Then you cannot get medicaid unless you make below a certain amount, in some states it is like $3000 a year, which I imagine you'd have to be homeless or living under someone else's roof for free.

All states were supposed to do medicaid "expansion" (raise the $3k minimum) to cover that big gap. Instead the supreme court ruled it was okay to let people be sick and/or die if they couldn't afford it.

So either get two jobs (with hep c, good luck) to make enough to get obamacare, or become homeless to get under the $3000 mark in half the country. Yay America and million dollar profit for every 12 people dying.

You mischaracterize the ruling. What the ruling said was the the federal government isn't allowed to coerce the states as it was trying to do.

Moreover, you're making the mistake of working backwards. You're starting from what you want the outcome to be. With that baseline, you then determine what the court should rule.

But surely you took enough classes in school about American history and civics to understand that this isn't how the American government works. There's a system of laws that determines what the government is allowed to do; if what it wants to do isn't permitted in that framework, then it's not allowed to do that.

Your desire to see a particular outcome - even if that outcome is agreed on by all to be a morally superior one - does not enable our government to take actions it isn't given the authority to execute.

(and apologies for wandering a bit astray into more concrete politics...)

A belief that we ought to ignore the legal framework and instead focus on what is sold to us as "a practical view" is the way that we get to such governmental actions as Guantanamo Bay and prisoner torture.