[semantic]

Yes, as it turns out, Congress can tax you for whatever they want, whether it's an activity or non-activity.

But, and this is a big but, it has to be passed by Congress AS A TAX. In full daylight, ie no back room deals conducted under the commerce clause, with its -0- accountability and 100% discretion.

And because it's only a tax, it can be terminated by the next Congress with a simple majority. Why are the "Bush Tax Cuts" still called the "Bush Tax Cuts"? Because they were/are a hallmark political ploy that conferred significant advantages to supporters.

Now, any politician, D or R, can run on a tax cut platform as a means of gutting the O-Tax.

[FirstFlaBn]

At best we have two years until the collapse. If Romney is in when it happens, he will become the next Hoover. Huge gains by the Dems in the subsequent election, then armed with today’s precedent, they will compel the evil rich people to invest their 401k money into union businesses or corrupt big city bonds or suffer an immediate 70% tax (taxing inactivity). That’s how it ends - and it requires today’s decision to make it work.

[dragnet2]

But, and this is a big but

Oh yeah!

Some like big butts....Clever tune...Thanks for that advise BTW.

[Rational Thought]

Anyway you cut this decision, basing Obamacare as Constitutional via the Congress's ability to tax is creating language which (I don't believe) doesn't even exist in the original legislation. In other words, what we've witnessed is the Supreme’s version of legislating from the bench.

Further, what this Court has done is to put their stamp of approval on Congress lying to the citizenship (as Obamacare was never sold to the citizens as being a tax).

While I understand your point, it should be pointed out that the House controls the purse strings. Yet, here we are almost two years later with no serious effort ever made to defund this monstrosity.

Bottom line, I'd say odds are good that Obamacare isn't going away anytime soon. God help us.