Freebase Dali

The supreme court has upheld the constitutionality of Obama's health care reform. The biggest part of it was the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance, or else be penalized. Obama has repeatedly stated that it was a penalty, and not a tax. However, the supreme court has ruled in favor of the mandate on the basis of it being a tax. In other words, they said it would be unconstitutional for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance based on commerce, but it would not be unconstitutional to tax individuals who don't purchase health insurance.
So, basically what we have here is a loophole to get around the constitutionality of the individual mandate. You don't HAVE to buy health insurance, but those that don't will be taxed (substituted for penalized).
What's alarming is that the reform law wasn't written as a tax, but a penalty for those who don't buy insurance. The Supreme Court has, in effect, re-written the law, rather than to strike down or uphold the law. Something like this is unprecedented as far as I'm aware. The Supreme Court has basically acted as lawmakers.

I'm all for health care reform, but I worry about whether the tax will be more affordable than the healthcare itself, and people would just end up paying the tax anyway, which would defeat the purpose of the reform.
Also, I wonder how this will affect insurance rates.
Also, I wonder if it's right for the federal government to levy a tax on only some individuals based on the assumption that they "may" place a burden on other tax payers should they be hospitalized without coverage. In some things like car insurance, a person can choose not to drive. But a person cannot choose not to live to avoid being penalized for not buying health insurance.