completely.

As long as SOME (lucky?) people have employer-assisted health insurance, there can never be a truly single payer/universal plan.

The upper-middles will jealously guard their own , and will never truly back a fairer more comprehensive system until they also lose theirs.

The odd thing is that if people got the money their employers say they pay on their behalf (as pay raises), and everyone was in the same HUGE insurance pool, the cost WOULD go down..

As long as we have a raggedy patchwork, nothing gets better

Look at what we have now:

VA
Medicare
Medicaid
Charity
COBRA(have insurance in exchange for your unemployment check & borrowed money)
Diamond-studded coverage for some
NOTHING for some
Pay-premiums-get-little-or-nothing-plans for many (most?)
Get Sick and Die Plans

though I do question it, then it supposedly leads the way directly to single-payer options through taxes.

I think since we still have Obama in the WH and a Dem Senate, that is potentially pretty likely that a relatively positive thing can come from an overturned mandate, rather than if Repubs held the same making it more likely Obamacare as a whole would be scrapped.

and I really don't see that happening, do you?

I might see overturning the Employer mandate as a path to single payer and I'm all for decoupling employment from health care. However, I think there will be significant pain along the way.

Not sure how I feel about this in general, except for a strong desire to see employers out of the health insurance / health care business completely.

get the employers out of the health care business and hopefully take back the House in 2014 and then pass single payer.
Sounds good to me.

all their seats or gained more. The opposite occurred so I am ... oh dare I say it..... hopeful

The case by Liberty University challenges the contraceptive coverage portion of the law. The US catholic church has a similar challenge. If you remember the ruling last summer, the court threw out some challenges to parts of the ACA because the plaintiffs could not show that they had been harmed because the particular part of the law had not been applied. This case is somewhat unique in that it seems to weigh a demand by an employer that it not offer contraceptive coverage against the right of an employee to have that type of coverage in an insurance plan. The case could end up encompassing several amendments of the Constitution. Liberty and the catholic bishops may have to show that their failure to provide contraceptives coverage as part of a broader health care plan does not place undue financial and time stress on employees.

(I haven't read this WP article yet, assuming it's similar)

the mandate is what is on the table, not the contraceptive aspect. I understand your inclination to look at it that way, as I did when I saw the headline at Reuters, but upon full reading, the issue they are contesting and have tried to contest in the past is the mandate.