New Rant.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1342184473' post='2455288']
. . .

All the arguments about how he advanced the conservative constitutionalist position on the commerce clause and the neccessary and proper clause don't really amount to a hill of beans. I mean, sure, it is good precedent and I like his interpretation of those clauses, but doesn't that ignore a wee little problem of the pandora's box of a precedent? Basically Roberts declared that Congress has unlimited authority over everything, so long as the only punishment it applies to those who do not follow its mandates is a tax. The law can even say that the tax is a "penalty" for not doing what congress wants, and with the Roberts precedent, the courts can determine that even though it's called a "penalty" it is effectively just a "tax". no one needs to bother with the commerce clause anymore, they have been granted unlimited power under the authority to tax.[/quote]
Well said.

[quote] But now congress can declare tax penalties for failing to do anything it wants you to do.[/quote]
The problem in a nutshell. Anyone who can't see the can of worms opened by this is blind - probably willfully so.

[quote]I don't like Roberts' decision, not out of any sort of really being bothered that Obamacare exists, deep down you should all know something like it was inevitable with the health care nightmare we have allowed to develop, but for precisely the kind of conservative bending over backwards that is praised in conservatives' defense of Roberts.[/quote]
I've actually seen almost no praise of Roberts' decisions from the conservatives I've listened to or read, the overwhelming majority of whom seem as outraged and dismayed by the decision as I am.
What positive I've seen about it from the conservative side is mostly of the "silver lining on the black cloud" variety.

I also disagree that Obamacare is truly "inevitable." (See Anomaly's response above.)

[url="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/308396/roberts-rules-disorder-deroy-murdock"]Here's some interesting commentary on the ruling from Deroy Murdock.[/url]

[Aloysius]

yes, most conservatives are angry at Roberts, but there are some who make these arguments like the one I was responding to.

Anomaly's response is overly simplistic. there are many more factors involved than the bettering of technology and skill over the years. the fact is that the healthcare system is a mess and our society should be able to find a way to share the advances in medical sciences in a better way. I do think that it was inevitable that something would be done about it, because something does need to be done about it. I'm not advocating any specific solution, but you're in a dream world if you don't think there's a problem. Part of the problem is government involvement, but part of the problem is insurance companies, ultimately some type of system in which medical care is made affordable and accessible for everyone is necessary. because if medical science has advanced to the point where people can be helped when sick, then there is a moral obligation to make it accessible to anyone who needs it. how one goes about doing that is up for debate.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1342477715' post='2456187']
yes, most conservatives are angry at Roberts, but there are some who make these arguments like the one I was responding to.

Anomaly's response is overly simplistic. there are many more factors involved than the bettering of technology and skill over the years. the fact is that the healthcare system is a mess and our society should be able to find a way to share the advances in medical sciences in a better way. I do think that it was inevitable that something would be done about it, because something does need to be done about it. I'm not advocating any specific solution, but you're in a dream world if you don't think there's a problem. Part of the problem is government involvement, but part of the problem is insurance companies, ultimately some type of system in which medical care is made affordable and accessible for everyone is necessary. because if medical science has advanced to the point where people can be helped when sick, then there is a moral obligation tmake it accessible to anyone who needs it. how one goes about doing that is up for debate.
[/quote]My response is simple, but very true. Your response states that society needs to find a way to share the advances in medical sciences in a better way and it's inevitable something needs to be done about it. Think about it.
We have cleaner water and safer food than 30 years ago. Anit-biotics are much cheaper. Vitamins and instructions on healthy eating are cheaply and readily available. Immuniation for the significant child diseases are free or low cost. Flouride is in the water in most places. Toothpaste and toothbushes are cheap. Pre-natal care is readily available for free or reduced costs.

It's our ability to treat rarer diseases, injuries, and illnesses that have also increased dramatically, but that isn't cheap. We can keep brain dead people alive for decades. We can treat Aids victims and help them live for decades with expensive drugs. We have treatments for cancer that can prolong inevitable fatality for decades with other expensive treatments. But how do you pay for these expensive treatments that prolong life?

We also have cars that have airbags that surround the person. They can avoid other vehicles, show what's behind you, turn on and off lights without you telling them, brake differently for different road conditions, change suspension at different speeds, and many other amazing safety features that are additional charges for vehicles. Why aren't all safety features mandatory on every vehicle? Why don't school buses have seatbelts, arm rests, and airbags for every student? Why isn't everyperson who travels in an airplane provided a safety harness, air bags, and fireproof suit with an oxygen mask and ejection seats for emergencies? We don't have the same safey seats and harnesses as pilots or even in small planes?

Why don't we have the same medical care, safety features in our homes and vehicles, personal health coahes, personal fitness trainers, personalized dietary plans, orthordontia, lasik surgery, that technology can provide to society and easily purchased by those with more money? Why can't we all get an education at the local community college that others can get at Harvard, Yale, or other Ivy League school as long as we have the same SAT score and IQ?

What's the limit of Basic Healthcare, Good Healthcare, Great Healthcare, and Best Possible Healthcare? Why do the citizens of the US and Canada have better EVERYTHING then our continental brothers in Mexico?
How many here think 'something needs to be done' so thay can get more of what their wealthier neighbor gets (like better healthcare) but actually could eliminate all their entertainment budget and provide food for someone without a job? How can you judge someone has 'too much' compared to you, but you have much more than someone else?

The simple answer is we really want others to pay for what we want and feel better about it when we say these that have more than us should also pay for those who have less than us so we don't have to. Though we are tremendously better off, we are never satisfied with settling for what we can afford with what we earn.