And now the Liar'N Chief doesn't want thousands of companies to abide by ObamaCare! He's given out thousands of exemptions. Of course the small people have to buy into his terrible policy, or they get fined. Called socialism, crony capitalism at work.
SCOTUS found the law constitutional as a tax but not under the commerce clause (too broad). But personally I think that view missed the point entirely. What if Congress said I am going to fine you every time you say something I don't like. Can SCOTUS say its not constitutional under the Bill of Rights (right to free speech) but if you say its a tax on the number of words you use or what you say, just because its formulated as a tax, is it constitutional? Tortured logic? Obviously, but not so obvious to the Chief Judge. I think we need fewer lawyers on the bench, they have become so obsessed with the fine points of linguistics that they are failing to see the meaning behind the words.
"not under the commerce clause" - irrelevant, constitutional laws are constitutional laws and any other prattle that Roberts spouts is obiter dictum.
Regulation of the commercial transactions of an abusive and malevolent insurance "industry" is necessary, and if the only means by which that can be accomplished is by implementation of the now disowned Heritage Foundation's "Romneycare", so be it. Since necessary, the means by which it's implemented is proper. Even if that's a penalty imposed under Congress' taxation powers.