>>What makes mandatory participation in health insurance unconstitutional? We all have to pay into Social Security. We all have to pay income tax. The difference eludes me. Well, I suppose one difference would be SS and income tax don't inconvenience gazillion dollar industries.
>
>The simplest "constitutional" crux of the whole thing is this - the Act, as written, doesn't generate its revenue via a tax (which CLEARLY the Congress has authority to impose....and in quite crushing magnitudes). It simply requires participation in buying insurance and then has penalties if we don't comply. The states feel that this is an overreach by the Congress by trying to require the payments under the Commerce Clause.
>
>The scary thought is that if this is overturned, Congress will try to re-do it as a tax. Of course, given how well they are doing with the current INSOLVENT taxed programs such as social security, I certainly hope they fail.

My guess is the chances of Congress trying to re-do it as a tax are about nil, especially in an election year.

I hear there is some excitement in the Bluegrass State this week ;-)

(Just as a basketball fan who has been following the tournament from a distance, it's hard to imagine anyone beating Kentucky. They are also a lot of fun to watch, and I say that as someone who is not normally much of a Wildcats fan. Not only are they scarily talented, they play the game the right way. Charles Barkley and the other CBS analysts were raving about them the other day, saying they don't play like freshmen and sophomores -- which the entire starting five are -- they play like they're all seniors. No mental mistakes, no selfishness, work just as hard on defense as on offense, etc.)