Let's look at this from another angle. Assume that the SC agrees with today's findings. Also assume that we do not pickup 60 votes in the Senate next year. That means Obamacare without the mandate. Now, you have a wife and 2 kids and both of you work. You have 2 options: 1) if you are a Democrat and believe in Obamacare, you will gladly pay your $20k per year for the Obamacare insurance plan and recieve Obamacare supported medical services for your family or 2) you are a Republican; you will pay for cash medical services based on what you can afford out-of-pocket (my family rarely sees a doctor). If you are hurt big time in a car wreck, you sign up for Obamacare as you are being admitted. Obamacare says everyone has access to Obamacare. Where am I going wrong? The only place you're wrong here is that the same solution worked well (just not AS well) with the individual mandate. Pay cash for services and medications, and the $2500 fine annually, and then sign up on your way into the hospital if you have a catastrophic event (actually, that might not be practical, but I understand that you could retroactively sign up).
Another option is to set up irrevocable trusts for your benefit and that of your family members, and to have basically nothing in your own name. Have a terrible medical problem? OK, get your treatment and then declare bankruptcy. Not terribly moral, but then again neither is using the Constitution and our liberties for toilet paper.
FUBO! I simply can't wait until the nation collectively tells that Fabian prick not to let the door hit him in the ass on the way out.
Thanks for the reply. Let me put it another way. If Obamacare remains on the books, me, and millions of people like me, will never pay $20k/year nor we will we pay the $2500 penalty. It will be interesting to see how this works out.