For all the talk about the Affordable Care Act's mandate to purchase insurance, you might think that the mandate is the linchpin of the entire law. It isn't, at least from the standpoint of whether the insurance market will collapse without it. 

The dirty little secret of American healthcare is that the mandate wouldn’t save taxpayers a dime. Why? Because the tax subsidies for people with health insurance are bigger than the unpaid medical bills left behind by the uninsured.

Whether or not the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) proves to be constitutionally valid, it is based on mistaken premises, faulty economic analysis, short-sighted politics, and seriously flawed health policy.

This week, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts announced plans to launch a ballot initiative to repeal the state's individual mandate to purchase health insurance. Massachusetts Citizens for Life is primarily concerned about how the growing cost of health care in the state will lead to rationing and denial of care.

The individual mandate has been presented as a necessary means to more popular ends – universal coverage, better access to care for those with pre-existing health conditions, and lower health care costs for those already insured. However, the real evidence of the connection between the mandate and the problems it purportedly could solve is shaky at best.

Monday's ruling against the insurance mandate is only the latest skirmish in what promises to be a long legal battle that ultimately will be superseded by the inherent contradictions of Obamacare.

The individual mandate for health insurance is unconstitutional, but do not expect the Supreme Court to rule it so.

Forcing consumers to buy today's health insurance may benefit insurance companies, health-care providers and other special interests, but it is not good public policy.