obumbler himself has determined that portions of the law are unworkable, as witnessed by his various executive actions and directives to his troops.
So then why is not someone going to court to settle the question of severability?
Lack of intestinal fortitude? Who wants to garner the wrath of a dictator. After all, with a single executive order, he can cause untold misery to any true objector.
Even without an executive order bad things can happen to anyone who doesn’t agree with him (IRS).
Considering that the DOJ is in his pocket (if Obama had a son his name would be Holder) and it seems that any dissenter in the SCOTUS is afraid of him ... who is left to complain?
Because...
"There is no distinctly American criminal class - with the possible exception of Congress." Mark Twain.
The issue is resolved (depending on whether you care about the rule of law or just about precedent).
(1) There is no severability clause in the "Affordable" Care Act, so if we have the rule of law, ObamaCare is not severable. If any portion is unconstitutional, the whole thing must be invalidated.
(2) When Chief Justice Roberts rewrote the bill to legislate from the bench, he pretended that ObamaCare was severable. Roberts already rewrote some portions and deleted others; the precedent has been set.