Judicial Enforcement of Affordable Care Act Penalties

My question involves civil rights in the United States.

Aside from the requirement to pay Federal income tax, I am not aware of any other government program, act, or legislation that requires a citizen to pay a fine, purchase a product, or even purchase insurance just for being a citizen.

Although it is true that in order to operate my vehicle on government maintained roads I must carry valid insurance, but I also have the choice to ride a bus. If I have a child, I'm not required to "purchase" their social security card.

So my question then becomes this; "Is the government allowed to force a citizen under penalty, to purchase a consumer product such as health insurance?"

If so, could someone please explain to me how this would be considered Constitutional?

Just curious.
Thank you.

Yes, the government is, because the US Supreme Court said so. It was debated and the highest court in the land determined that it was not unconstitutional. Therefore, it is constitutional.

The "fine" for failure to obtain health insurance is codified as a tax, and the government can tax you based on your existence as a citizen.

Remember, the Constitution is just an outdated piece of paper.

Considered a tax.

Then why wouldn't it be implemented "as a tax?"

Again. If I purchase a soda at the store, the government has the right to charge me a tax. But, I have the right to drink coffee instead. If I choose to use a federally maintained road, I have the "choice" to purchase a drivers license and pay my vehicles licensing fees, or ride the bus.

If the decision was five to four, apparently there were four justices that didn't feel it was constitutional.

I don't buy the response by Chief Justice Roberts that because both acts are a "choice," (purchasing insurance or paying a fine) that it is constitutional. I still see no precedent for forced compliance to purchase a consumer product.

And there were five who did.

So in simplistic terms, if the justices have ruled that it is, then it is?

Do you know of a higher court that can overrule them?

Quote:

---

Quoting policetac

---

So in simplistic terms, if the justices have ruled that it is, then it is?

---

In a nutshell, yes.

And, because it has been ruled to be a "tax" that opens up other challenges that may yet be winding their way through the courts.

It's a flippin' nightmare and will only be resolved, I believe, when the feds throw in the towel and (sadly) give us truly nationalized, subsidized (i.e. expensive) and rationed care as they have in Europe and Canada.