patching...
Update: The next chapter of your community's story begins with a single voice. Yours. Blog on Patch. »
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

POLL: Do You Agree With the Supreme Court Decision on Health-Care Reform?

In a landmark ruling last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional in a 5-4 vote, giving President Barack Obama a political victory and maintaining health-care coverage for thousands of Iowans.

 

Patch was abuzz last week following the ruling released by the U.S. Supreme Court that deemed the Affordable Care Act — or ObamaCare — constitutional.

What's your opinion on the Supreme Court's decision? Do you support it? Moving to Canada? Vote in our poll and share your opinion in the comments section below.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the 5-4 majority, stating the Constitution gives Congress the right to impose individual mandates, the centerpiece of the legislation.

Isa O'Hara, owner of the Green Grounds Cafe in West Des Moines' Historic Valley Junction, had a different reaction.

"Holy crap," she said, in the minutes following the ruling. "There goes the country. I guess it was already sliding downhill."

  • Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision to uphold ObamaCare as constitutional?

    (Voting has been closed for this question)
    • Yes (tell us why in the comments)
        82 (43%)
    • No (tell us why in the comments)
        107 (56%)
    • Undecided (tell us why in the comments)
        1 (0%)
    Total votes: 190
  • Your vote will only count once. This is not a scientific poll. View Results Vote!
Related Topics: Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama, Health Care, Mitt Romney, SCOTUS, U.S. Supreme Court, and obamacare

scott cawelti

8:03 am on Monday, July 2, 2012

It does Repubs say they want a health care plan to do and actually pays for it. Repub arguments against it don't hold water.

Reply

Kurt B.

8:09 am on Monday, July 2, 2012

Although I do agree with the Supreme Court that Congress has the right to levy a tax on the citizens ( and this Health Care act is a tax, by the way ), I do think there are some major huge issues with this whole thing. Like ...... how are we going to pay for it ? This country is in debt so deep we will probably never recover from it. And, if China holds most of the loans, what are we going to do when they want repayment ? - will we give them Alaska ? Maybe Hawaii ? And, my guess is ..... they will want to be repaid.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Lynne

9:27 am on Monday, July 2, 2012

We already pay for it. Hospitals gets huge amounts of money to treat uninsured which is much more costly than prevention. For example, when someone has kidney damage from untreated hypertension and has to go on dialysis, they are automatically disabled. They get a monthly check and medical coverage, whether they paid in or not. Dialysis is expensive! If they have insurance, they can get their $10 a month blood pressure medication for a lot cheaper. I would rather pay for the office visit 1-2 times a year, plus cheap blood pressure medicine than their monthly check and the huge medical costs. We don't have freedom to not pay...we do pay right now and that is what people don't understand. We won't even begin to talk about the number of people who use emergency rooms (we pay for this) for care or are incarcerated due to untreated mental illness (jails and prisons are expensive and publically funded!) I am an RN and speak from experience.

Greg Hauenstein

8:51 am on Monday, July 2, 2012

This ruling makes my family more secure. My wife has had a chronic pain condition for the past 17 years and come 2014 we no longer have to worry about suddenly being dropped from our plan because the insurance company decides we aren't worth it.

That's an abuse of the free market right there.

Access to quality health care should be a right, not a privilege.

Reply

Jeff J.

9:40 am on Monday, July 2, 2012

Lets clear something up here... There is no limitation of quality health care in our country. The question is... who is to pay for it?

When you desire a government powerful enough to GIVE you everything you want... Then you will have a government powerful enough to TAKE everything you have.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Cynthia Hernandez

9:01 am on Tuesday, July 3, 2012

There is no limtation of quality of health care, sure, a redistribution of expenses is what is needed. The guy without health insurance who goes into the emergency room is what has to be considered. He is your problem and everyone. That expense is passed on to people like me who have health insurance.

Will Johnson

10:27 am on Monday, July 2, 2012

All three branches of "our" Federal Govt have now demonstrated a complete inability to govern intelligently for our citizenry. The cabinet is corrupt, congress only worries about the next election and from whom to borrow 40% of a theoretical budget (the USA, and nope, no budget), and now the attorneys on the hill say O'care is a tax. Guessing they never would have slipped it thru via those 1700 pages if it had been referred to as a "tax". Vote them ALL out until we achieve fresh thinking.

Reply

Jon McAvoy

11:03 am on Monday, July 2, 2012

If you base it on the theory the fee/penalty/whatever that people will have to pay if they don't buy insurance is a TAX, then the Supreme Court is right. BUT, it was sold to the American people that it was NOT a tax. It was going be be legal because of the commerece clause. Well, the SCOTUS said that was NOT legal. Nancy Pelose, Obama, and other Democrats are all still claiming it is NOT a tax. Since they wrote the law they should know. So, the SCOTUS ruling should be declared null and void and the law is in violation of the Constitution and must not stand.

Reply

Joe Dygas

11:13 am on Monday, July 2, 2012

It appears Chief Justice Roberts rendered a twisted opinion in order to save the image of the court from being perceived as too political. Unfortunately, that is not how the justices should render their opinions. The 4 dissenting justices had it right.
The court should not make decisions based on how the public will perceive the role of politics within the court. The HCA was passed on the basis of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. This decision by the court showed that was incorrect usage of the Commerce Clause. The HCA was not written as tho it were a tax bill and calling it a tax retroactively was not the right thing to do on the part of the Chief Justice.

Reply
Patch_comments_icon

Jessica Miller

2:51 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012

How do people feel about having to buy health insurance?

Reply

David Reasland sr

5:44 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012

You wait all governments (city- county- state- federal) will want just a little more from you in taxes,levies, bond issues,etc. the problem is we don't have it to give, they will say it is not very much you wont feel it WRONG!. They will spend other peoples money(OURS) until it is gone then they say oops we are out of money raise taxes. this opinion is a big slice of the tax pie, but not the only one wake up people! before its to late if it is not already. do we really want to be Greece?

Reply

Gary Geesman

7:02 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012

Start with the premise that every US citizen should have quality healthcare, and, if able, make payments against the possibility that someday everyone who lives long enough will make use of the care. For those who are unfortunate enough to not have the means to pay for coverage, they have to be covered by those who do. Preventative care is obviously cheaper than catastrophic care and a few decades of preventative care will more than pay for the increased coverage. Also, improvements to the current act, will make it more affordable and efficient.
Gary Geesman

Reply

Leave a comment