Isn't it really a two step process?
1. A mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance (or have it as part of employment).
2. A penalty if health insurance is not purchased.
It would seem the argument of what is or is not a tax could only be made for the second, penalty stage.
1. A mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance (or have it as part of employment).
2. A penalty if health insurance is not purchased.
It would seem the argument of what is or is not a tax could only be made for the second, penalty stage.
The Administration is [NOW] arguing before SCOTUS that the mandate is a "tax" - which is something that the Administration said IT WAS NOT when the bill was being debated in Congress.
Talk about talking out both sides of your ass ...
If the Administration is successful at SCOTUS [arguing the mandate is a "tax"], then the fine for NOT purchasing insurance IS legal.
If SCOTUS rules that the mandate IS NOT a "tax" [or that Congress exceeded its taxing authority] or that it violates the Commerce Clause [which it obviously does], the penalty would also be null and void ...