Dissent seems to have centered around the law being a mandate and the Medicare fund denial being essential to the law.
The Medicare funds was gutted by the decision. That part was ruled invalid. The other mandate Roberts claims you do not have to.buy the insurance but pay a penalty/tax if you don't that's his reasoning. So no rewrite based on that reasoning large parts of the law can stand.
That's his basis whether it is solid and why he is trying to reason it so finely again like I said non idea. I really would love 5 min with the guy to understand.