Wait...if "ObamaCare", i.e. the whole kit and kaboodle, is unconstitutional, then how does it make any difference, and why are we still saddled with the bulk of it, that they found some specific provisions not to violate the Constitution??
Because a legal challenge can only be decided on the basis of the case that is brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. Nobody was challenging the right of an insurance company to sell a non-ACA compliant plan in that case because no insurance company had even tried to sell one that had been rejected by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
That's why there have been multiple challenges to ObamaCare, and there have been varying degrees of success in those challenges. The plaintiffs seem to be doing very well when they object to provisions of ObamaCare on religious grounds, for example. The Roberts decision, on the other hand, only addressed a very specific challenge to the individual mandate. The individual mandate was allowed to survive because the Supreme Court decided that it is, in fact, a tax -- and this was on pretty solid legal grounds, by the way.
It's not the "whole kit and caboodle" of ObamaCare that will be unconstitutional until someone challenges the Federal government's authority to impose all of the other idiotic provisions of the law -- like the rate caps, the elimination of lifetime coverage limits, the minimal essential coverage requirements (which is where the Idaho situation may lead), etc.