The irony is that the way we're being asked to read the Constitution the government can buy insurance for you and force you to pay for it under threat of imprisonment but can't tell you to choose a policy for yourself or face a fine.
That is one strange configuration of liberty.
I agree that there is no material difference between:
A) Taxing a person and providing a service (like garbage pick up in some places I've lived), and
B) Requiring someone to buy a service (like garbage pick up).
But our Constitution is written such that it is questionable if 'B' is OK. Congress was aware of this, and could have acted accordingly. They didn't, so here we are.
We run into all sorts of cases where an alternative might seem equal to, or even superior to the original . Yet, we are often bound by the wording in a contract, which called for the original. Sometimes it seems to make no sense to either party to the contract, but we have systems in place that say we agreed to follow the rules. In general, that's a good thing. If the rules need to be changed, there is a process for that (agree to a new contract, or amend the Constitution).
The very best indicator of Congress's intent is what they put in the actual bill. Severability clauses are a normal part of most large legislation, and it's for a reason. It tells the courts what Congress intends. Congress didn't include one in this law. ...
After reading up some more on the severability clause, I agree. Like my story of the car sale and car parts sale - it would be clear if I said ahead of time that I would take either/or/both independently. But w/o that, it's fuzzy - maybe I don't want the car w/o those parts, fearing I can't get them and that would make the car useless. Or the parts are useless to me w/o the car. Far better to define that up front, then to ask a judge to decide what I was thinking.
edit/add to close that loop: So if Congress had said this is severable from that, then we can accept that there was no tie between those clauses, and dropping one would not have affected votes on the other. They didn't, so we can't (except the Supremes can do whatever they want! But the written argument could get 'interesting')
-ERD50