Apparently not. Seems they didn't get beyond the individual mandate:
but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.
Although I'm quite happy about them ruling the individual mandate unconstitutional, the rest of the law will utterly destroy our first-world health-care system. But perhaps the court was asked to rule only on the individual mandate itself.
15 Although the majority seems to take comfort in only striking down the individual mandate, see Maj. Op. at 207 n.145, all of the parties have agreed that the individual mandate is so essential to the principal insurer reforms that, at least for severability purposes, the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions necessarily rise and fall with the individual mandate, Govt Reply Br. at 58 (As plaintiffs note, the federal government acknowledged below [and continues to acknowledge] that the guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions due to take effect in 2014 . . . cannot be severed from the minimum coverage requirement. The requirement is integral to those sections that go into effect along with it in 2014 and provide that insurers must extend coverage and set premiums without regard to pre-existing medical conditions . . . .); States Br. at 63 (stating that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the core, interrelated health insurance reforms); NFIB Br. at 60-61 (stating that the mandate and the principal insurer provisions truly are the heart of the Act, and highlighting the governments concession that the mandate and the insurer reforms must stand or fall together (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Perhaps severability is a secondary issue given this statement. Legal minds, opine.