POLL: Do You Agree With Supreme Court on Healthcare Reform?
In a complicated decision, the justices upheld most of the health care reform legislation popularly known as Obamacare.
Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Thursday upholding most of President Obama's signature health care reform legislation?
By a 5-4 vote, the justices upheld most of the act, although the opinion is a complicated one. The court upheld the requirement that every American purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty, as a tax decision and upheld it on those grounds, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts.
Follow us on Facebook at Algonquin-Lake in the Hills Patch
"Our precedent demonstrates that Congress has the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000 under the taxing power, and that Section 5000 need not be read to do more than impose a tax," Roberts wrote in one of the key sentences from the opinion.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
Vote in our poll and add your thoughts in the comments section below.
Dan Arenov
3:46 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Remember the elections of 2010?
The Democrats were beaten handily, and mostly because of one issue. Obamacare.
It is even less popular now than it was then.
And NOW we know it for what it is...technically, it is a 'tax'.
We are in an awful economy, so awful that Joe Biden just yesterday said that millions are in a 'depression'. So we are in a depression and staring down the biggest tax increase ever levied in history?
Obama was already in trouble this November, and seemingly facing an enthusiasm deficit. This is not 2008. This is not an 'historic' election. Democrat supporters are not as enthusiastic about this election as are Republicans... and now this.
This is going to fire up the conservative base...this is going to help Republicans in fundraising efforts. This is going to sway more independents (who are firmly against Obamacare, per most polling).
The legacy media prepared for today by trying to position this as a 'win - win' for Obama, regardless of how the SC ruled. They may have to come up with a different narrative.
David
7:46 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
This is not the 'biggest tax increase in history'. Look it up before you post your Fox News talking point here.
Obama is far from being 'in trouble'. That is just wishful thinking from the radical right.
The Conservative Base is already fired up, and has been since the 2008 election. There is only one reason for this, and it has to do with the color of a man's skin in the White House.
This is a win-win for Obama. There is no argument here, and everything you said is either just another lie from the right, or doesn't make any sense.
You are on the wrong side of history Dan. You lose.
Jamiedog
12:52 pm on Thursday, July 5, 2012
Sorry, David--BUT WILL YOU JUST TAKE THE RACE CARD THING OUT OF THIS?
Even OBlama himself when running for office in 2008 said not to base things on race. That is so 1950's---time to join the 21st Century.
kwyjibo
8:41 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
One thing that everyone seems to be forgetting - this wasn't a decision on whether or not Obamacare was a good idea or not, it was a decision on whether or not it was legal. "It's a tax," "it's not a tax" is all semantics.
David, I hope you can appreciate that some - actually many - people have disagreements with the President's policies and performance that has absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin (or his gender, or his sexual preference, or religion, ...).
Jamiedog
12:58 pm on Thursday, July 5, 2012
Well said, kwyjobo! OBlama being a loser president has NOTHING to do with his skin color, education, religion, etc.!!!
Dan Arenov
6:32 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
David: "..This is a win-win for Obama. There is no argument here, and everything you said is either just another lie from the right, or doesn't make any sense."
At least you touched on one point before waving your ignorant race card.
Taxes. Yes, David, this is a tax. Obama said "no, no, no..it's not a tax". The lawyer representing the gov't in oral arguments kept calling it a 'tax', but when challenged on that point said "no. it's not a tax, it's a penalty."
Under the Commerce Clause, a penalty can be enforced by the gov't. What CJ Roberts said is that Obamacare is not eligible under the Commerce Clause. However, it could be constitutional as a 'tax'. This is not how the law was written, nor was it how Congress intended it, but that is the only way that it is constitutional.
Roberts overreached. This is a classic case of legislating from the bench. I recommend that everyone read the dissent. It is enlightening. There are literally hundreds of pages of provisions in Obamacare that are now screwed up because of the fact that it's now based on taxation, not the Commerce Clause.
If citizens decide against carrying qualifying insurance, how are the going to be penalized, David? By the IRS, that's who. Do you know what the IRS does, David? They collect taxes.
I didn't see this on Fox News.. i don't watch news on t.v. at all. Who is the one using talking points, David? You might want to expand your horizons and think for yourself for once.