The Left must oppose "Obamacare" too.

::::::::

Wild guess:    Because the Supreme Court is dominated by Wall Street supporters,  not supporters of People's Interests, it may come to pass that the Supremes will "unexpectedly" allow the PPACA.....which, after all, is a huge gift to Wall Street by way of Billions of Dollars that for-profit insurers invest in Wall Street interests.    

Just because Tea Baggers, el al, are against the "Obamacare" mandate doesn't mean we ought not also oppose it, for far more substantial reasons than the odd deal about the Commerce Clause that the Supreme Court will play with.

   PNHP has exposed for-profit insurers' multi-billion dollar investments in both the cigarette industry and fast foods....but exposure of other insurer investments in other health-damaging industries (oil, fracking, military contractors, prisons, pesticides, chlorine, GMOs, coal, etc etc.,)  hasn't come out yet.    Why the huge insurer links to the popularly-hated Cigarette industry haven't become primary topics among Single Payer activists remains a mystery. 

 It's a possibility, if not automatic likelihood,  that Single Payer is such a threat to the private insurance industry and Wall Street that the Single Payer movement has been infiltrated....as we've seen in Occupy Movements, environmental activist groups, and elsewhere....to distract from such potentially-effective topics.  With many billions of dollars involved, it is impossible that infiltration hasn't occurred.  Shareholders count on such traditional tactics.  
  No One would tolerate being compelled to patronize so called "health" insurers which are multi-billion dollar owners of cigarette and fast food interests IF they knew about that.  There is no acceptable excuse for silence about that.

Note how Single Payer groups generally, or uniformly, fail to mention that the PPACA also implicitly compels people to contribute revenues to private insurers to use to fund lobbying...for laws many of us may oppose.    That money has nothing to do with the Public Interest of health care...yet there it is, with no complaint or opposition.

Note how Single Payer activists also (generally or uniformly) ignore the fact that a lot of supposed "health care" money (from both for-profits and non-profits) also goes to spending on political campaigns....for candidates many of us wouldn't vote for at gun-point.    
No Public Health Care Interest exists there, but we must pay for it anyway or risk IRS penalties.   With the PPACA mandate, millions would be unknowingly contributing to such candidates' campaigns....an assault on everyone's voting rights, and a theft of everyone's health care revenues.

In any case,  who can expect proper health care from interests that invest hugely in the most health-damaging industries on the planet?   Just try to buy insurance against, say, dioxin poisoning from an insurer that invests billions in dioxin-producing chlorine industries. 

We must demand that insurers participating in the Government-Imposed  PPACA "Obamacare" thing....
A) divest from all health-damaging industry investments,
B) cannot spend any of their "health care" revenues on lobbying, 
C) cannot spend any of that revenue on political campaigns, and
D) cannot spend any of that "mandate" money (or any tax money in the low-income voucher scheme) on non-health-care-related things like the above and on CEO bonuses, corporate jets, advertising and PR, trade meetings, and lawn care and brass polish at their corporate headquarters.

 Add those simple, sensible provisions...and the "mandate" scheme will disappear, leaving no option but tax-paid, public-administered, corporate-free Single Payer.

 Reference material available via search of terms ("PNHP tobacco", "PNHP fast food", "dioxin cigarette smoke", "chlorine dioxin". etc etc.).   Use Startpage.com to search, not Google, unless you prefer that private industries use your personal info for profit without paying you.

Authors Bio:
Long time activist in areas relating to industrial toxics, media content and control, death penalty, Mumia Abu-Jamal, hemp prohibition, civil rights, insurance influence in public governing, religious influence in public governing, unsafe foods, environmental issues, regressive "fees" to replace legitimate taxation, and the scapegoating of "sinful" tobacco for the health harms of industrial toxins, carcinogens and so forth.