“What the Court has done is not so much to declare the mandate constitutional as to declare that it is not a mandate at all, any more than the mortgage-interest deduction in the tax code is a mandate to buy a house. Congress would almost surely have been within its constitutional powers to tax the uninsured more than the insured.”

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is complex and will likely take weeks to fully digest in terms of what it means for the future of ObamaCare. But a few things are becoming clear. For starters, the Court found that at least one part of ObamaCare is indeed unconstitutional. Specifically, the provisions of the statute by which the federal government would try to coerce the states into a massive Medicaid expansion were ruled invalid by the Court.”

“It’s unfortunate that Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal justices to uphold the individual mandate as a tax. Yet as I understand the ruling, the opinion does very little to enlarge the federal government’s power and, in key respects, reinforced federalism limitations on federal power. According to SCOTUSBlog, while Chief Justice Roberts concluded the mandate is a tax, he also rejected the Commerce Clause arguments in favor of the mandate.”

“The Supreme Court upheld President Obama’s health care law today in a splintered, complex opinion that gives Obama a major election-year victory. Basically. the justices said that the individual mandate — the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine — is constitutional as a tax.”

“Even if the Affordable Care Act survives its first Supreme Court test— a ruling is due as early as today — the lawsuits won’t end. Citizens have already filed challenges to what critics call the law’s ‘death panel’ and its impact on privacy rights, religious liberty and physician-owned hospitals. Still another potential lawsuit poses as great a threat to the law as the case now before the high court.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision on the 2010 healthcare law may result in what appears to be a fiscal windfall for the federal government. But it would be a grave mistake for lawmakers to react to illusory savings with real new spending. To illustrate this point, let’s look at a few of the possible Supreme Court rulings—and their projected fiscal consequences.”

“A new insider survey of 58 legal experts conducted after the oral arguments concluded found that most predict that the court will strike down the so-called individual mandate, a central provision within the law requiring that every American purchase a government-approved form of health insurance. The same expert survey was conducted before the hearings began, which found the opposite: Most thought the law would be upheld.”

“Very soon, the Supreme Court will be rendering judgment on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. It is one of the most highly anticipated decisions in decades, and for good reason. Whatever the outcome, it’s going to be a political earthquake. The only question is the degree to which it will shake up the political and policy landscape.”

“IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB’s lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.”

“Most American employers believe that a Supreme Court decision rejecting the entire healthcare law would be the best option for their finances, a new poll finds. Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed believe a ruling voiding the law would best bolster their bottom line.”