# SCOTUS's decision on The Health Care Law 6/28/12 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499 "2012-06-27T19:56:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/501 "2012-07-01T03:26:06Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > A progressive tax system would make sense. > > But congress didn’t do it this time. So just pay the taxes or get insurance. > > Do you think that George Washington was un-American? You really should uncurl your toes. He was trying to construct a military. And he laid down rules that fighting ships needed certain REGULATIONS. Okay, you can curl your toes again. And in case you haven’t heard, we have a progressive tax system. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/502 "2012-07-01T03:29:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You really should uncurl your toes. He was trying to construct a military. And he laid down rules that fighting ships needed certain REGULATIONS. Okay, you can curl your toes again. > > And in case you haven’t heard, we have a progressive tax system. Yes, but the penalty isn’t a progressive tax… well I guess it is to some extent, since it’s less for poor people, but it caps at 2.5% of income. If the mandate tax penalty were progressive, the tax percentage would increase as income went up. So, you agree, with me and George Washington, that the government can force you to buy something? Then what the fuck are you so upset about? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/503 "2012-07-01T03:37:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I have an ex-boss that is very wealthy. He’s also a super health nut. He chooses to not buy insurance. He self insures. If anything happens, he just writes a check. He can afford it if the ball is $5,000 or $5,000,000. No sweat. I don’t think he should have to buy insurance, do you? I’ll let you know in advance that “Sure he should, he can afford it”, is not a good answer. Yet if he pays for his own bodyguards or goes the Bruce Wayne route, he doesn’t get out of paying for police. Sorry, no. Healthcare is no different from the military or police. All seek to protect the well-being of citizens and their ability to be free, productive members of society. The only difference is we used to not pay for one of them. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/504 "2012-07-01T03:39:08Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No matter how many people say this, no matter how angrily they say it, and no matter how often they repeat it, this will still not be true. The ruling changed nothing about the penalty. It did not change the way it is applied, how it is collected, or how it’s handled. The court found that the Constitution allows for the creation of the penalty because it falls within Congress’ authority to levy taxes even if the penalty does not behave exactly like a tax. Thousands of analogies were deployed as people argued about the law (broccoli, interstate commerce, drivers’ insurance, the list goes on. This is one of them. That is a flimsy argument. The court has defined taxes as well as penalties in the past and even defined the different forms of taxation. This tax does not fit any of those descriptions and the court opinion did not even attempt to define this. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/505 "2012-07-01T03:55:39Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Yes, they do. Sometimes it’s possible to say exactly the same thing using different words: “I am ten years older than I was in 2002” and “In 2002, I was ten years younger than I am today.” > > It would be an insane legal system that treated the two statements differently. What matters is not the specific words that are used to describe a situation, but rather the situation itself. > > Do you seriously advocate a system in which it’s the words used to describe a situation, not the situation itself, that pertains? Not at all. That does not change the fact that the penalty was described as exactly that and is not even part of the funding mechanism of the act. The court has ruled that there is a legal difference between a tax and a penalty even if the outcome (someone is out of some money) is identical. In fact the court has ruled that some “taxes” are so onerous that they are actually penalties. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/506 "2012-07-01T04:04:12Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t understand the problem you are having with this. Roberts says it is like a tax in some ways and not others, and it’s Constitutional under Congress’ taxation powers. He describes this in the first three or four pages of the decision. He doesn’t have to say what kind of tax it is, whatever that means. He’s talking about the Constitutional authority to levy the penalty. Well that’s kinda the point. If, indeed, the mandate is a tax it most resembles a direct tax. If that is the case it needs to be apportioned among the states or it is prohibited. So, yes, they should define what type of tax this mandate is for legal purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/507 "2012-07-01T04:13:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If it was me (I don’t recall the exchange, but it may have been), your neenering is merited. But, let me ask you, what did you base your thinking on. Up until now, there was zero examples of the government forcing people to buy something or pay a penalty. What did I base my thinking on? On the fact (this is not one of those matters of legitimate dispute) that a tax penalty and a tax write-off are functionally equivalent. True, I didn’t base my thinking off George Washington’s requirement that people buy guns and medicine (heh heh), but only because I, like, apparently, the Supreme Court, and like Frylock, and like everyone else except a few holdouts, can see that a writeoff and a penalty serve exactly the same purpose, and it’s irrational to to conclude that one is constitutional and the other is not. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/508 "2012-07-01T04:15:07Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The court has ruled that there is a legal difference between a tax and a penalty even if the outcome (someone is out of some money) is identical. From what ruling have you drawn that paraphrase? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/509 "2012-07-01T04:20:12Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > I’m not quite sure I follow this “loss of liberty” argument. The government already had the power to tax the living bejeesus out of me at the behest of Congress. This penalty/tax was instituted at the behest of Congress. So, like all taxes, you have a redress if you don’t like it, which is to elect people who will lower or eliminate the tax. And you can make the judgement if the increased quality of health coverage is worth it or not. > > Further, the government already has much greater power over its citizens. The United States could, conceivably, draft me, send me to some godforsaken foreign sandpit and then order me to eat broccoli for the next two years in between dodging RPG rounds. Compared to that frightful power, I’m not convinced that being coerced into buying health insurance is that big a deal. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > What liberty have we lost? The liberty to not have insurance without paying a penalty for it? That’s not “quite a bit” of liberty, that’s a trivial liberty to do something unwise that burdens society. > > It’s very odd to me that, when all three branches of government agree that an action is constitutional, including two branches that we the people elected, you somehow think that’s hurting we the people. You live in a democracy; democracy worked the way it’s supposed to. Be joyful. The point is not that forcing people to buy insurance is that onerous. The point is that this ruling further damages the constitution and transfers more power from us to our government. The mandate may have been a great idea but having a federal government that can enforce such a thing is not a great idea. If they can force us to purchase a product from another individual under either the commerce clause or the taxing power then there is very little that they cannot do. The constitution and bill of rights were designed to put limits on the federal government. According to your statements just having the right to vote their asses out of office should suffice. So why did the founders bother going any further than this? They knew full well that an all powerful government can very easily become tyrannical. Many people here don’t seem to care what powers the government has as long as the government does things they want. They never take the time to consider what else the government can do with that power once they have it. This is my problem with the individual mandate. I actually think it is a good thing that everyone have insurance but I fear the power that the government gains by being able to force us to do this. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/510 "2012-07-01T04:24:20Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The point is not that forcing people to buy insurance is that onerous. The point is that this ruling further damages the constitution and transfers more power from us to our government. The mandate may have been a great idea but having a federal government that can enforce such a thing is not a great idea. If they can force us to purchase a product from another individual under either the commerce clause or the taxing power then there is very little that they cannot do. Again, we know that our founders were okay with forcing us to purchase a product from another individual. That whole argument is brilliantly off the table, unless you’d like to explain why being required to purchase a gun is better than being given the option between purchasing insurance or paying a higher tax amount. And this mandate? It’s not just some wacky thing the gummint decided to do. It’s what we elected them to do. Obama campaigned on this issue, and we liked it, and so we voted for him. The minority party did their best to keep the American people from having the government we want, but they failed–they failed at the presidential level, they failed at the congressional level, and now they’ve failed at the judicial level. We don’t have everything we want, thanks to Republican obstructionism and Democratic cowardice (and yes, I’m oversimplifying), but we’re much closer than we were before. You’re still trying to limit our freedom by denying us the government we want. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/511 "2012-07-01T04:29:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > From what ruling have you drawn that paraphrase? From the dissent: > [@dissent](#): > > Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty: “‘[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’” United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996) (quoting United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931)). In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here)the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act “adopt[s] the criteria of wrongdoing” and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax. Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20, 38 (1922). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/512 "2012-07-01T04:35:26Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You’re still trying to limit our freedom by denying us the government we want. And I would add that I do prefer to have more freedom from the fear of bankruptcy due to health care costs and the opportunities that affordable care for individuals will bring to the people as they will gain more freedom to leave [del]feudal fiefdoms[/del] dead end jobs. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/513 "2012-07-01T04:50:57Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Again, we know that our founders were okay with forcing us to purchase a product from another individual. That whole argument is brilliantly off the table, unless you’d like to explain why being required to purchase a gun is better than being given the option between purchasing insurance or paying a higher tax amount. You know that the Militia Act applied to members of the military and that Congress has broader power over members of the military than it does over ordinary citizens. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And this mandate? It’s not just some wacky thing the gummint decided to do. It’s what we elected them to do. Obama campaigned on this issue, and we liked it, and so we voted for him. The minority party did their best to keep the American people from having the government we want, but they failed–they failed at the presidential level, they failed at the congressional level, and now they’ve failed at the judicial level. We don’t have everything we want, thanks to Republican obstructionism and Democratic cowardice (and yes, I’m oversimplifying), but we’re much closer than we were before. You’re still trying to limit our freedom by denying us the government we want. You really don’t realize how asinine that argument is? What if we elected members of the gummint to abolish the thirteenth amendment? Would the opposition be trying to limit the freedom of the majority who elected them to do this? Your definition of liberty seems to be letting the government do whatever the majority of people want. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/514 "2012-07-01T05:05:32Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > You really don’t realize how asinine that argument is? What if we elected members of the gummint to abolish the thirteenth amendment? Would the opposition be trying to limit the freedom of the majority who elected them to do this? Your definition of liberty seems to be letting the government do whatever the majority of people want. Because taxation is exactly like slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/515 "2012-07-01T05:36:22Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > This tax does not fit any of those descriptions and the court opinion did not even attempt to define this. > [@yorick73](#): > > So, yes, they should define what type of tax this mandate is for legal purposes. The court didn’t say the penalty is a tax. It said that in some respects it’s _not_ a tax (and Republicans agreed - otherwise the court could not have considered the issue). It said the penalty is Constitutional because it falls within the realm of Congress’ taxation powers. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/516 "2012-07-01T06:58:25Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The court didn’t say the penalty is a tax. It said that in some respects it’s _not_ a tax (and Republicans agreed - otherwise the court could not have considered the issue). It said the penalty is Constitutional because it falls within the realm of Congress’ taxation powers. You must realize how ridiculous that argument sounds. It’s sort of a tax but we won’t define what kind of tax it is…but it falls under Congress’ taxation power. Why? Because the IRS collects the penalty? The IRS collects all sorts of penalties but that does not make them taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/517 "2012-07-01T12:21:01Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > You must realize how ridiculous that argument sounds. It’s sort of a tax but we won’t define what kind of tax it is…but it falls under Congress’ taxation power. Why? Because the IRS collects the penalty? The IRS collects all sorts of penalties but that does not make them taxes. You keep telling us that we must realize how ridiculous our arguments sound. Well, yes, I realize how ridiculous they sound, **to you**. I reject the idea that they sound ridiculous because they’re poor arguments, however; I believe they sound ridiculous to you because of issues inherent in you. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/518 "2012-07-01T12:57:47Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The court didn’t say the penalty is a tax. It said that in some respects it’s _not_ a tax (and Republicans agreed - otherwise the court could not have considered the issue). They considered it “not a tax” only relative to the Anti-Injunction rule, and then only because of how specifically that restriction is worded, as I understand it anyway. That’s what RNATB pointed out in another thread. The point being that except for the very narrow legislatively defined “can we rule on this now?” filter, and that rule alone, referenced here… > [@](#): > > The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. …it’s a tax. It passes the filter of the Anti-Injunction Act solely based on the fact that the word “tax” was not used explicitly. As RNATB explained, that is simply how that filter works. But having gotten over the necessary hurdle, SCOTUS (the majority, anyway) has determined that this is unambiguously a tax. If they did not, it would not have been considered constitutional. I think your statement is a little misleading. SCOTUS said unequivocally that this is a tax. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/519 "2012-07-01T13:46:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Forget about mortgages. Social Security is an easier comparison. If you have income, you pay into Social Security. The only way to opt out is by having no income. If you have income, you pay for health insurance. You can opt out by having no income. Your general point is true so it’s pure semantics, but you can actually earn income without paying into Social Security. Some pension systems are qualified in such a way that participants do not have to pay into the Social Security system. For example the railroad pension system, and various state/government pension systems have employees who do not pay into social security. In some states most of the government employees pay into social security and their pension plan, in others very few pay into social security [cite](http://perspective.opers.org/benefits/mandatory-social-security-is-not-good-for-ohio/): > [@](#): > > By law, Ohio is a non-Social Security state and has been that way since 1935 when the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System was created. When Social Security was established shortly thereafter, state and local governments were prohibited from joining the system. Public employees here, with few exceptions, do not pay into Social Security, and without OPERS, many of them would not receive a retirement benefit. > > A recent federal research report indicates that Ohio ranks first among the states for having the highest percentage of public workers without Social Security-covered employment. > > “Social Security: Mandatory Coverage of New State and Local Government Employees,” by the Congressional Research Service, states that 97.5 percent of Ohio’s state and local government workers do not participate in the Social Security system. The state with the next-highest percentage is Massachusetts (95.9 percent). Nationally, 27.5 percent of state and local government employees work in positions not covered by Social Security. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/520 "2012-07-01T14:55:32Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > You must realize how ridiculous that argument sounds. It’s sort of a tax but we won’t define what kind of tax it is…but it falls under Congress’ taxation power. Why? Because the IRS collects the penalty? I don’t find it ridiculous and I don’t see why the Court has to decide what _kind_ of tax it is. That wasn’t the question the justices were considering. They were considering its Constitutionality and five of them agreed that the Constitution allows Congress to do this with the justification that Congress can do this if it can levy taxes. Roberts addressed early in the ruling why this is OK: “CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may beupheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–44. (a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, “[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” […] 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 penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. […] None of this is to say that payment 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 unlawful. 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 insurance.” [/quote] > [@Stratocaster](#): > > They considered it “not a tax” only relative to the Anti-Injunction rule, and then only because of how specifically that restriction is worded, as I understand it anyway. That’s what RNATB pointed out in another thread. I saw, yes. And of course the conservatives who opposed the law generally agreed with this argument. > [@](#): > > SCOTUS said unequivocally that this is a tax. They said it can be interpreted that way and is Constitutional for the same reason taxes are. That’s not the same as “It is a tax.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=27)