[MrB]

The Roberts’ case earlier was about individuals being forced to buy insurance,
so why would the employer requirement not be ruled in the same way as that abortion of a ruling?

[alancarp]

Ignoring for just a minute the illogic of the Supreme Court, there's actually a bunch of reasons why employers shouldn't have to be forced into offering coverage (which I'm sure we're aware of, but there's still cause to repeat this):

1. Companies aren't the beneficiary of the purchase. They are effectively forced to buy something they don't use. What's more, they don't have much discretion on the converage options to purchase, which will raise rates way high in this one-size-fits-all new world order.
2. Even if you somehow create a linguistic monster to call THIS a tax, it truly isn't since it doesn't apply to every companies. It doesn't even apply to most companies.
3. This creates a forced employee benefit. It used to be simply a perk of some jobs. Now it's a mandate.
4. I don't recall this power being called out in the Constitution (oh snap - we threw that out years ago).