Affordable Care Act Constitutional, again.

For Republicans, this decision won't hold as much weight as the other two decisions against the Affordable Care Act. What's most important are the reason's given by the courts in each of their opinions. 

ThinkProgress: The majority writes: “We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.” Key passage:

By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery, the minimum coverage provision is facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause for two independent reasons. First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce. In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance.

What I don't get is argument against a requirement to have health insurance. Unless you have plans to freeload off those who do get insurance, there is no argument. If you are going to have coverage anyway, why complain? The message tea party and Republican lawmakers are sending is "don't buy insurance, because you have the freedom not too." Anyone want to make a bet the number of insured, who can afford it, will skyrocket?