The case hasn't been reversed, as best I can tell from Westlaw. The thrust of the case is not that unlimited expenditures aren't permitted -- that would be up to a legislature to decide -- but rather that it is permissible for a legislature to bar unlimited expenditures. So the presence of unlimited expenditures in the period following this decision is not a sign of it being overturned. The forthcoming decision of the Court in Citizens United, however, might overturn this principle, holding that it is not permissible for a legislature to bar unlimited campaign expenditures.
Or, if you don't want to click through, here's the CBO score (again, a large .pdf):
By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million, leaving about 23 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). Under the legislation, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 94 percent. Approximately 26 million people would purchase their own coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and there would be roughly 15 million more enrollees in Medicaid and CHIP than is projected under current law. Relative to currently projected levels, the number of people purchasing individual coverage outside the exchanges would decline by about 5 million. Under the legislation, certain employers could allow all of their workers to choose among the plans available in the exchanges, but those enrollees would not be eligible to receive subsidies via the exchanges (and thus are shown in Table 4 as enrollees in employment-based coverage rather than as exchange enrollees). Approximately 5 million people would obtain coverage in that way in 2019, bringing the total number of people enrolled in exchange plans to about 30 million in that year.
The number of people obtaining coverage through their employer would be about 4 million lower in 2019 under the legislation, CBO and JCT estimate. The net change in employment-based coverage is the result of several flows, which can be illustrated using the estimates for 2019:
* About 6 million people would be covered by an employment-based plan under the proposal who would not be covered by one under current law (largely because the mandate for individuals to be insured would increase workers' demand for coverage through their employers).
* Between 8 million and 9 million other people who would be covered by an employment-based plan under current law would not have an offer of such coverage under the proposal. Firms that would choose not to offer coverage as a result of the proposal would tend to be smaller employers and employers that predominantly employ lower-wage workers--people who would be eligible for subsidies through the exchanges--although some workers who would not have employment-based coverage because of the proposal would not be eligible for such subsidies. Whether those changes in coverage would represent the dropping of existing coverage or a lack of new offers of coverage is difficult to determine.
* In addition, between 1 million and 2 million people who could be covered by their employer's plan (or a plan offered to a family member) would instead obtain coverage in the exchanges, either because the employer's offer would be deemed unaffordable and they would therefore be eligible to receive subsidies in the exchanges, or because the "firewall" for those with an offer of employer coverage would be imperfectly enforced. (Those people are counted as enrollees in the exchanges.)
I remember being there during the second round of voting in early 2006. The amount of political paraphernalia around the country was pretty astounding, and I came away with the initial impression that Piñera had the strong support of the people -- until I realized that it was astroturf. It'll be interesting to see if Piñera can get over the hump this time. The 44 percent of the vote he got this year isn't all too different from the 46.5 percent he got in the second round in 2006.