FOR! The ones 'against' have no idea what they're talking about!

AGAINST! The ones "for" have no idea what they're talking about!

This question/poll is kind of ridiculous. First of all, it uses the invented name "Obamacare" as if he actually wrote the whole thing, not Congress, even though his opinions may have influenced what was in the law. Second, the Affordable Care Act, as the actual legislation is known, is huge and complex. So, what part are you asking if people like?

Polling shows that when you ask people if they "like Obamacare" they tend to say no by a small majority. But when you ask about the individual tenets of this law they tend to overwhelmingly favor it.

As usual, people are pretty confused because this is a big and confusing law, something the opponents of it are using to their advantage, but to the detriment, I'm afraid, of the country.

We've needed some sort of healthcare system in the US for a long time. This is a good faith effort by Congress to accomplish that. The individual provisions have been used successfully in individual states and other countries. It's time to give this legislation a chance and fix any problems over time; not throw it out and continue on our 3rd world path.

Jeff,

Millions in America are uninsured. Do you see this as a problem, or do you feel we have the system in place for everyone who wants to be insured to get insurance so basically the Affordable Care Act is a solution to a problem that does not exist (or is already being addressed by other existing law)? (Just Askin’.)

The Affordable Care Act is a small step in the right direction. Universal health care for all is the goal. People before profit!

The health care reform is a real political debate. At the beginning of this Administration there were agreements by both parties but the door for discussion was closed because the goal was to pass the bill no matter what. How many people really knew what was in the over 2,000 pages? Now we can see the complexity and problem of the bill. The case is now at the highest level of review...the U.S. Supreme Court.
We know the system needs to change. How much force will there be, how much will it cost the Federal Government, States, the individual? The big concern is mostly about how health care will be paid. Health care worked before the bill was introduced. Let's deal with the agreements. It appears that uninsured people have been treated free in the past. For that coverage there might have been fewer paper work and no insurance involvement. Prisoners probably have better health care than the unemployed people.
Will there be enough doctors to treat all the people? There is no easy answer to this health care reform issue, but it certainly needs to be discussed to its fullest.

The current situation is a disgrace. The Affordable Health Care Act is not prfect but it is the best that could be passed in the current political environment. Universal Single Payer Health care would be better but at this point the health insurance companies have enough power to prevent it.

It seems the focus of most people in favor of the law focus on the good intentions and ignore the constitutional issues. No good idea should trump the constitution. If the government can force us to buy insurance than they can force us to do anything in the name of health. Maybe these good ideas should be accomplished in a manner that does not fundamentally change the peoples relationship with the government.

Ray,

The present constitutional question is not whether the government can force us to pay for something (it already forces us to pay for Social Security and Medicare, for example – all constitutional); it is whether the government can force us to pay for something by engaging a private entity, because that constitutes “commerce.”

There is no constitutional question whatsoever should the health care act make use of the “single payer” option as many suggest, where the government will simply run healthcare.

The irony of the cases before the Supreme Court is that if the Court rules against the “individual mandate” it may actually ultimately push our government away from the current much more creative solution, which utilizes private insurers and much of what is good in the current market driven system, and toward the much criticized “European model” single payer option.

We have a constitution that protects our freedoms by limiting what the federal government can do. As we see by Obama' HHS Mandate to force people to pay for abortion ( after lying that he would not) in his healthcare bill he thinks the federal government can do anything he wants. That is the action of a tyrannical dictator. He must be removed from office. After that the Congress can move to begin implementing helpful, constitutional health care.

John,

The constitution also protects the right to an abortion. Of course no one is forced to have an abortion, but like any other medical procedure, having it be covered by insurance for those who choose to have one makes good sense.

Thankfully Congress (not the President) beat back, by voting down the Blunt Amendment, the idea that employers might pick and choose what procedures they might want to exclude from medical coverage.

Also, you mention “helpful, constitutional health care.” What would that look like in your view, or perhaps: how would it differ from the current Affordable Care Act?