Obamacare vs John Roberts, et al

America awaits, with baited breath, for the Supreme Court to rule on Obamacare. Millions of people will be affected by this decision. Not for the first time, it's highly likely the Justices will place private economic interests over any perceived morality.

I've long argued that health care is a moral issue; but it's impossible to ignore the fact that it's an economic one, too. When it comes to private health insurance, the dichotomy is starker than with "socialized", single-payer systems. The problem with health is that no one ever chooses to get sick; no chooses cancer or pneumonia, or any number of debilitating and lethal illnesses and diseases. Are we, as a society, to be judged by how well we refuse care to those who need it? To ensure that the problems America had before, with people being forced into bankruptcy and impoverishment by simple virtue of having been bitten by a tick?

I think so.

The Supreme Court Justices gave us a hint the other day, when they turned down Montana's long-stand law against corporate interest in elections and their Knox v SEIU decision. In other decisions, this court has long proved its interest in conservative pamphlets than in jurisprudence or stare decisis. Justice Roberts will, and I have little doubt it's his ambition, be known as the man who turned the clock back on The Constitution. With their cruel "originalism", the conservative majority on the court have endorsed a view of America that only the selfish and arrogant John Galt could love; Robber Barons might, and do, delight in the court's rightward turn, but only the fan of Ayn Rand's obliviousness could actually love this court. Mind you, there's plenty of them out there!

And so we wait.

Carolyn Ann