If you read the last two opinions, they will basically give you the argument from both sides.
I think that the opinion saying that the law is not FACIALLY defective is 100% correct. if a guy already has insurance, and you tell him he has to keep having insurance, that is almost certainly not constitutionally defective. I also agree with the statement that people in states with health care mandates obviously do not have a right to say that while they are already compelled to have insurance that the federal government cannot compel more.
I find it interesting that Idaho passed a law saying, "the people of Idaho may not be required to buy health insurance...." Perhaps someone should have read them Article VI of the Constitution (although their actions did convince one appeals court judge that the states prohibition on federal power was, therefore, correct).
Ultimately, here is what will happen -- the matter will go to the Supreme Court and Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia will all vote to strike down the law. Kagen, Sotamayor, Ginsburg and Breyer will all vote to uphold it, and it will be all left up to poor Justice Kennedy.
He will, in effect, have to pick between the three opinions offered up by the 6th Circuit.
We shall see.