The Law Of The Senses

Listening to Kent Streseman an associate professor in appellate advocacy & Carolyn Shapiro also an  associate professor from Kent College Of Law & director of the Institute within the US Supreme Court simply blow my senses away. 
Re: case Affordable Care Act vs Tax Anti-Injunction Act
Prof Kent mentioned that the Obama administration was careful to use the term 'tax vs penalty'. Carolyn agreed that tax suggested political encryption.
To me penalties are too  'harsh words' for any kind of reform.
One critical issue that brings me home is whether statutes can be acclaimed constitutionally right or wrong. I now appreciate the resounding statement by Dr Kris Rampersad --  'it's in the constitution, stupid!'. --
Ok, the real reason for me writing this blog is the statement made by Kent when he stressed that one can see, feel and smell that this Anti-Injunction Act is a tax. Under the US healthcare system, it is mandatory that working people pay health insurance just like in all other countries. The only difference  & I am entitled to correction if I have erred in my statement here, is that because the healthcare system is 'first-world' in the US, everybody wants access. Indeed in the Caribbean & other developing nations, the wealthy will pay their insurances or taxes & the penalty is the majority of paying individuals almost always never utilize the public health care service! 
The sense of feel and hearing for the poor resonates unequivocally throughout poorer or developing nations where an abundance of pleasure is not the order of call. Sharing therefore becomes automatic, because the sense of sight & smell dictate to the affordable mass that 'public hospitals' are by no means the standard of care that is to their entitlement. The double taxation laws are in effect because one pays the automatic surcharge deductions & proceeds to pay a private institution again. 
Blessed are the poor for they shall inherit the earth! So why not?