Let me draw an analogy. Under the power that congress took under Obamacare, they could:

-Require that everyone providing photographic services be registered
-Require that all photogs waive any sitting fee for people with an income <75k/yr.
-Require that all clients be given a free 8"x10" photo of their choice.
-Stipulate what packages you could offer your clients and what you could charge for them.
-Require that all photographers provide, free of charge, family portraits to anyone who makes less than $75k/yr.
-Require that all photographers purchase a full frame camera
-Require all photographers who shoot action purchase a 400mm f/2.8 lens.
- In return, all photographers would be reimbursed a non-negotiable amount to be determined by the govt. the fees would come for a universal photographers fee that each person in the country would have to pay into. If someone dd not want to pay into the fee, they would be assessed a tax which would be used to offset the govt cost of running the program.

And so forth. One could make the case that having professional prints increases moral and family unity and is therefore enacted for the general welfare.

Could we get people to sign a binding agreement that they agreed NEVER to get any serious and complicated illness that would require more funds than they had available? No one except the extremely wealthy could ever get cancer or other dread disease, because no one could make such an agreement. If someone who chose not to have coverage did get (for example) cancer and required years of treatment, the health care system could turn them away because they had no way to pay for it? You think that would happen? Don't misunderstand ... I don't wish that on anyone, but I see nothing wrong with requiring people to provide some level of cost coverage for them and their dependents instead of continuing to expect "the system" to provide it at no charge to them. Oooooo .... that almost sounds Republican! It's so confusing.

But doesn't matter, I guess. Supreme Court upheld the Act.

Several posters have made very good arguments for both sides. Yes, our health care system has had problems that certainly needed fixing, of which the health care bill addressed. What sticks in my craw is the "if you don't have insurance, we're going to fine you" part. If you're filthy rich, you don't need insurance because you can pay for any medical care you need. And you can afford to pay the $5,000 fine for not having insurance. If you are dirt poor, disabled or just plain lazy white trash (like my oldest stepdaughter), you get your healthcare free of charge. If you are employed and your employer provides heath insurance, you're ok.

But how about the self employed smuck who makes too much money to be on welfare (or doesn't believe in milking the government) but not enough to pay 100% of a health insurance premium for their family which can easily run upwards of $20,000 a year? (And that's not just a guess or a figure I grabbed out of the air, my family and I would be $1,620/month or $19,440/year.) And since you can't afford to buy insurance, we (government) are going to fine you money you don't have! Oh wair, unless you are certain minorities like Muslim or Amish that don't believe in stuff like insurance. At least Amish pay cash for their health care and if a young couple can't, an elder will, something I also know for a fact (have Amish friends.) But if you are a Muslim, you can go right along with no insurance, pay no fines for not having insurance and demand free health care at a hospital, which ultimately the middle income working person is going to pay for either through higher health care costs or higher insurance premiums.

If the government is going to burden people with something, at least make it across the board rather than single out those they will financially rape and those that get a financial free ride.

First, I'm not a repub I'm a libertarian which means I believe the govt should do what they are allowed to do in the us. Constitution. Nothing more or less.

I do not like the bill as a whole but agree with some of what is in it. For example, I don't believe insurance cos should be allowed to cancel someone if they get sick. But I don't see the authority of the fed govt to make such a law so I disagree with that provision of federal law. States can make such a law and I would not be against them. But making such law is not consistent with article I section 8. I would dare say none of the bill is consistent with that section. By the 10th amendment, states can do that though.

The prob is that because of our two party system, the other side will grandstand with speeches in congress but still vote to find it. We've seen that since the 1800s. The iraq war....Dems initially supported it but then gave speeches on the floor about how much they hated it but still voted for the spending bills that paid for it. The Repubs do the same thing. Wake up and realize that regardless of whether YOU consider yourself a dem or repub or the people you vote for, they will do what they want to keep themselves in power. If that means grandstanding to make a point then so be it. Spare me the rhetoric.

But back to the poll. Did they ask questions on the more controversial parts or just the parts that most people would favor? What about forcing insurance cos to sell a product at a price the govt approves? Think birth control. That was a clear payback to the various ultra liberal feminist groups.

What about requiring people to buy a private product just because they happen to live in this country? Why should I be forced to buy a policy? What if I decided that I am in great health and it makes more financial sense for me to pay out of pocket the few times I get sick than to pay a monthly tax for a product I don't use? Why am I not allowed to make the decision on what's best for me? What if I don't want the govt to control when or where I can get healthcare or what type of care I can get? The fed govt is by and large a corrupt and inept organization that couldn't do anything efficiently if it tried. Why would I want to trust my healthcare to a group such as that? And then there's the cost. And then there's the slippery slope where the govt can now control every aspect of my life because they "have to" pay for my healthcare. Are they going to mOnitor my caloric intake and fine me if it exceeds some arbitrary threshold or if my exercise does not exceed a certain threshold?

I simply do not want the govt to have ANY hand in healthcare at ANY level.

By and large, conservatives don't hate Obama - the person - They hate his policies. That is a key point that escapes many liberals because they are either too dumb to know the difference or just choose to ignore it.

I don't remember too much opposition to the laws that require motorists to carry insurance. I do remember the indignation expressed when an uninsured motorist causes damage.I guess it just depends on whose kid has the measles.

Dave

Apples to oranges. First and foremost, the STATES require car insurance. Second, not everybody is required to carry insurance just because you live and breathe in the state. Car insurance is required because you can ram into me and cause me severe financial hardship if you can't pay for the damages you inflicted on me. Its hard for me to injure you if I fall down and break my arm and need emergency medical care.