would it be unconstitutional to impose a "health care" tax on all taxpayers?

I'm wondering whether those who are convinced that the individual mandate provision is unconstitutional believe that the government could not constitutionally impose a graduated tax of up to, say 2.5 percent on all taxpayers with the funds designated for use in reimbursing those in need for health care costs?

And if that tax would be constitutional, would it be unconstitutional to provide for a tax credit (equal to the amount of the tax) for those taxpayers who purchased their own health insurance.

If you think one or both of those steps is unconstitutional, please explain why.

Also, please explain why its okay for the government to collect tax dollars and use them for a rebate program (cash for clunkers) for purchasers of fuel efficient vehicles and, at the same time, to offer tax credits for those who purchase certain hybrids.

You said nothing.

Am I correct that you believe that there is a constitutional distinction between imposing a tax on someone who opts not to purchase a particular product from the private sector and a giving a tax break to someone who does opt to purchase a particular product from the private sector? What is that constitutional distinction?

Or am I wrong and you do think that giving people tax breaks when they opt to purchase a private sector product is unconstitutional?

A few % added to the income tax into a pool of money to pay for premiums (since the insurers had to be included...) and there would be no out of pocket costs to the poor who dont pay income taxes, no need for penalties for not buying insurance, no way to challenge the constitutionality in court.

It covers Social Security and Medicare. It seems that since you are already paying into Medicare you should have access to it. I wish someone would bring this to a court. Sure you would have to enroll and pay an additional premium just like seniors do today, but you still pay into it. You should demand access.

...yourself by the provision of insurance by you, your employer, your state, or Uncle Sam.

Thus neatly side-stepping potential Constitutional thorniness.

Jack Balkin, Yale prof and torture & eavesdropping foe extraordinaire, explains.

That some don't grasp that is truly scary.

One that several otherwise rather intelligent people I talked to today didn't understand.

Be kind of interesting to see a 5th Amendment Takings challenge, though. I think one could make an argument with respect to value (lack of just compensation) received.

Absent another right wing coup like we saw in Citizen's United v. FEC, a Commerce Clause or taxation power challenge won't succeed.

just as you would get a tax benefit if you buy a hybrid, but incur a tax cost if you don't

they don't get a tax benefit, that's true, but they aren't penalized.

under the legislation, if you and I have the same income and I buy health insurance, I pay less in taxes than you.

Tell me again how in reality there is a constitutionally significant distinction in the two results

Yet I doubt you think you are being penalized for owning the car.

If I buy a hybrid, the government gives me a tax benefit that results in my paying less taxes than someone with the same income who doesn't buy a hybrid. If you choose not to buy a hybrid (whether you buy another car or not), you get no tax benefit and the government makes you pay more in taxes than I do. In other words, the tax law rewards me for buying a product from a private sector company (and conversely, effectively penalizes me in the sense that I pay more taxes if I don't make that purchase).
If I buy health insurance, the government rewards me by giving me a tax benefit -- I pay less taxes than I would pay if I opted not to purchase health care or that you pay if you opt not to buy a hybrid.

From the bottom line perspective -- taxes paid/taxes forgiven, the two situations are really indistinguishable. The government rewards (or penalizes) you depending on whether you purchase a product. Its your choice. Don't make the purchase, pay more of your income in taxes. Make the purchase, pay less of your income in taxes.

nor taxes on services or parts needed to keep the car running. Taken altogether, I believe I would end up paying a hell of a lot less than you in taxes by not having a car than even having a hybrid. Just saying.

At least there's not a law requiring me to buy a hybrid.

As much as a CEO.

Taxes provide similar benefits fo similar classes of people with some degrees of uniformity. Health insurance varies widely from access to copays to gatekeepers to what services are covered.

But it's not only the different costs and the different benefits. It's also the differing profit structures bonuses and payouts.