You'd think that someone challenging the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would know enough to allege (and brief) standing correctly. It's not like this wasn't an obvious issue from the get go.
Yet here you go.
Judge Rymer holds that neither plaintiff has standing to challenge "Obamacare". She's right. So was the district court. You gotta at least grab someone that's uninsured (or has a fair risk of it). Or argue associational standing sometime before the reply brief. Otherwise you're just whining about a generalized grievance.