I used the word "cowardly" in the previous post to describe how politicians declined to address the issue of tax free employee health insurance. Perhaps one might call it strategy, but it certainly led to a jerry rigged health law. But what clearly is cowardly is the Obama administration's approach to the Palestinian request to become an observer member of the United Nations.  Membership would have given the Palestinians access to the World Courts at the Hague, No matter what one feels about the Israeli-Palestinian  conflict, why should one object to one side taking its grievance to the Court?

The request easily passed in the General assembly, but did not pass the security council where passage requires a unanimous vote. President Obama had an opportunity there to be fair minded instead of taking the Israeli side which likes the status quo--its continued seizing of Palestinian land that undercuts sincere negotiations.  For the forthcoming election, Mr. Obama needed the US Jewish vote and the approval of the very influential America Israeli Peace Action Committee. In order to avoid vetoing the Palestinian application in the Security Council, he pressured the UK and Germany to abstain. Thus, Mr. Obama was able to avoid having a negative vote on the record. I call this action cowardly.

The Supreme Court Review of Obamacare

Obamacare was created by building on the existing health insurance scheme in which a majority of workers receive insurance fully or partly paid by their employers.  These benefits are tax deductible to the employer and are not taxable to the employee, a system that has existed since World War II to accompany wage control at that time.  The system is currently unfair as recently pointed out by the gay Republican group. Employees who work for small companies have to buy their health insurance with after tax income which is not fully tax deductible.  This unfairness would be rectified if the the then Democratic Congress and the president had decided to count that employer paid health insurance as taxable income to the employee. This idea was opposed by all the insurance companies, the unions, which frequently have lucrative health insurance schemes, and by most employees currently enjoying these tax free benefits. A start could have been made by partly taxing these benefits in order to provide more financing for Medicaid. However, the politicians were all too cowardly to take that initial step. As a consequence, Obamacare comprises  a 2708 page law that requires uninsured people to buy health insurance,a product from  a private company.

This insurance mandate is the issue before the Supreme Court. It is acutely disappointing to see the Court so polarized.  The liberal judges, Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, were all to willing to accept the Solicitor General's argument that the mandate was constitutional under the commerce clause of the 16th amendment. In other words, their apparent feelings, which I share, that health coverage should be universal in the USA, appears to have overridden the question of the constitutionality of the mandate resulting from the awkwardness of Obamacare. Others have pointed out that in 1792, Congress passed a law requiring the purchase of a product from a private company--that able bodied men should buy a weapon.  That law was neither challenged or enforced. It would never pass today and thus is not a good counter example.  If the mandate is passed, it provides massive federal intrusion into the lives of individuals. Consider Justice Scalia's comment--food is a national market, broccoli is good for you, therefore the government could require you to buy broccoli. Approval of the mandate allows the federal government to require you to buy things that it alone deems as necessary, e.g. mammograms yearly for every women over 50,  the purchase of statin medications, burial insurance, perhaps even an NRA sponsored requirement to buy a gun for self defense. I sincerely hope that the court will find this mandate unconstitutional and hope that some of the liberal judges will overcome their political prejudices to concur.