Krauthammer has his fifteen minutes of understanding

I don't agree with Charles Krauthammer on just about everything, but I do think he successfully divined Chief Justice Roberts motive for the healthcare ruling in his article from today's Washington Post, "Why Roberts Did It." His premise is that Roberts had to find a way to satisfy both his conservative leanings and his role as custodian of an already over-activist, much-loathed Supreme Court.

However, Krauthammer's parenthetical remark that the “tax is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel" ignores the true genius of the Roberts ruling. That is: people who refuse to purchase health insurance place an undue financial burden on society (via the emergency room) when they become ill or fall victim to an accident. This so-called "punitive" tax is merely a way for irresponsible citizens to pay their fair share for their own healthcare.

The only difference between compelling health insurance and compelling automobile or property insurance is that health insurance is being compelled by the Federal Government rather than an individual state or a bank. And that difference is precisely what conservatives who hate the Federal government (except of course when it goes to war) find so distasteful.