© Flickr.com/Floyd
Brown
|
The topmost recent news is the Thursday ruling of U.S. Supreme Court that in a 5-4 vote upheld Barack Obama's controversial healthcare law.
The ruling was, to a certain extent, unexpected, because the court
is almost evenly divided along the conservative–liberal lines, and the vote that
determined the decision in favor of the administration was that of the
conservative Chief Justice John Roberts.
Hours before the ruling it was not clear whether the Court would
uphold or repeal the law in its entirety, or uphold it only partly. The Wall
Street Journal, citing its sources in Obama's inner circle, even stated that
President Obama had prepared three speeches in anticipation of the ruling.
Luckily for him, he had to stick to the most preferred one.
The ruling has been widely recognized as a triumph for President
Obama who had put much of the labors of his presidency to this singular law. But
it still keeps open the question of what impact the ruling will have on November
6 elections.
It is probably impossible to go into all the details of the law in
a short commentary but the core of it suggests providing medical insurance to 30
million people who presently remain uncovered by any insurance plan. Shortly
speaking, it means providing medical care to all Americans – whether they can
afford it or not. This, in turn, poses a question of whether those who can
afford medical care should pay for those who cannot (and a considerable number
among the latter prefer to live on social benefits not because they are unable
to earn a decent living, but because they are unwilling to). This reminds of is
the motto formulated in the Communist Manifesto and attempted to be implemented
in the Soviet Union – "take and divide".
As was calculated by the Congressional Budget Office in March, the
overall cost of the new law's implementation for the period of 10 years will
amount to $1.76 trillion, and this in fact means additional taxation on the
middle class in order to support the poor.
The peculiar thing about the American public's reaction to the law
is that, according to Reuters/Ipsos poll, the majority of Americans oppose the
law even though they strongly support most of its provisions. And this opens the
possibility for the issue to become one of the most hotly-contested in the
months to come on the eve of November 6 elections.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has already vowed
that he will make the issue central in his campaign. "Our mission is clear: If
we're going to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President
Obama," he said shortly after the announcement of the court's decision.
His supporters have already worked out plans to intensify the ad
campaign, specially targeting the "swing" states which are likely to determine
the outcome of the presidential elections. And the Republican-dominated House of
Representatives is going to try to once again repeal the law in a July 11
vote.
The latter move is regarded as purely political and having no
impact on the law itself – the Democratic Senate is sure to block any move by
the House aimed at the repeal of their much-cherished achievement (and one of
the few Barack Obama's presidency can boast of).
So, the Supreme Court's ruling is viewed by some commentators as a
new boost for conservatives. "This is great politically. Bad for the country,
but great politically," Reuters cites a Romney adviser as saying.
A totally different sentiment is expressed by the liberal media
that are overloaded with joy. Some commentators (already 200 percent sure of
Barack Obama's re-election) state that now that the law is there to stay, Barack
Obama has all chances to be remembered in history as the president who changed
the course of the nation.
They may be right. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first black
president. After supporting single-sex marriages, he was called "the first gay
president". Now he has all chances to be labeled "the first communist
president". And this really means that he is the person to change the course of
America – the way Lenin changed the course of Russia about a century ago.
