.

Patch's Poll: Do You Agree with the Supreme Court Decision to Uphold the Health Care Mandate?

The Supreme Court ruled today that the government can mandate that Americans purchase health insurance. We want your reactions.

In a landmark decision, both legally and politically, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld President Barack Obama's sweeping healthcare law, including the central mandate that individuals must buy health insurance.

The contentious portion of the law — which drew disputes among Congressional lawmakers in 2009 and was fought on legal grounds by Attorneys General across the United States since — is considered the “heart” of the law, according to CBS.

“The decision creates some certainty surrounding federal health care policy, allowing federal and state rulemakers to, for now, implement this law,” CBS said.

According to the Associated Press, the high court “rejected arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.”

In the United States there are 30 million people today who go without insurance. Through the mandate, the law hopes to stem this problem, as well as .

Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, which allows for lawmakers to mandate Americans purchase health insurance? Take our poll and share your thoughts in the comments.

Spiff July 10, 2012 at 06:15 PM
Do I have to get glaucoma too?
Marty Salvatore July 10, 2012 at 06:20 PM
And that would totally ruin the dark light posters, man! Bummer.
Maria Giannuzzi July 10, 2012 at 06:32 PM
I would agree that under both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence affordable health care is a right. I must say I am always mystified by the comments of those who spin their survival of the fittest, I don't want to pay taxes ideologies without ever, ever considering the consequences of their ideologies to the lives of injured or ill human beings. Oh, and Mr. C. always be sure to have your insurance card, checkbook and credit card with you at all times because under your belief system hospitals could refuse to provide you with the "commodity" of medical care without insurance or an extremely hefty deposit.
Maria Giannuzzi July 10, 2012 at 06:49 PM
I would suggest that it might be best to wait and see if the politicians, whichever party controls the White House or Congress in January 2013, actually are foolish enough to repeal the Affordable Care Act, including the provision that protects children with pre-existing conditions like cancer. We will not go back. If repealed at the federal level, states like Vermont will implement their own affordable health care programs. States that refuse to do so initially will eventually come on board and implement their own programs. 50 million Americans without affordable health care is a whole lot of votes. And besides sometimes politicians actually do the right thing.
Maria Giannuzzi July 10, 2012 at 06:59 PM
On politicians doing the right thing: During the fight for women's suffrage only one state legislature remained to give the necessary approval for the Consitutional amendment that would give women the right to vote. One of the legislators was uncertain how he should cast his vote. Women's suffrage was very unpopular with many influential groups. The legislator asked his mother how he should vote: yes or no. His mother's reply: Son, do the right thing. And so he did. He voted yes, the amendment was approved and women got the vote.
Malvi Lennon July 10, 2012 at 07:18 PM
http://youtu.be/7NfLUCBZ1is
Maria Giannuzzi July 10, 2012 at 07:23 PM
You know, Marty, it is possible Debbie read all the relevant provisions of the bill. Most of the time legislation has various attachments or appendixes which are not part of the text proper, including historical analyses of the various provisions and the reasoning of the legislators. Some people actually do read these days--even lengthy documents and books. Not everyone gets their information from Rush Limbaugh, Fox TV and right-wing websites. Do not be so quick to judge, unless you yourself have read the entire bill and know she is wrong. If you have, then say so.
000 July 10, 2012 at 07:54 PM
@Debbie Ferguson Debbie my friend, I may turn my back on others but that is my business and not yours. Why is what you want any better? It is not better, in fact, it is worse. While you claim I turn my back on others, you want to take what is not yours by force so you can give it to those you deem deserve it more than I do. The logic in this would shock and surprise me if I was ignorant to immorality throughout history, but I am not. @Debbie; Government cannot "give" what it hasn't already taken from others. If you and Maria want to form a healthcare cooperative while I may turn my back on you, I will not stop you. What is stopping people like you and Maria from voluntarily putting together an organization to provide healthcare and/or insurance to whomever you wish? How do your desires to "help" others grant you a moral claim to the labor of others? Debbie, Maria, I doubt the only answer you will ever give to this question is just to restate your problem. But, your problems do not grant you the right to take from others what is not yours. Your ideas and whims do not grant you moral superiority to do what ever it is that you want to others. And the fact that you believe you can, tells everyone a whole lot about you. But unlike yourself, I am neither shocked nor surprised. History is full of false philanthropists no different than you or Maria. You idea of "good" is nothing more than government theft, and you and your kind redistribute the loot.
000 July 10, 2012 at 08:06 PM
@charles "If it is not a good law, then how come 98% of Massachusetts adults have health insurance, and 100% of Massachusetts children have health insurance? If we force companies to accept everyone, then more people will have health insurance. Shouldn't we want people to be able to always have access to health care?" @Debbie "The issue is people losing their homes or going into debt because they get sick and have no healthcare." Charles & Debbie, then why don't we mandate that government provide everybody with food, clothing and shelter while we are at it. And, why stop there? Why not mandate college, medical school, law school, community college, toilet paper, lawn mowers, electricity, oil, gas for cooking, dental, mental health services and counseling, etc??? "If a mandate was the solution, we could solve homelessness by mandating every homeless person buy a house." Do you know who said this? Barack Hussein Obama/Soetoro. http://youtu.be/CPf1syRNY_Y Was he right then, or now???
Malvi Lennon July 10, 2012 at 08:09 PM
Face it the Obama administrations has told so many tall tales about ObamaCare not even they can keep their lies straight. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/308383/kathleen-sebelius-thinks-you-re-idiot-yuval-levin
000 July 10, 2012 at 08:12 PM
@Maria Gianuzzi; You say "I would agree that under both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence affordable health care is a right.' Why don't you explain how it is an "unalienable right" as mentioned specifically in the Declaration of Independence so that we may all better understand your postition??? here's some help; http://www.unalienable.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
charles July 11, 2012 at 12:50 AM
@spiff I can believe what I say. I watch President Obama in action. I have seen the good he has done for the American people; trying to put us into a state of peace by leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, presenting the Affordable Care Act, putting us before him, etc. When Willard comes up with a plan, tell me about it.
000 July 11, 2012 at 12:51 AM
If the goal of ObamaCare was really about increasing coverage for the poor, why not just raise the income limit to medicaid???
000 July 11, 2012 at 12:53 AM
Off on another tangent, again. Anything to avoid answering the questions asked.
Paul July 11, 2012 at 01:29 AM
An "intelligent" response from the Obama camp. God help us all
Paul Chotkowski July 11, 2012 at 02:36 AM
Ms Giannuzzi for argument’s sake, if Health Care were a right not a commodity why would have Franklin D. Roosevelt, during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944 have called for it to be part of his Second Bill of Rights [a list eerily evocative of the 1936 Soviet Constitution’s list of the Peoples’ Rights]? If it were a right under the US Constitution, why would have this lion of the Progressive left found it necessary to call for its inclusion in his proposed Second Billing of Right [which never passed congress]? Anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history [well someone exposed to an author other than Zinn] knows that the pursuit of happiness refer to private property and that this language was a compromise to avoid a reference to slaves which were counted as property. I strongly suggest a rereading of 10th amendments “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. I’ve read and reread my the Constitution 100s of times and I have never found the words health care as an enumerated power of the federal government. You gotta truly twist the General Welfare Clause and / or the Interstate Commerce Clause to get to a point where the federal government should be in the health care business! Its is for now so be it but please IF I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, IN ORDER FOR YOU TO HAVE IT, IT CAN’T REASONABLY BE CALLED A RIGHT!.
Marty Salvatore July 11, 2012 at 04:16 AM
There's nothing intelligent going on here. From anyone. Basically, everyone posting here is saying "screw you" to the people who don't agree with them. At least Mike's comment isn't dressed up in condescension and pseudo-intellectualism. He just comes right out and says it.
000 July 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM
Isn't the the very statement "there's nothing intelligent going on here" a perfect example of "pseudo-intellectualism?"
Paul July 11, 2012 at 11:37 AM
I wont waste any more time reading this. I have to go to work to support all the entitlements we give to non workers now that our "government" supports. The majority of americans do not want this why then is it being forced on us? Reply if you want but I wont be reading.
000 July 11, 2012 at 11:50 AM
@Bruce; Being penalized does not mean you've committed a crime? Then why a "penalty?" Why are you penalized if you haven't broken a law? If they fined you $1,000,000 would you feel the same way? So, can they penalize you for not breaking laws? How is this? Explain and teach me about "the law and it's application."
Maria Giannuzzi July 11, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Yes, Paul (or is it Mr. C?), and I have worked since I was 14 to pay the taxes you do not pay because of your mortgage interest deduction and all those other deductions you take on your 1040. I have to pay taxes to support roads I rarely use and schools for your children. But I understand that I have a responsibility to society, not just my own selfish interests. You know, Medicare is also being forced on you. But of course, you do not want to repeal Medicare because it is one of your entitlements.
Maria Giannuzzi July 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Mr. Smith, it is called a parallel. Sometimes the best way to learn history is the indirect way, through anecdotes and stories.
000 July 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM
@ Bruce, Under the S.C.'s rulings on the Commerce Clause the government can regulate ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that passes through state lines, unless it's local apples or corn. But worse, even locally produced and consumed crops are not immune from the government's wrath as per the S.C.'s insane Wickard v. Filburn ruling. According to this logic, the government can regulate EVERYTHING & EVERYONE FOR ANY REASON ANYTIME IT WANTS. Doesn't this interpretation make you wonder why the 9th and 10th Amendments were ever written? Doesn't this interpretation ever make you wonder why a Bill of rights was ever ADDED to the Constitution? Doesn't this interpretations ever make you wonder why the Constitution was ever written in the first place if this was the ORIGINAL INTENT? Doesn't the fact that Congress can regulate everything make a Constitution unnecessary? Probably never crossed your mind did it? It makes no sense nor does it follows any logical or reasonable progression of ideas because it isn't logical. It's simply a ruse hiding the fact that government and the Supreme Court do whatever it is that they want, Constitutional, legal, moral or not any time they feel like it. See, the Constitution & your reading of all 900 pages of ObamaCare law just don't matter very much. They just do whatever they feel like. The Supreme Court's intepretation of "commerce Clause" is a complete joke, but you study the Commerce Clause for "fun", so you must know this already.
Brian July 11, 2012 at 12:43 PM
My friend...why is it ok for people's "personal choice"? How about when they get sick and choose to go to a hospital and default on payments? Then when health care premiums rise, those of us w/ health care PAY THE BILL ANYWAY! Time for EVERYONE to pay for what they get. No more handouts...
Marty Salvatore July 11, 2012 at 04:23 PM
I would never say so. Because I didn't read it. And to quote: "I actually read all 974 pages of the bill. Maybe you should do the same!!" That's not the same as saying "I've read all relevant portions of the bill." I never watch Fox. Nor listen to talk radio. AND I read regularly. To quote: "Do not be so quick to judge." Live by your own words, lady.
000 July 12, 2012 at 12:28 AM
@Maria Giannuzzi "Mr. Smith, it is called a parallel. Sometimes the best way to learn history is the indirect way, through anecdotes and stories." It's also called B.S.
MAC July 12, 2012 at 02:35 AM
Maria is preaching her self-righteous sermons again, declaring her superiority to those who have WORKED for decades AND PAID into the Medicare that she declares they should decline!! She is jealous of homeowners who have worked and saved, and own a home, and thus take LEGAL tax deductions for mortgage interest. Such hubris and hypocrisy is almost intolerable. Sadly, what else can we expect from someone who WORSHIPS at the altar of BIG government! I'm guessing that Maria is an atheist, which is probably why she cannot understand our Founders and the Constitution, who understood that our "rights" are unalienable and come from GOD ("Divine Providence"). Maria believes that "rights" should be divvied out by government, because "We the PEOPLE," in her mind (according to her progressive hero Woodrow Wilson) and the DEM party, are too stupid to make our own decisions, be responsible for ourselves and decide how to spend our own money--INCLUDING being charitable to our neighbors and those around the world!!! p.s. Maria, those who rely on government to save them are going to end up eventually like the poor slugs who relied on the incompetent sorry DEM excuse for a mayor, of New Orleans, who was WARNED days in advance of Hurricane Katrina to evacuate the people!!!
Commento ErgoSum July 12, 2012 at 03:01 AM
Has anyone noticed that some loud mouthed ideologue posters only post on weekdays. It is almost like posting is their job. Wonder how much it would pay?
Susan Schoenberger (Editor) July 12, 2012 at 10:31 AM
The comments on this article have turned into personal attacks. They are now closed.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something