Poll: Should The Supreme Court Uphold Obamacare?

The rhetoric is heating up on both sides of the political aisle as the Supreme Court listens to arguments over the constitutionality of Obamacare. If the justices declare the insurance mandate portion of the health care law is unconstitutional, President Obama’s signature legislation might be thrown out or sent back to Congress for revamping.

26 states are challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) which was signed into law in 2010. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on this case by the end of June. In the interim, I’m curious to where you stand on Obamacare. Should the justices uphold President Obama’s health care law? Should portions of the law be upheld and other sections revamped?

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide; however, I’m more intrigued by the Court of Public Opinion.

photo: AP

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Nicole Johnson

Marketing Maven » Sales Consultant » Brand Builder » Energetic Entrepreneur » Networking Enthusiast » Writer » Wife » Good Men Advocate

Comments

  1. Anthony Zarat says:

    Obamacare:

    Health care for women is a RIGHT.
    Health care for men is a PRIVILEGE.

    Wrong, unconstitutional, sexist, and a repugnant violation of basic human rights.

  2. I don’t need the government telling me what to do or how to live my life.

  3. When is the last time you’ve been to a medical center that caters to men’s health? I live in the Chicago area and I don’t know of any. Women’s health on the other hand …..

    Universal health care doesn’t work and that’s where this is heading.

    • I suspect one answer could be “all health care is male by default” women’s health care (pregnancy, issues of the female repro system) is added onto the default.

      • Do you have anything to back up what you suspect? It kind of seems like unneeded misdirection and sniping.

        Maybe all health care is person centric by default with different specialties for specific needs of the patient such men, woman, children, etc.

        Back to Tom B’s question, I can’t say I recall hearing anywhere near the emphasis on men’s health concerns that I have on woman’s. Of course that is all anecdotal and pretty much based on my possible selective hearing and or memory.

        I did a quick Google search on “Chicago men’s health center” and before I completed typing that Google helpfully provided another suggestion of “Chicago WOmen’s health center” in case that is what I really wanted. A search for “Chicago women’s health center” only provide more specific searches for the Chicago Women’s Health Center”. Oh course, Google searches provide nothing except amusement and proves nothing. I suspect it works that way since there is really is a Chicago Woman’s health Center. Maybe the comparable men’s institution goes by another name if it exists at all.

  4. I have yet to see an example of a country where – if the government is still operating well – a universal healthcare system isn’t working. Technically, we have universal health care here already, insofar as you cannot be turned down for life-saving procedures regardless of your financial situation. The difference seems to me merely how the bill is presented to the tax payer, either after the fact (now) or before the fact (in 2014, if the mandate is upheld).

  5. William Hancox says:

    Universal healthcare doesn’t work? Wow.

  6. AnonymousDog says:

    Strike it down. The power to regulate Interstate Commerce is not, and should not be regarded as an open ended grant of general police powers.

  7. Anthony Zarat says:

    Please READ Obamacare before deciding. It takes 6 hours. Do not be afraid of the “907 pages” thing”, it is written in ridiculously huge font, with lots of white space. Six hours max:

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text

    How Obamacare works:

    1) The bill mandates that everyone MUST buy “qualified” healthc are.
    2) The bill creates a series of institutions to determine what “qualificated” means.
    3) The bill puts all of these institons under the oversight of “women’s experts”.

    In other words, “women’s experts” will decide which proceedures are covered, who is covered, and how much we must pay. They got to work right away on their “mission” of disenfranchisement of men and boys. Three months after being constituted, a series of women-only provisions were included in Obamacare … with no matching protection for men or boys:

    female (but not male) birth control
    tubal ligation (but not vasectomy)
    cancer prevention for girls (but not boys)
    breast health (but no prostate health)
    smoking cessation for women (but not men)
    STD treatment for women (but not men)

    This happened in THREE MONTHS!!! Despite the facts that (i) health outcomes for men and boys are far worse than for women and girls, and (ii) the majority of all health spending is already on women.

    So that begs the question, what will be “enough” for the “women’s experts” who are in charge of America’s health system? Will they be happy when 70% of spending is on women, and 30% on men? Wil they be happy when 90% of spending is on women, and 10% on men? Will they be happy when 99% of spending is on women, and 1% of men?

    Of course, they will NEVER be happy. That is what happens when a shared resource (health care) is placed under the control of just one group of people who share it (in this case, women).

    In time, if this abomination is allowed to stand, boys will be denied life-saving medication, to free up funds for “women’s emotional health by proxy”, meaning care and well-being of animal companions (paid for with public money).

    Obamacare is the largest act of government discrimination since Jim Crow, and the largest act of federal government discrimination since the civil war. It is the most horrifying and shocking dehumanization inflicted on any group of Americans, by our government, in living memory.

    To me, it is shocking that homosexuals are denied marriage equality by government. But compare that to this horror. Men and boys will be denied LIFE, for the crime of being born male. When has anything like this happened in America?

  8. Skeptical says:

    The question is should the Supreme Court uphold the law? If the law is Constitutional then yes they should uphold it. If the law violates the Constitutional then it needs to go. There should be no middle ground, and if Congress and the President failed to gather a wide enough consensus to make a good law, shame on them.

  9. Anthony Zarat says:

    “… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws …”

    It is obviously unconstitutional. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. Obamacare provides protection to women only. Explicitly. The law contains provisions for 38 different varieties of “Office of Women”, explicitly states that these offices will be staffed by women’s experts, and places all health care decisions under the advisory control of these 38 offices. The law is the greatest act of discrimination in modern American history. It is the greatest shame of our time.

  10. President Obama should have had the mendacity (…balls) to call it a universal tax increase from the start. The Supreme court doesn’t play footsie with threats of “Fines” against citizens who haven’t done anything wrong i.e “buying health care”.

  11. Copyleft says:

    Most of the opposition to the current healthcare law comes from people who don’t think it goes far enough, by the way….

    Single-payer is clearly the best system, but the insurance-industry lobbyists wouldn’t even permit discussion of it.

  12. I believe it should be struck down and resurrected in another form. The Australian version of universal health care is funded with a straight 1.5% income tax. That provides basic services with extras available via private insurance policies. If you want above what 1.5% buys get it yourself, if the government wants more to spread around and expand coverage, set up economic incentives that will increase wages or increase employment.

    Without a hard ceiling it will turn into another bottomless entitlement pit just like so many other programs our government mismanages. I’m all for the idea, I’m all against a non-capped solution.

    • Kirsten (in MT) says:

      That provides basic services with extras available via private insurance policies.

      What basic services are provided?

  13. I believe that the morality of universal healthcare is a value judgment, and neither side is likely to convince the other.

    But I also believe that pragmatism is deeply important in any discussion of politics.

    From a pragmatic standpoint, Obamacare needs to come down. The costs have spiraled out of control (The Congressional Budget office reported last month that total costs will be $1.76 trillion from an initial estimate of $940 billion). In papers published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists estimate that tens of millions of the poor will still be without insurance. This is because subsidized insurance is not available for a family if any family member can get insurance through work.

    This works best in an example. If I work for Starbucks, and have access to discount insurance for me, my child cannot qualify for government subsidized insurance, even though Starbucks will only subsidize my insurance, and not my child’s. Extrapolated to a family of 4, a family at 133% of the poverty line will need to spend over 40% of their total income just to get insured – or face a penalty.

    The end result is that as many as 30 million Americans will still remain uninsured.

    None of this information is really new. As Ron Suskind highlighted in his book “Confidence Men,” the Obama administration’s own economists (who are about as progressive as economists come) all recommended AGAINST pursuing Obamacare because it was unlikely to be affordable while simultaneously extending coverage to all Americans. The reality we now face merely meets their projections from 2009.

    Whether you believe in universal healthcare or not, it’s clear that Obamacare is a bad law. We would likely be better off if it was repealed and better planned legislation put in its place.

    Something definitely needs to be done about the number of uninsured, and about the spiraling costs of healthcare. However, Obamacare is NOT that something.

  14. Jamie Reidy says:

    Yes, indeed, the Supreme Court should.

Speak Your Mind