Health Insurance Tax Credit

The idea of taxing an individual who does not have insurance, seems to be a method of taxing never before seen.  Show me a tax where inactivity triggers it. Saying inactivity does not protect you from some type of tax ignores that activity would not also protect you.
The biggest problem is the tax is not big enough to make it an economic incentive to purchase Health Insurance. 
Provide an economic incentive by increasing everyone's income tax rate, and offering a Health Insurance Tax Credit. . Nothing prevents congress from raising income tax rates, and nothing would prevent them offering a tax credit. Inactivity does not trigger the tax.
It seems its doing it the same way, but you could have increased the tax on some to be higher than average cost.  But since the current method increases your tax when you don't purchase health insurance, and it could not be punitive by being higher than the price of insurance. But increasing a person tax rate can always be done. Looking back at National Taxpayer union website pulled (July 4th, 2012)
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html  We see rates of over 90 % at times for income over 200,000.
So Congress could increase the income tax rate, of all tax payers. The higher income levels would have their rates increased to a spot higher than the cost of insurance and lower income. The size of the credit would be income based.
A person with income above the poverty level, could have a larger credit, as you reach higher incomes they would receive a credit slight less.
Each year would be adjusting the tax rate and credit to best fit insurance rates.. Hoping the price of the insurance would go down over time. As the insurance pool would be increased and the amount needed to cover the cost of treatment would go down. Even the cost of treatment would go down as you may be able to get earlier diagnoses.
Stu Burguiere analysis would be correct. as soon as preexisting conditions are covered, companies would drop their insurance plans, setting up some money to cover some things, and then only have people part of the plan when they need the insurance.  But with this possibility, insurance rates would have to be increased for everyone. But that would drive people away from insurance and just pay the small fine. Could health insurance premiums be cut enough to encourage people to get the insurance over paying the fine?
I wonder if we could set up a game, an online game, and let people play out the effects of the health care laws. Call it SIM Insurance or SIM  Health Care, and maybe we could play out the effects of the law before we get to far in and find out we have major problems. I would enjoy playing this game.

listening to analysis of Supreme Court ruling

Now in trying to find a good analysis of this law, I hear one section brought up which is on page 37 of the ruling.

In distinguishing penalties from taxes, this Court has explained that “if the concept of penalty means anything,it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission.” United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996); see also United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931) (“[A] penalty, as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act”). While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law. Brief for United States 60–61; Tr. of Oral Arg. 49–50 (Mar. 26,2012).

With the point being, This does not solve the preexisting condition problem. People could chose to pay the tax, which could never exceed the price of insurance, and only get insurance when needed.

So if Chief Roberts is a genius and is playing some great game of chess, this opinion will lead to the incredible future ruling (9-0) overturning the law.

This lawsuit was done by NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. This does not mean it must be the one and only lawsuit filed. Insurance companies can now file suit. Insurance companies claim harm by this law not fixing the preexisting issue, and could claim instead it destroys them.

Is OBAMACARE upheld? Would not the insur­ance companies be able to bring suit? Could some people sue later when they are paying the tax?

Some part of the decision has support while others seem to have a lot of decent. Is all the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts considered to be in effect? If Ginsburg Et Al (not sure if that is the proper use of it) descent on some part of the decision, does it have majority power? Is the the entire opinion of Roberts C. J. even if that section is only aggreed to by some?

Suppose in some decision lets say (Kramer v Kramer) in this decision we have four justices agreeing on one opinion, three on another opinion, and 2 on a third opinion. Who wins? The four? Or would the three and two person opinions be consider the majority?

I am also hearing that by having this declared as tax this eliminates the need to overcome a filibuster in overturning the law. This become part of budget reconciliation. So Chief Justice Roberts has made it easier to repeal.

Is Chief John Roberts playing chess? Or are people just trying to find some reason not to hate him and his opinion. It sounds like people are saying “Yea Yea he was playing a game a chess. He just being clever, he has plan, yea he has a plan for it never to be ever attempted ever again. See he's smart, he's thinking. Its all part of a big plan.”

Some people mention some part of it being a 7-2 ruling. I want to see a good box score on this case. I am not finding where this is. It is probably the case but not sure where this is at.