Roberts addressed this in 2012

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility
payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The
payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health
insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal-
ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by
the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel
Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay-
ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But
the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un-
lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches
negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond
requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—
stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—
does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It
may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur-
ance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174.
Pp. 35–40.

Congress has the power to tax. End of story.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #409,896 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:16:27 PM 5/6/16 12:16:27 PM Reply	Roberts addressed this in 2012 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal- ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay- ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un- lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language— stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”— does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur- ance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40. Congress has the power to tax. End of story. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,898 by boxley 5/6/16 12:19:03 PM 5/6/16 12:19:03 PM Reply	but they swore it was not a tax on the american people? So the tax is on top of current medicare tax but still no benefit offered? Whats up with that? payola to lobbyists always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #409,901 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:25:48 PM 5/6/16 12:25:48 PM Reply	Man, you're agreeing with some interesting folks these days. Roberts? Really?
Post #409,904 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:33:04 PM 5/6/16 12:33:04 PM Reply	Recognizing reality is a helpful way to get through life. ;-) Of course Roberts is a monster, but the law is the law. Or do you think that Congress doesn't have the power to tax now? :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,906 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:38:23 PM 5/6/16 12:39:04 PM Reply	Heh. I think a "tax" you pay ONLY when you don't do something is a fine. ;0) Edit: temporary brain freeze today. Edited by mmoffitt May 6, 2016, 12:39:04 PM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!