[sickoflibs]

Here's a hypothetical I have used in the past.

Say Obama raised every-ones taxes by $800. But then he in the same bill it offered/passed a tax credit for those that have approved insurance, and that tax credit was the same $800, like the tax credit I got for insulation. So if you don't buy the proper insurance then you have to pay an additional $800 you didn't before the law, just like now except with real penalties. Constitutional? You see the problem?

This bill was designed to get employers to drop coverage and pay the small fine to kill off the employer insurance. The weak mandate was a side issue blown out of proportion.

[DoughtyOne]

Here's a hypothetical I have used in the past.

Say Obama raised every-ones taxes by $800. But then he in the same bill it offered/passed a tax credit for those that have approved insurance, and that tax credit was the same $800, like the tax credit I got for insulation. So if you don't buy the proper insurance then you have to pay an additional $800 you didn't before the law, just like now except with real penalties. Constitutional? You see the problem?

I don't see either one being Constitutional.   I don't think the federal government should be in the business of giving tax credits.  That's a very sticky wicket, because most people believe in the mortgage interest tax credit.  Call it a Chevy Volt tax credit, and ouch!  People get it.  I do think the mortgage interst rate tax credit is beneficial to the economy, but open that door and all of a sudden you've got real problems.  Insullation, Chevy Volt...

I don't belive in the individual mandate.  I don't believe in the tax/fine stance either, if you don't observe the mandate.

This bill was designed to get employers to drop coverage and pay the small fine to kill off the employer insurance. The weak mandate was a side issue blown out of proportion.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the employer insurance provision here.  I would only say that it should have been addressed in the same manner the individual mandate was.

I do not think a 'tax decision' go-around, that is extemely flawed, justifies as proof that the individual mandate was something that should not have been challenged.