Serious question. It could go in "politics," and I'm ok if it gets moved there. But I put it in the law section because it really focuses on the boundaries of governmental power under the "new?" limits of Constitutional authority. And here is the question. If the CJ Roberts' opinion in the ObamaCare case is correct legal analysis, and the Congress can tax us (as a penalty) for opting OUT of their command to purchase a specific product which THEY deem to be in our collective and individual interests, then WHAT LIMITS associated with a Federal government of ENUMERATED POWERS are left on what they can do under the auspices of simply calling it a "tax?" Hell, in this case they specifically REFUSED to call it a tax, but it ws ok'd on that premise all the same. So, by the mere rouse of CALLING it a "tax," what can Congress no longer reach? And how do you come to your conclusion?