The argument a number of liberals are advancing to protect Obamacare from itself focus on the "good" points of the law.
The first element, which smacks of social justice, would prevent health insurance companies from declining to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions.
Why is it that individuals have to seek insurance in the first place to deal with pre-existing conditions? Where is the price system which permits hospitals to compete, which allows patients to choose the best care at the best price?
The other good point about the law focuses on the provision which permits children to stay on their parents' health plans until they are twenty-six years old.
How many parents have been able to hold onto their health insurance in the last four years?
Health care premiums are rising at an excelerated rate. Health insurance companies are dropping coverage for clients or they are withdrawing from the health insurance industry in the first place.
More parents are losing health insurance, and so will their children.
Now, the moral element of this argument requires more focus.
Why should we promote the dependence of young adults on their parents?
Would it not be better for young adults to graduate into strong, well-paying jobs, and that they would be able to purchase their own health insurance?
Then there is the legal./financial aspect of this law.
How many individuals who still rely on their parents health insurance still live with their parents? How many of these young adults are still listed on the parents's tax returns as dependents?
These "good" elements are turning out to be not so good, after all.