Christ. I understood it fine. I dealt with it fine. I quoted what I said. You're ignoring it again.If you had bothered to read the citation I originally provided (and referenced several times) then you (presumably) would have understood the argument. The argument, of course, is that the "mandate" is functionally equivalent to Ryan's tax credit, and therefore it should be upheld under the tax power. As far as I know you have absolutely no basis to claim that the argument hasn't been made in at least one of the 163 amicus briefs that were filed. I think it's extraordinarilly likely that the argument was made in at least one brief (and more likely in multiple briefs), which is all the Court needs if they want to rule on that basis. The administration didn't make that argument because they thought the measure would/should easily pass muster under a commerce clause analysis, and they didn't want to forestall the decision until 2015, which is what would happen if it was determined that the penalty is effectively a tax.
And I really couldn't care less what you find "extraordinarily likely" about amicus briefs you haven't read. If you want an actual example of "no basis to claim," there you go. Maybe you should read them all.
But hey, hack up the thread some more. I find it "extraordinarily likely" that you will.