Well now, hold on; I do finish last, but I get a few points...
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
"b.) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal- ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay- ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un- lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language— stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”— does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct."
Isn't this a truism though? People don't have to follow the law, they can choose a fine or prison sentence instead, depending on the law.
You don't have to get insurance, you can pay the fee...in the same sense as how you don't have to put quarters in the parking meter, you can pay the parking ticket instead.
