I found this interesting:

The court ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional, but it can stay as part of Congress's power under a taxing clause. The court said that the government will be allowed to tax people for not having health insurance.

"The Affordable care act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," the court said in the ruling.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/supreme-cou...

news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-s...

Question: Is the requirement that people have health insurance - the so-called individual mandate - constitutional?

The court's answer: The mandate is constitutional, rendering moot further questions on the rest of the law.

Question: Can the federal government force states to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration?

The court's answer: Yes, but the justices ruled that the federal government cannot remove existing Medicaid funding if the states choose not to participate in the new program.

[Updated at 10:26 a.m. ET] Because the individual mandate has been upheld, and is essentially the funding behind everything else, this can be seen in large part as a major victory for President Obama, CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears said.

Jun 28, 2012 -- 10:23AM, Girlchristian wrote:

I found this interesting:

The court ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional, but it can stay as part of Congress's power under a taxing clause. The court said that the government will be allowed to tax people for not having health insurance.

It is interesting since neither Obama nor the lower courts believed this.

Well, I would have to say this puts to rest any notion of seeing single-payer health care within the next several decades. 

Jun 28, 2012 -- 10:59AM, Druac wrote:

Jun 28, 2012 -- 10:56AM, Nepenthe wrote:

Well, I would have to say this puts to rest any notion of seeing single-payer health care within the next several decades. 

Agreed...but I couldn't see that happening in the current political environment, regardless.

I would argue that it very well could have happened if anyone in the white house or upper levels of Congress actually fought for it, which they didn't.  Instead, people may now be 'taxed' if they do not hand their money over to private insurers, who are run by some very rich people who will be more than happy to become wealthier.