They don’t need to require them to be called taxes

 I said that I agree with the [Supreme Court']s dissent, and the dissent made it very clear that they felt [the individual mandate] was unconstitutional. But the dissent lost. It's in the minority. And now the Supreme Court has spoken. There's no way around that. You can try and say you wished they would have decided in a different way, but they didn't. They concluded it was a tax. That's what it is. 

And from later in the interview:

Actually the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates. They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was.

Quoting this guy is going to be almost as much fun as quoting Palin.

* * *