At the risk of being redundant look to the Medicaid part of the decision. It does create a bit of turmoil in that HHS can not whack a state if they do not follow the fed policy. It will get fixed as neither side can afford the mayhem of lack of continuity it creates not to mention the effect on those in the program state by state.

It also sets precedent, as one pundit said, in that it clips the wings of congress as to the ability of them to pass laws on how the federal agencies conduct business as it relates to individual states. The example used was the highway fund where the feds say you do this or loose funding. Remember the 55 speed limit and the ruckus in the Midwest during the famous gas shortage when they refused to lower the speed limit? This one is a jewel as it walks out of the health care bit and across other issues due to the fact it has the potential to restrict federal interference in a states business. It is a interesting aspect.

A paste:

The justices rejected two of the administration's three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed 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," Roberts said.

The court found problems with the law's expansion of Medicaid, but even there said the expansion could proceed as long as the federal government does not threaten to withhold states' entire Medicaid allotment if they don't take part in the law's extension.

Link to AP Mark Sherman http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...f3c0617524d1252