Maybe it's me but something is really fishy about Roberts supporting ACA

[quaker bill]

79. It is actually a pretty conservative ruling

A true conservative jurist would look carefully for a rationale to uphold a law created by the other two branches. To do otherwise would be judicial activism - legislating from the bench.

While I think there are other reasons to uphold, the tax argument was always the easiest and most simple to explain.

The easiest way to "fix" the law (had it been needed) and leave every other bit of it intact, was simply to collect the insurance premiums as a tax, and then spend the revenue to buy insurance coverage for the people. In this scenario the only "mandate" would be paying taxes due to the government. We would end up in precisely the same place, except that the freedom to choose providers and the freedom to not participate and choose to pay the penalty would be gone.

Roberts decided the thing was pretty much like the energy efficiency tax credit, you can only get the credit by buying stuff from the private sector.