What elephant in the corner?

Obviously, this is the big story of the day. Since it's also by far the most-discussed story of the day, I'm not sure how much I can add, other than to seemingly agree with the assumption that the NDP's best tactic is to emphasize para. 158 from the concurring judgment:

In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services...(I)f the government chooses to act, it must do so properly.

As for the Notwithstanding Clause option, the problem with Warren Kinsella's position cited by Scott is that I don't see it working on a federal level - the federal government simply doesn't have jurisdiction to dictate provincial policy to that degree. It controls pursestrings, but not delivery of services. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see Lorne Calvert bring up s. 33 in a hurry, and put it to use if even a lower-court decision in another province reaches the same result on Charter grounds.