Jun 29, 2012 15:45 Moscow Time
|
|
© Flickr.com/Floyd Brown/cc-by-nc-sa 3.0
|
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Anyone have any thoughts about this?