nope as its now a tax, only needs 51 senators not 60.
Both sides will respond that the supreme court said it is tantamount to a tax, but that the law clearly states it is a mandate. That will allow them to claim they need a super majority to repeal it. If you read the ruling, Roberts was careful to state that regardless of how the law was looked at it could be seen as a tax - not that it was a tax or was intended as a tax, because it wasn’t; just that it can be seen as a tax by the court, collected by the IRS, but not treated as a tax by the IRS.
This gives both sides cover - the dems can claim this so they can obstruct, while the repubs can claim the same in order to be the typical squishes that they are.
Anybody watching the fiasco that is the supreme court this last week can tell what they are doing. They want it both ways; first states aren’t sovereign (AZ law ruling), now they are (ACA ruling).
Part of Roberts’ ACA opinion:
Indeed, amicuss earlier observation that the Code requires assessable penalties to be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes makes little sense if assessable penalties are themselves taxes. In light of the Codes consistent distinction between the terms tax and assessable penalty, we must accept the Governments interpretation: §6201(a) instructs the Secretary that his authority to assess taxes includes the authority to assess penalties, but it does not equate assessable penalties to taxes for other purposes.
The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.