[Shethink13]

What, in your opinion, is inaccurate about it?

The individual health care mandate was not declared Constitutional. Roberts had to rewrite the wording to make the mandate a tax so that the AHCA could be declared Constitutional. That's why Ginsberg dissented with Roberts' opinion.

I'm sure you knew that, right?

[philman_36]

The individual health care mandate was not declared Constitutional.
Wasn't it declared Constitutional under the government's taxing power?

[philman_36]

Here is the link to the decision...
@ NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS

The individual health care mandate was not declared Constitutional.

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.
He gave the government what they wanted, right?
Isn't the decision explicitly stating that the individual mandate is Constitutional under the power of Congress to “lay and collect Taxes.”?

That's why Ginsberg dissented with Roberts' opinion.
Where exactly? I've given you the link and it opens in a new tab so it's easy.