NOT!
The arguments were presented to SCOTUS as follows:
1 - find for it under the commerce clause - DISAGREED
2 - find for it under the necessary and proper clause - DISAGREED
3 - find for it as a tax - AGREED
Read Roberts opinion:
"The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax."
“’Roberts has just parsed the language and created something that didn’t exist: a tax.’
‘NOT!
The arguments were presented to SCOTUS as follows:
...3 - find for it as a tax - AGREED’”
Just because it was argued before the court to be a tax does not mean it was one. The law as written clearly makes it a penalty. From the time it was proposed to this morning Dems denied it was a tax. It is not a tax.
The bill passed by Congress was NOT a tax, in fact, was even denied as such.