out of hope. I think that now that SCOTUS has ruled it constitutional, it will be harder for the wingnuts to successfully rail against it as tyrannical government overreach and, unless the Republicans successfully articulate a viable competing plan (other than just not getting sick), I just don't see how they succeed in convincing people to elect them in droves to end this "crisis" of President Obama and Democrats providing a structure for ensuring near-universal health insurance coverage once and for all.

Much like they did in 2009-2010, Republicans are apparently going to be gunning for control of all three branches- House, Senate, Presidency in their effort to repeal or at least gut significant portions of PPACA.
The question I have is, will they be able to stoke the requisite "outrage" over PPACA that they were back then or has some of the anger that helped propel Republicans into control of the House and gave them a couple more seats in the Senate disappated since then or will some of that free floating anger and anxiety dissapate now that SCOTUS has found PPACA to be constitutional and President Obama and the Democrats have been vindicated not only of the law's constitutionality but that their time spent in 2009-2010 trying to pass the law was not wasted (though I would argue that much of that time was wasted because they Republicans obstructed passage of anything and those seemingly interested in working out a bipartisan bill were mainly stalling for time)?
Polls notwithstanding, how many people do you know are really angry about this? I mean, other than the teabaggers, whom are already foaming at the mouth angry about everything related to President Obama and Democrats in general? I have observed a lot of misinformation floating around out there about the law but repealing a law that is already doing good things for a lot of people doesn't seem to be the dominant issue(s) on most people's minds (that would mostly be jobs and money to pay bills). I also believe that President Obama putting it before SCOTUS like he did gave him and the Democrats another opportunity to get the media to publicize all of the things that the law aready has been doing for people, which they have to a bigger degree than they did back in 2009-2010 when it was still rather abstract for most people.
I'm mostly concerned about the new "tax" spin the Republicans are trying to put on their message, however, as other people have dutifully pointed out, the law is almost entirely modeled after the health care reform that Mitt Romney, the GOP's standard bearer this year, aggressively pursued and signed into law in Massachusetts, so I'm wondering if that will help nullify that attack. IMHO the GOP really couldn't have picked anybody worse to run against President Obama if their main line of attack is going to be repealing PPACA, something that Mitt Romney has vowed to do "on day one" of his Presidency if he, heaven forbids, gets to the WH. He may be able to dodge the issue right now but I can't imagine how he's going to be able to maneuver in the debates when he is (really) pressed on why he thought what he did was good for Massachusetts was not good for the rest of the country. I hope President Obama and the Democrats really work hard to pin him down on this during the remainder of the campaign, particularly since it appears now that Republicans are making this a top priority.

and, just for good measure, both political parties (since PPACA's "genesis" came from the GOP in the 1990's though it is uncertain exactly how serious they were about it). Now that the GOP has VERY publicly disavowed it and called for its repeal (and no replacement)- mostly out of spite for Obama IMHO- and Romney has disavowed his own plan for Massachusetts (c'mon Mitt, how can something you publicly endorsed and help craft for Massachusetts really be that bad for the rest of the country really?), only President Obama, the Democrats whom voted for PPACA in 2010, and those persons whom mobilized in support of health care reform for the citizens of this country (including those whom advocated even more far-reaching reform) will get their names in future history books alongside FDR and LBJ and other unsung heroes whom fought for the principle of universal health coverage as a right not a privilege and future generations of Americans will marvel at the fact that the United States of America was, two years earlier in 2010, the only industrialized country to have no kind of national plan whatsoever for helping ensure universal health care coverage for all of its citizens and that one of the two major political parties and their rabid "base" actually opposed efforts to begin to achieve this goal and continued to try to repeal it without offering anything as a viable competing plan.

The "mandate" or "tax" or whatever seems to be what people are most upset about even thought most people already have health insurance through their jobs so they are already covered and a lot of people are going to be eligible for subsidies or other health insurance coverage (i.e. Medicaid) and the wealthy are already taken care of, so, as near as I can figure, we'll probably only be looking at a pretty narrow amount of people whom might struggle a little bit with the mandate to purchase health insurance coverage. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If people want a public option, if we want Medicare/Medicaid expansion, if we want Single Payer, we need to work our butts off to elect a much more progressive Congress and keep a sympathetic President in office in order to get there. Sitting around 2 years later (and counting) and still complaining about what we didn't get in the first round or not being 100% satisfied with the outcome thereof is totally unproductive. Social Security (as it currently exists) wasn't built up in a day, week, or month. It took years to get it to where it is now and so too will the battle to achieve truly universal health coverage in this country. The good news is that the battle began 2 years ago and yesterday SCOTUS ensured that it can continue.

Republicans have no "plan" for health care in this country other than to ensure that they and theirs have convenient and unfettered access to all the best medical care while letting poor people go without necessary medical care and just die.

"Lie, Evade, & Spend" (or however you want to arrange it)

So far, he seems to be running on the assumption that he can lie and spend his way to the WH. If nobody else, I'm sure PO will go after him in the debates.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120627/NEWS05/120627045/

Lemme get this straight: A guy that badmouths public institutions/employees because their unions (those that still exist) supposedly insist on massive salaries and generous benefits that states can't afford will now become President (i.e. Employee) of a public (i.e. GOVERNMENT) institution and automatically get a nice fat salary and generous benefits? *ugh* Republican hypocrisy is sickening and never ceases to amaze me. Why doesn't he just go back to the hallowed private sector since Republicans like him practically worship the ground corporations (i.e. "people" according to SCOTUS) walk on?

It would be huge disaster for a lot of people. While I'm sure that you're not heartless (unlike the Republican sociopaths we all know and dislike) about people losing the benefits that they have already gained, surely you realize that there's going to be a lot hurt to go around while we try to round up enough progressive votes in Congress to get to Single Payer? There's no doubt that a strike-down of PPACA is going to be a losing proposition for the Republicans but it's going to immediately negatively effect a lot of people in the meantime, particularly since we have nothing resembling the kind of Congress that would ever seriously contemplate Single Payer right now, almost certainly won't have one after the November elections for at least the next two years, and the Republicans really don't care about helping people and have done jack squat for the American people for the past 3-4 years, so what makes you think that they're going to start caring if PPACA is completely thrown out? It would be MUCH better IMHO to fight to preserve what we have and get more progressives in Congress to make the changes we want to make (i.e. public option) in the law + a President willing to sign them into law.

The House votes (presumably) to hold Holder in contempt of Congress. What then?