A morass of a decision?

If I cannot afford individual health insurance (about 750-1300/month in this state) the government CANNOT force me to do buy it (that is now unconstitutional), but they can fine me for not being able to afford it, and the state mechanism which compels states to form low cost exchanges (because individual insurance is so expensive ,...and undertake much more costs) is not constitutional either.

Doesn't this mean that the PRECISE PEOPLE who this act was aimed at, those who have no health insurance specifically because they cannot afford it, are SPECIFICALLY SCREWED?

Am I missing something in what has to be, if I am correct a COMPLETELY inconsistent baby sliced in half?