[Alberta's Child]

The legal reasoning is that the Federal Government didn’t “order” anyone into a contract. Under Obamacare, it simply imposed a tax on everyone but exempted anyone who DID enter into such a contract.

At its core (from a legal standpoint), the individual mandate was considered constitutional because it was implemented no differently than an income tax exemption for (as just one example) charitable contributions or mortgage interest.

[DiogenesLamp]

The legal reasoning is that the Federal Government didn’t “order” anyone into a contract. Under Obamacare, it simply imposed a tax on everyone but exempted anyone who DID enter into such a contract.

With that logic, you can make anyone do anything.

You can force them to get a shot by saying we will tax you at 200% of your income if you don't.

[pgyanke]

The legal reasoning is that the Federal Government didn’t “order” anyone into a contract. Under Obamacare, it simply imposed a tax on everyone but exempted anyone who DID enter into such a contract.

At its core (from a legal standpoint), the individual mandate was considered constitutional because it was implemented no differently than an income tax exemption for (as just one example) charitable contributions or mortgage interest.

LOL. Crazy reasoning. Charitable contributions are voluntary. You get to deduct a portion of your income. Entering into a mortgage is voluntary. You get to deduct a portion of your income. The income tax may be universal but there are ways to adjust the income that gets taxed.

Taxing everyone specifically for not having health insurance is different. The only solution to the tax is to enter into a private contract for health insurance. The Fed Gov imposed a universal penalty on those who don't buy health insurance. It wasn't a tax increase, it was a penalty for noncompliance. The ruling was unconstitutional on its face.