Healthcare: A Battle Plan

So after a nice little bit in California, I am back, but I have to tell you, I am not really hopeful about the health care cases that are now coming before the supreme court. Reason? I am not too hopeful that Obamacare is unconstitutional in any significant way. This is bad for a whole lot of reasons, not the least of which is that the bill may actually stand long enough to be a significant pain in my...life. Before I begin, though, let me remind you that I am still spitting mad about the passage of this bill and I think it is underhanded in every way. As I lay out these points, realize that they come to you from a "let's find a better way to kill it" perspective rather than a "better just learn to deal with it" kind of perspective.
Anyway, after a long and drawn out discussion, and from a (hopefully) more even headed perspective than has previously been accounted, here are my conclusions on the bill:
1) Authority: The argument has been made that the government has never mandated that an entire entity buy a given product. This is true, It has been said that there has never been such an incursion into the private sector as this bill--also probably true (though less so, I really think the new deal did a lot more damage than this bill could ever do.) but the problem here is that the Constitution does not ever really mention any of these things. It gives Congress authority do do "provide for the [...] general welfare of the United States (Article I Section 8 Clause 1). Now I realize that there are a whole host of people saying that this has mention to something other than the Individual nations of the United States, but our government is inherently seen as "by the people, for the people and of the people. (Gettysburg Address) This in mind, it's going to be outrageously hard to convince any supreme court justice that "the United States" constitutes anything other than that nation's people. The sad conclusion that we must come to, then, is that no matter how much we resist it, Congress does have the authority to regulate the general welfare of the people, and that certainly includes health care.
2) Arguments based off of the tenth amendment fail when we recognize congressional authority over the general welfare of the populace, because Congress has the right to pass bills specifically mentioned in the constitution, which would of course make this bill "mentioned" by section eight of the Constitution. While the reserved clause of the constitution would be great to fall back on, I am just not seeing a lot of ammunition here if we cannot prove that the general welfare is anything other than our physical well being, which this bill obviously regulates.
3) I have heard a lot of arguments (and I believe this is what the state lawsuits are about) concerning overburdening the states. While there is a real and significant problem with crushing state governments under repressive mandates, the problem is that the Constitution never even considered that the Federal government would get so big that it's mandates would threaten bankrupting the states, and as such there is really no discussion on the matter in the annals of the Constitution. While I believe that the states could really have good Legal standing in taking on the federal government, it would certainly not be because what Congress did was unconstitutional.
Enough with the depressing fail stories. I still believe that this monstrosity of a bill can be taken down, and here are a few options that I have heard of.
Option 1: Repeal and Replace: I have heard a lot of discussion about this option, and while I realize that the president is likely to veto this bill, congress can tie his hands, or at least tie up legislation bad enough to force the president to the bargaining table--which would be a huge step for this administration. I think that it is politically feasible that we could have the votes to do this as well. I have heard rumors that the Democratic base if fractioned--badly, even in strongholds such as Hawaii, there seem to be holes in democratic armor, which republican challengers are taking advantage of. I am planning to work a lot of campaigns between now and November, whenever possible, and I think we just might be able to pull off some serious wins here in the midterm elections. IF we are strong and can prove to the American public that we have gotten religion. That is the hard sell.
Option 2: the Sweethearts: There is hope in the fact that states can both opt out of the plan, and that certain states have special "sweetheart programs" that helped persuade them to accept this bill. Thee disproportional benefits could arguably be a violation of the requirement that "no preference [...] be given by any regulation or commerce or revenue" (Article 1 section 9 clause 6)
While there are a great many more arguments to be made for and against this bill, I am going to limit my comments here until I have read the District Court briefs in full.