The US Court and Obama

President Barack Obama has already initiated his campaign for reelection for a second term in office. Coincidentally, he has already had two triumphs that can affect his aspirations. The Supreme Court ruled in two cases that benefit Americans and therefore the president. One was a favorable ruling on the Health Act, and the other has to do with the partial rejection of the law of Arizona State Gov. Jan Brewer against immigrants.

The favorable ruling on the Health Act that Obama presented in 2010 in Congress is an important milestone in his political campaign. The late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy was the driving force in the Senate and succeeded in getting it voted favorably. The act allows for more and better health coverage for more than 40 million Americans that were uninsured and for those younger than 26 years of age, who will also be covered by the legislation.

The beneficiaries can now access coverage and acquire insurance without the inhibitory problem of pre-existing illnesses. The Act will increase better care for patients and result in a price reduction in health care.

Joseph Stiglitz, recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, habitually refers in his commentaries to health care problems in the United States and the high cost of medications, among other things. Although the Health Act does not specifically refer to the line of medications, surely by analogy there will be repercussions regarding this aspect.

Stiglitz has drawn observations that are also applicable on a global level. He explains the high cost of medications, affirming that they could be produced on a large scale that would lower the price. Nevertheless in a stingy decision, the manufacturers prefer that they be made at a high cost. Most notable are those medications used for catastrophic illnesses: patients with cancer and AIDS for whom it is difficult to access the medications due to their price. It is the prevalence of the market against the protection of health. The World Health Organization is constantly fighting against this infamous and unsupportive conduct, confronting the multinational pharmaceuticals and their well-oxygenated “lobby.”

The other aspect that favors Obama is the partial failure of the anti-immigration law of Arizona State Gov. Brewer. The Supreme Court, in a historic decision of five to four, with the vote of the conservative Chief of Justice John Roberts among the five magistrates, voted against the law. Polls reveal that more than 65 percent of Americans agree with the ruling. The decision supports migrants, the value added to Obama and even the American economy, due to a lack of workers; it is precisely those who migrate to the United States in search of the “American dream” that affect the economy.

Undoubtedly, the new Obama term is going to depend on the political effect of both laws.