I wasn't at all surprised by the SCOTUS decision regarding the individual mandate. After all, it's really just semantics to say that an individual mandate to buy something or else pay a fine is any different than a tax with a deduction for buying something, the latter of which has been done over and over with no constitutional debate.
Whereas I don't personally think that Chief Justice Robert's writing in the majority decision showed particularly lucid reasoning, I think the gist was reasonable. The individual mandate is not allowed by the Commerce Clause, but rather under the taxing clauses.
This is yet another example of taxation being in direct conflict with freedom and has been exacerbated by the 16th amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Without the 16th amendment, these sorts of tax versus tax credit bits of legislation would be a lot harder.
Any behavior can be thus enforced through taxation. For example, Congress could legislate that everybody pay 100% of their income in taxes with deductions for various behaviors such as buying health insurance, eating broccoli, working for progressive causes, etc. If you don't do enough of the "right" behaviors, you starve.
I'm not saying that Congress is about to do anything as extreme as that.
What I am saying is the constitution really is just a piece of paper that has virtually no protective or really even useful value.
Ultimately, Might Makes Right.
Update: According to Randy Barnett, who actually probably knows what he's talking about, I'm wrong - the level of taxation allowed in cases like this cannot amount to coercion, only incentive.