Since passing the Affordable Health Care Act in March 2010 in order to help more Americans get insured, Democrats have received some backlash from Republicans and even a federal court.

A federal appeals court has tossed out key provisions of the health care reform. The 11^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta found the law’s “individual mandate” section, requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties, was an improper exercise of federal authority.

“The individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional,” Chief Judge Joel Dubina wrote. “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”

Even though that one section is unconstitutional, the entire law does not need to be set aside. Judges said the law’s expansion of the federal Medicaid program was constitutional because since states would not bear “the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments.”

This ruling conflicts with another federal appeals court in Cincinnati that found the “individual mandate” to be lawful. Judge Stanley Marcus disagreed, saying Congress had authority to intervene.

“Congress rationally found that the individual mandate would address the powerful economic problems associated with cost shifting from the uninsured to the insured and to health care providers, and with the inability of millions of uninsured individuals to obtain health insurance,” said Marcus. “Thus, to the extent the plaintiffs' individual liberty concerns are rooted in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, they must fail.”

The judges also heard arguments on whether or not one part of the law is deemed unconstitutional, the entire act is invalid. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Vinson ruled that the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate voided the entire piece of legislation, but the appeals panel disagreed.

“The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the Act's myriad reforms,” Dubina wrote. “The Act's other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate's excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met.”

With all these arguments and controversy, it is no wonder why Republican candidates want to repeal the bill. Newt Gingrich wants to repeal and replace the bill with a pro-jobs, pro-responsibility health plan.

“Gingrich's vision for reforming the health care system includes: allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines, changing the tax treatment for health insurance premiums, making some substantial changes to Medicare and Medicaid, making Health Savings Accounts more available, and passing medical malpractice reform,” states the CNN profile on him.

Ron Paul wants to repeal the bill and favors insurance to be sold across state lines and expanding access to health savings accounts. Mitt Romney wants repeal the bill and, if president, will issue waivers to all states allowing them to opt out of the federal plan.

The closer the election comes, the more these smaller issues overshadow the bigger picture. It will take more than just health care to fix the economy.