How do you think the Supreme Court should rule on the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act case?

The individual mandate is a constitutional necessity to provide for the health and welfare of the country.
13% (219 votes)
The individual mandate is constitutional under the “commerce clause” since insurance affects interstate commercial transactions.
5% (90 votes)
Congress doesn’t have control to pass such a law as powers not enumerated in the Constitution are left to the states or people.
69% (1175 votes)
The threat of repercussions from not getting insurance invalidates all insurance contracts because it amounts to duress.
7% (116 votes)
I oppose or support the mandate for other reasons.
7% (114 votes)
Total votes: 1714

 

View more polls

 

Bill Schrier

March 29, 2012 - 10:20am

Socialized medicine does not work in Europe or Canada and we should not as a nation grant this type of power/mandate to the Congress or the administration.This administration has gone beyond what the constitution allows and must be stopped before we loose or give up even more of our rights. We the people not we the Congress !

robertegoss

March 29, 2012 - 4:19pm

Socialized medicine DOES work in Europe and Canada! I worked for the largest company in Norway for 8 years and I paid $20 per month and it was great. An acquaintance moved to Canada and after a couple of years he was found with terminal cancer. When he died his wife said they would have gone bankrupt if he had stayed in the US.

Obamacare is not socialized medicine as it NOT a goverment sponsored insurance but many private insurance companies of your choice. For most people nothing changes. This is the program President Nixon tried to establish, and it was promoted by the right wing Heritage foundation under Newt Gingrich, and established in Massachusettes under George Romney. Now, because it is under the auspices of President Obama the right wing says "OH No, it is unconstitutional!"

Signalman34

March 29, 2012 - 2:01pm

Army knows to be effective in defeating an enemy, you cut the root. Meaning we take out the headquarters. First Obama then his eletist string pullers . Election may be the answer, but suppose he feels he is going to lose and declares Martial Law. March 16 he set himself up for that by Executive Order, to be used whenever he "claims" it is for National Security. We know of course it means there is no more civil law, no constitution to protect us, no more elections, with it being enforced by HLS and 40,000 riot control trained special ops. Hasn't anyone thought of this???Evidently millions across the country have figured out what's ahead as 7 days after the EO, Strum Ruger went ballistic and quit taking orders after getting 1 million. They claim they can't manufacture that many in so shout of a time.

You are right on target jumpsbilly. But this act against the Constitution is just a drop in the bucket that's already full. A person would be a darned fool to turn in all his weapons which is probably next. As far as I am concerned, I will be like the CO asked to surrender at Bastogne.My answer to them will be NUTS!!!!(:O)

Now I am aware that God is in control, and just might let it happen, as he did when Obama was elected,as Judgement on us all, but I also know He expects us to resist evil, to the death if necessary. Who knows, maybe He will restore our land as He promised Israel in II Chronicles 7:14.

Germ

March 29, 2012 - 3:13pm

Did you just threaten the President of the United States?

robertegoss

March 29, 2012 - 4:02pm

Yes he did. This flake needs to be turned over to the Secret Service! He sounds like the jetBlue pilot!

Signalman34

March 29, 2012 - 6:33pm

Absolutely NOT! There are other ways to take him out legally. Impeachment does come to mind, or forced to resign. Guess you guys need to get out of your comfort zones and do a little research on your own. Hadn't realized the Illuminati had infiltrated the Legion until now. Not a nut job my friend, just been following this mind controlling movement for 3 decades. And those still supporting this con artist will regret losing their country that so many millions have sacrificed for. Oh yes, I talked to the SS when he was in Hawaii. They agree with me but are just doing their job.

Germ

March 29, 2012 - 3:16pm

Actually It works quite well in Europe and Canada and in fact they are doing more for cost control than we in the US. US health care today works best for those that can afford it. I get how folks want to repel this, but I never hear a solution to what we SHOULD do. So ... How should the US handle health care? Does an employer based insurance company profit driven system really make sense? Would it not make more sense to free our job creators from the burden of health care?

The problem is there is a lot of good stuff in this bill that we all want and need ... the issue is really the individual mandate. Oddly enough this was a conservative republican free market solution approach. This was not a unique idea of Obama's.

Bottom-line ... quite saying no and start providing solutions!

robertegoss

March 29, 2012 - 3:56pm

The individual mandate is constitutional not only under the "commerce clause"(under the commerce clause the commerce does NOT have to be between states), but also, in the same Section 8, the Constitution says that "The Congress shall have Power to...provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." I don't know a better validation of providing for the "general Welfare" than providing health care in a period of history that most people, especially Vets, children, and old people cannot afford to pay for insurance due to the insurance companies over reach and hoarding of profits. The Afforable Care Act is a reformation of the legal rights and responsibilities of the insurance industry. It will force insurance companies to continue to insure for pre-existing conditions, for exceeding annual and life time limits.

As far as the individual mandate, the constitutionality has been established by precedent in the Social Security Law which forces everyone to pay into the system and to have a SSAN. Try to have your employer not include you in Social Security! Even the military forces you to have a SSAN.

USAF DRILLsgt

March 29, 2012 - 4:41pm

Personally no one should get a FREE ride and receive Affordable Care without first paying the piper (USA) first. The 26 years old adultdren will have to pay a HIGHER Rate for Health Care at that age. People born with disabilities are an exception to the rule and should be accommodated. I am a Total Disabled Volunteer USAF Veteran and have to pay for my Medicare and on top of that need to supply a health insurance ( spouse and children until 26) to my family which still includes me. I have no justice on a fixed income and made/forced to pay for TWO Health Care Plans all-ready. Either way if the Social Health Care Reform remains or if it goes I still have to pay. Where in the HELL is the justice in that? I broke myself for this country now the country can afford me justice and do away with the free freeloading Congress. Why does my spouse's income cause high taxation to my Taxable income (SSI)? (A): Congress!

Signalman34

March 29, 2012 - 8:51pm

Hear-hear Drill Sgt. Speak now or hold your peace till after Nov. I am sorry for your wounds or condition but am proud to tell you thanks. Hang in there trooper!If Obummer doesn't succeed things will be better next year.

USAF DRILLsgt

March 29, 2012 - 4:56pm

Restart the "Civilian Conservation Corpes" and make Freeloaders work for there Health Care as a result the roads would be repaired, houseing repaired, water worksrepaired, homeless would be able to contribute etc. etc... See how that would work? Liberals we have had enough. The Federal Government needs to dig deep into there own pockets and stop downsizeing the immediate satisfying programs and personnel. They need to include themselves into the budget mix (Congress).

Johninco

March 29, 2012 - 6:01pm

"...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Hmm... seems to me a much more valid and coherent Constitutional argument could be made that a mandate should be issued that every household should have to purchase a surplus M-16 and a thousand rounds.

The commerce clause does NOT mean that "generally, everyone should be on welfare". But allowing the mandate to stand opens the door to, for example, as one liberal justice observed, mandates to purchase cell phones for highway safety. I foresee the day when Michele Obama mandates the purchase of tofu and broccoli and sends forth the food Nazis to kick down our doors to enforce it.

Okay, I'm being a little facetious-- but Congress should never, ever be allowed to force Americans to purchase any product, for any reason.

But what, you ask, is the solution? Well, the Bard had an idea in Henry the VI: "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Again, of course, I'm kidding. But much of the high cost of medicine is because the law is all too often an ass. Reduce ridiculous malpractice suits and you reduce the cost of medicine. Go after all-too-sacred academia and their gross overcharging for their product, mostly so they can pay for athletics coaches.

But stop robbing us. I hope the Supremes support the Constitution and strike this banditry down.

Johninco

March 29, 2012 - 6:10pm

Clarification re: academia-- if the cost of a medical education can be reduced by greedy, price-gouging universities, the cost of medical care will fall, because doctors won't be entering the workforce $500,000+ in debt.

DavidMsgret

March 29, 2012 - 7:56pm

The president and congress do NOT have the power to CREATE a commerce in order to control it through the Tenth Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution.IF it does NOT previously exist between the states the Federal government has no responsibility to control it...and SHOULD NOT control it... it is a FREE MARKET issue. Get the Fed out of the way and the insurance market will control the health care.. DON'T like what THEY are doing...put them out of business and start something else..Don't let the fed pick the winners or looser..

robertegoss

April 2, 2012 - 9:30am

You said, "Get the Fed out of the way and the insurance market will control the health care." LOL, What hole have been living in for the past 50 years? The only reason for Obamacare is because the insurance market cannot control health care. Wake up, sheep!

jimmie

March 29, 2012 - 8:17pm

I generally agree with those that favor what has come to be called Obamacare. IT HAS SIGNIFICANT DEFFICIENCES. It probably been much better if Ted K. had not died. One "must have" is the PUBLIC OPTION, needed to control costs.

My comment to those who say that the health care system in Canada and Europe don't work: Folks, you just haven't taken the trouble to research the facts for yourself.

Bob95490

March 31, 2012 - 11:35pm

Research the facts! What a crock; my best friend's father and mother were killed by the Canadian Health system. Neither would have needed to die had they been allowed by Canadian Law to seek medical treatment in the US. Instead they were legally forbidden to seek help outside the Canadian system or lose their ability to ever use it and both died while waiting to be treated. They apparently weren't worth saving.

Already, in this country, we have Congress-critters proclaiming the old should die to allow younger people to receive organs even though those older people have been on the list for far longer and have contributed to the nation all their lives. If this isn’t the “Death Panel” we were all told we were stupid to believe would ever happen, it certainly is the beginning of it if Obamacare passes. Once Congress get the power to force people to buy government mandated healthcare they will be in a position to mandate old people be left to die because they have used up their usefulness.

No thanks, I’m not interested in government forced healthcare, not interested is ceding my liberty to governmental edict and I’m not interested in allowing the government to decide who lives and who dies by rationing who gets treated based upon age.

flash

April 7, 2012 - 7:11pm

Everyone is disappointed with the cost of health care, the insurance companies, the people, the health care providers, and industry. We have been saying for years something has to be done about the health care system. Granted the Affordable Health Care Act may not be perfect but I have enough confidence in our government and representatives to improve on what has been started. Every body has a share in the success and should do their part in not taking advantage of the system that has been started. In my view it is crap to say it somehow infringes on our freedom.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Tell us what you think