SCOTUS Blog from Bloomberg Law is an indispensable resource today explaining in layman’s terms what today’s Supreme Court ruling on the health law means.

Simply enough, the majority of justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, diagreed with the Obama administration’s argument that the individual mandate was covered under the Commerce Clause, but made an alternative ruling instead — it’s covered by Congress’s power to tax if insurance isn’t purchased.”

This from long-time court watcher Lyle Denniston, who gets to the heart of the matter:

Since President Obama signed the new law, it has been understood by almost everyone that the expansion of health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans without it could work — economically — only if the health insurance companies were guaranteed a large pool of customers. The mandate to buy health insurance by 2014 was the method Congress chose to supply that pool. It is not immediately clear whether the Court’s approach will produce as large a pool of new customers. The ACA’s key provision now amounts to an invitation to buy insurance, rather than an order to do so, with a not-very-big tax penalty for going without.

This certainly empowers Republicans to claim Obama backs a tax-as-mandate for purchasing health insurance. But remember: Mitt Romney did the same thing in Massachusetts.

Share|