He didn’t turn it into a tax. He accepted one of the government’s arguments, which I have pointed out to you in no less than three different threads.
Shake it all you like, And then when you get a pulled tendon and can’t afford the doctor, come back and talk. I’ve got a finger that is permanently crooked and unable to fully close due to lack of health coverage a few years ago. Fixing it now that I DO have coverage would still be prohibitively expensive as it it will require non-essential surgery, something that would max out my contributions.
I’ll repeat myself for extra clarity. Access to basic, preventative, and life saving healthcare options is, in my opinion, a basic human right; and the United States has been woefully behind on keeping up with the rest of the western world. Further, Americans have in general shown that they are more than willing to choose unhealthy, detrimental options when given them. We have laws against drugs for that reason. We restrict access to prescriptions for that reason, we ensure people are complying with food safety laws for that reason, we require vaccinations for that reason. All for the general health and well being of the public; something that is in everyone’s best interest. If people made the logical, non societal harming choices more often than not, we wouldn’t even have to consider such measures.
If you defend something as a tax, as the administration did after it had to go to court, you’re saying, “Okay, now look at a it as a tax and judge it on that basis.”
That was one of two arguments. The administration’s primary argument was that it was a valid exercise of the commerce power.
The mandate was clearly and unambiguously ruled unconstitutional. The Court ruled clearly and emphatically that Congress cannot force you to buy insurance.
However the penalty for not buying insurance was upheld under the taxing powers of Congress.
The PPACA law does not not require you to buy insurance. It requires you to make a choice: buy insurance or pay a penalty.
No, the mandate was ruled to be beyond Congress’ commerce power. It was ruled to be within Congress’ taxing power.
ETA: As for defending the mandate, what I already said here, in another thread. Come to think of it, I should have waited for this thread to make that comment as it would have been more appropriate here.
Yes, but the argued it both ways. You can’t argue for it as a tax and then when that argument and only that argument is accepted is accepted say that it’s not a tax. Come on.
Call it whatever the fuck you like; it doesn’t change what it is one little bit. What does it matter, except for the purpose of rationalizing a result, or perhaps trying to score a cheap partisan point?
Words matter. Especially in the legal realm. It matters in another way to—or would have it SCOTUS didn’t treat it as a tax—the government doesn’t get to mandate this expense (good as it may be) and then say it’s not part of the tax burden of being an American. It is. So, your tax burden just went up from X to X + (the mandate).
That’s the one good thing that has come out of this contorted ruling.
I’ll leave it to Tony Montana to explain
That’s right, ultimately we want your women.
MWAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHA
Ah, the mandate. Hatched by Gingritch & Co. at Heritage, as a rightist “personal responsibility” answer to Hillarycare. Adopted and applied by Mitt Romney as the law of the state of Massachusetts. And, when adopted by Obama in the Affordable Care Act… the source of rightist fear campaigns nationwide.
Gentlemen, with the mandate described by the SCOTUS as functionally a tax, there is simply no constitutional issue left. Granted, it is a tax only on those who would tax the rest of us by virtue of their inaction; but it is, functionally, a tax nonetheless. Thus spake the Brethren (and Sistren, I suppose).
“Defend the mandate?”
I live in Virginia. If you don’t want to carry insurance in Virginia, you pay an uninsured driver fee. You’re also liable for any damage you cause, of course, with your butt sort of hanging out there in the breeze. The large pool of $500 checks defray costs these “insurance-free” firebrands cause others by virtue of their mavericky nature.
If you present at an ER without insurance and with a dissecting aortic aneurism, they’re not going kick you out on the street. They’re going to take you to surgery, on the hospital’s/everybody else’s dime. “Defend the mandate?” Here’s a defense: you’re using everybody’s resources. Pay the tax or buy the insurance. For Criminy’s sake.
Part 2: Yes, I do think it’s a good idea to make the insurance affordable to the middle class, even if they don’t work for a very generous corporation or the gubmit.
Part 3: Yes, I do think it’s a good idea for insurance to be cheaper if you’re poorer.
I thought this was pretty much the most recent rightist view of taxation: It’s terrible that there are some people who pay nothing! The most possible people should pay something so they have skin in the game.
When it comes to health care, everybody has “skin in the game”.
Except if the word is “marriage”, right? 
The ruling is far less contorted than your syntax.
I just posted this in the other thread on the mandate, so I thought I’d x-post it here:
Yeah, well, in those days, “health care” was mostly mud and leeches.
Not much better than what poor Americans get today. 
Many will still pay nothing. That will not change.
You’ve not been playing close enough attention, especially if the word is marriage.
Poor, yes. But so poor that you couldn’t glean my meaning and eke out a response?
Not much better than what poor Americans get today.
[/QUOTE]
I’m willing to bet medical leeches cost way more than what the typical uninsured American can afford.
Ah but the more who pay something instead of shirking their responsibility, the more responsible we make them. Isn’t that the rightist project? It certainly was very important when Heritage was fighting against single-payer. No, no, we must come up with eleventy-seven strange gimmicks and make health care a maze of market-based regulations. Otherwise we’ll be too much like those other countries with longer lifespans and lower infant mortality, etc., and God knows the pitiful state of health care there.
No, no national care for us, my friends! And in that we need market mechanisms, we certainly need to take care of those “free riders” who use up all the resources by getting sick but not carrying insurance.
Single payer would be better, granted. But since we’ve accepted the Heritage Foundation’s gimmick for making those terrible and expensive uninsured folks pay, it seems strange for the right to now complain that it’s unconstitutional.
Expanding the pool of the insured is not just a public policy argument. It’s a personal responsibility argument. That’s what blows my mind – the backflips away from this stance on situational grounds.