got nailed to a tree because he was in favor of that. I feel that's probably too good for the opponents... but if they survived and got tetanus, at least their stigmata wouldn't disqualify them from being insured, as a pre-existing condition.