I am not happy, but it could certainly have been worse. By applying an argument that borh sides and most pundits had considered - and discarded - that a financial penalty is a tax, Roberts was able to avoid whar would have been seen as a political-over-principle ruling by just about everyone.

I can still hope that as with Kelo. the opinion of "Constitutional, but bad" this "victory" will lead to actual defeat. PotUS and other Ds may say it is over and Rs should stop fighting, but that could have been said of Dred Scott. It is NOT "over." Far from it.

I am cautiously optimisitc. The SCOTUS just handed the Republicans the 2012 election, if they are smart enough to pick up the ball and run with it. (Which, admittedly, remains to be seen.) Roberts played a gambit, which I don't understand all the implications of, although I've been reading a lot of lawyer blogs trying to understand it (Althouse, Volokh, Powerline, etc.) I'm not sure the gambit is going to work, and at least in the short term it opens up a huge new power for Congress to compel individual behavior using the taxing authority. However, it also took a step in the direction of constraining the Commerce Clause power, and the continued validity of Wickard V. Filburn (the SCOTUS decisison that opened the Commerce Clause barn door) now appears to be in question.

Here's what's really changed, though. First of all, the individual mandate has been labeled a tax. One thing that's constant across nearly all of the political spectrum is that nobody likes paying more taxes. Second, Congress has a brand-new way of grabbing power, and it's a method that allows individual, private behavior to be regulated. Throughout the 20th Century, Congress leveraged the Commerce Clause to expand its regulatory power, but this power was mostly applicable to commercial behavior. Most people never engage in commerce except at the retail level, so they didn't notice a lot of this; it happened out of their sight. They noticed that prices went up and products got worse and some products disappeared and people lost their jobs, but they wrote off the bad effects to improved product safety, greedy outsourcing, and inevitable inflation. However, this new power is, in its initial use, targeted towards individual, private behavior. It will directly effect a lot of people. And no one doubts that a lot of Congressmen (Democrats and Republicans) will find this new power an irresistable temptation. Having the government tell a businessmen that you've never met that his business must obey racial hiring quotas and follow impossible environmental standards is one thing. Having the government tell you that you must lose 35 pounds and stop drinking Cokes, or else pay a surtax, is quite another.

So what's about to happen is that a lot of people who have been disengaged from politics are now going to start paying attention. And they aren't oging to like what they see. Constitutional scholars may be rejoicing that the Roberts gambit has started the process of drawing a boundary around the Commerce Clause, but to the guy in the street, the individual mandate is still legal and whether the Commerce Clause or the taxing authority gives Congress the power makes no difference to him; it's a power grab either way. These people will support anyone who takes steps to start reducing government power. I see the possibility of a grand coalition of old-school liberals, moderates, and Tea Partiers forming with the assistance of a new intellectual cadre. The new libertarian-inclined intellectuals will attack the problem at law, and the others will attack it at the ballot box. The part of Roberts' message that is most relevant here is: "Voters, we aren't going to clean up your mess for you." People are realizing that, no, politicans aren't all the same, and elections do indeed have big consequences.

A big change in American electoral politics is coming. I'm not sure what the outcome will be, but I see encouraging signs.

Now what I'm wondering is what happens when a state's constitution comes up against a federal law?
==============================================
The proposed amendment would provide that:

1. In Ohio, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.
2. 2. In Ohio, no law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance.
3. 3. In Ohio, no law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance.

The proposed amendment would not:

1. Affect laws or rules in effect as of March 19, 2010. [Date Obamatax passed.]
2. Affect which services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide.
3. Affect terms and conditions of government employment.
4. Affect any laws calculated to deter fraud or punish wrongdoing in the health care industry.

It was approved in Ohio with 65.63% voting for it.

So even as a tax this is going to be the 10th vs the 16th.

I believe some other states did it as well.

Another point, is Obama promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250K -- how dows this work in that promise?

Even without Obamacare being fully implemented the effects can be seen now.

Many temp agencies are offering cheap healthcare "insurance" to their workers. I, for one, decided against this "insurance" because it is insurance in name only - the coverage is little more than the premiums.

I don't call that "insurance," I call it "giving my money away with nothing in return." However, Obamacare now requires me to buy this crap or give my money to the government with nothing in return.

I worked as a security guard in the mid 90's with the same type of health insurance policies. I pitied the idiots that took it.

Jim, I had not heard about that Ohio thing. I think that it will turn on this: when individuals in Ohio don't comply with the law, the federal government will not prosecute the state; it will prosecute the individuals. Will the state of Ohio defend those individuals? If not, the Ohio law will be toothless.