The law isn't a tax. That statement doesn't make sense. The question six years ago was whether a very specific piece of the law, "its requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance," was a legitimate use of Congress's power to tax. The rest of the law is a bunch of things that unquestionably are not taxes.
That part of the law is gone. There no longer is any requirement that individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance. There's no longer even a question to ask at this point.
Beyond that, the crux of Roberts' reasoning was that (1) Congress can't make it unlawful for you to not have health insurance, but (2) they can tax you, within reason, for not having health insurance.
Per Roberts, (2) was okay, (1) is not. But now Congress isn't doing
either (1) or (2). It's entirely legal for you to be uninsured right now,
and you don't even to pay a tax anymore. So, again, there's nothing in the law to even strike down at this point.
That's why even
conservative legal scholars are scratching their heads on how this case even made it through the door, as you have to have standing (i.e., be injured in some way) in order to sue and you can't be injured by something that doesn't exist.
The people who think dialing the tax penalty down to zero is kryptonite for Roberts' ruling frankly don't understand the content of that ruling.