In arguments before a Florida court, where the constitutional challenge to the insurance mandate is being heard, Justice Department lawyer Ian Gershengorn said health insurance is "a financing mechanism," not a product.
It seems to me that this opens a completely new line of argument about the constitutionality of the mandate. A financing mechanism is a taxation term. Again we have administration lawyers stating that the mandate is a tax, but in this case they are claiming that health insurance premiums are a tax.
Traditionally health insurance is viewed as a contract between the insurer and the insured, with the premium purchasing a menu of services in the event of certain occurrences. What Gershengorn is arguing completely changes what insurance, and the insurance market, has always been.