I won't post an article link, seeing as it's everywhere, but I'd like to hear any and all thoughts on anything about it, but particularly constitutional opinion.

Ready...GO!

This gov't being in bed with big business to make more money off of you (and anyone else they can nail for cash). They don't give a shit if you're a citizen or not, either. This is all Washington DC gives a fuck about..... nothing else. They don't care about you or anyone else, your quality of life, your welfare etc. They just want your fucking money. Seriously! The War On Poverty has cost billions (if not trillions) and has done not a goddamned thing to alleviate poverty!

If anyone really think the Democrats actually care about your health, then you keep on voting that way and see where it gets you in 10 years (and more).

Join program or pay the fine. No opting out.

What's constitutional about it?

Well, the talking heads seem to think that SCOTUS has the ultimate and last say on the Constitution.
Do you agree?
Tex?

Nothing is really constitutional about it. There's plenty of things that the SCOTUS has ruled on in recent years that liberals still think is unconstitutioal. Never before (that I know of) has a federal tax been placed on inactivity. If you buy something, you pay a sales tax. If you earn income, you pay an income tax. If you do business as a corporation, you pay an excise tax. Now if you don’t buy health insurance, you pay a tax on not doing so. What else then can be taxed for not doing something? Not exercising? Not eating broccoli? Not agreeing with the president?

But as it is, it's now law of the land, and that's that.... unless the GOP can keep their majority in the House, gain a supermajority in the Senate and gain the WH.

I was shocked that Roberts ruled the way he did. I expected Kennedy to do that had it went the way it did. But then again, many law scholars think Roberts did Obama in ultimately (along with the law) by doing what he did. The opinion pieces were all over the place on that.

They have the final say and thus can put it into law. Did you mean the technical definition?

I don't see how it's much different than the basis behind conscription, which was rescinded. As TexasBlue said, it's fining someone for *not* doing something and there's no way out of it.

And it doesn't even *help* anything at all. That's probably the funniest bit of it.

Not anymore. I believe it was actually Ralph Nader who said,
"Things have progressed to the point where the law has become the very instrument of the illegality."
I'm interested in the spirit and purpose; I think technicalities may have gotten out of hand.


Agreed. As in most other things, it's the force part I take issue with. Reminds me of filing tax returns and concurrent 5th amendment issues.

Agreed. It never does.

Here’s a little factoid from the ACA

(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES- The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

If no one is actually forced to pay this “new tax” how is it a mandate?

Interesting point. If there's no incentive to not break the law, is it even enforceable? (for now, anyway)

Oh, the gov't will get you to pay a tax on this whether you want to or not. Don't believe me? How do you not pay federal tax or SSA or Medicare tax?