Quote from piezoe:
They didn't. They said in effect that Congress could tax you, and as an incentive to buy health insurance, they could offer not to tax you.
This is the exact equivalent of say a tax credit as an incentive for buying storm windows, for example. You can choose to pay a tax equal to the credit you would receive if you were to buy storm windows, or you can choose to buy storm windows and not pay the tax equivalent to your credit.
There are many parallel examples. The court got this one exactly right -- surprising me at least. The court recognized that what opponents of the ACA insisted on calling a mandate, was not a mandate but a choice -- ironically had the tax penalty not been there, there would have been no choice, and a requirement to buy insurance would have then become an unconstitutional mandate!
The court let the Obama administration off the hook legally and on to the hook politically by correctly pointing out that in effect the law provided a choice between a tax and buying health insurance, whereas the administration had called the "tax" a penalty. I suppose that was because of the political liability associated with the "T"-word. But personally I don't see the word "penalty" as any more appealing than the "T"-word.
