It's my understanding from reading the blogs on the issue that it would go back to the fact that congress didn't include a severability provision in the law, so if one part goes the entire law goes. (Of course this would be up to the court, the law specifically said the individual mandate was NOT a tax. The court ruled it was a tax anyway. So they could rule any part was severably regardless of the law stating it is severable.)
Severability? Okay, now I see. Just hope the SC rules that there is NO severability in this case.