Two new polls show majority want Supreme Court to overturn ObamaCare

posted at 9:15 am on March 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

As the issue of ObamaCare goes to the Supreme Court this week, two new polls show what most other pollsters have found for the last two years — the majority of Americans want ObamaCare overturned.  We’ll start with the new Reason-Rupe poll, which surveyed 1200 general-population adults to find that 62% believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional:

As the Supreme Court hears challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act this week, a new Reason-Rupe poll of 1,200 adults finds 62 percent of Americans believe it is unconstitutional for Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance, while 30 percent think requiring health insurance is constitutional.

Legal experts have suggested that if Congress has the power to require individuals to buy health care insurance, it may also mandate that Americans buy broccoli. The Reason-Rupe poll finds 87 percent of Americans believe Congress does not have the power to require the purchase of broccoli, while 8 percent say Congress can force you to buy vegetables.

Reason-Rupe finds 54 percent of Americans think the health care law will result in the rationing of health care services. Half of Americans have an unfavorable view of the health care law, while 32 percent have a favorable view of it. Similarly, 49 percent say the law should be repealed and 36 percent would let it stand.

There’s a fairly obvious disconnect in these numbers, in the 13-point difference between respondents who say that the law is unconstitutional (62%) while only 49% want it repealed.  That leaves 13% who think it violates the Constitution but somehow think it should remain law — or at best are unsure whether it should or not.  This looks like a symptom of poor civics instruction in the US, which should teach that the Constitution is the foundational legal document of the country, and that laws cannot contradict it, especially federal law, which the Constitution explicitly exists to limit.

Still, only 36% think it should be kept in place in the Reason/Rupe survey, which is otherwise rather friendly to Obama.  The D/R/I is a strange 41/38/13, but at least the difference between Democrats and Republicans is within the ballpark, even if independents are undersampled.  Obama’s job approval rating in this survey is 48/46, although his approval on economic policy is 44/53.  A majority of the respondents say they will either definitely vote for Obama (30%) or could do so (21%).  Those are better numbers than Obama gets in other polls, so the survey hardly oversampled Obama critics to get these numbers.

The sample is a little different in The Hill’s poll, but the results are about the same:

Half of likely voters want the Supreme Court to overturn President Obama’s healthcare law, according to The Hill’s latest poll.

Just 42 percent said the court should uphold the law, with 50 percent saying it should be struck down.

A majority of both men and women want the law voided. By a 52-percent-to-39-percent margin women are more opposed to it than men, who oppose it 48 percent to 45 percent, a difference that matches the poll’s 3-point margin of error.

Only blacks (74 percent), Democrats (71 percent) and liberals (75 percent) want the law upheld. While even the youngest voters oppose the law (47 percent to 42 percent among those aged 18-39), opposition grows to 53 percent among voters aged 65 and older.

This poll surveyed likely voters rather than general-population adults, and its D/R/I is 32/36/32, which probably oversamples Republicans by a small margin at the expense of Democrats.  However, the numbers aren’t that much different.  That’s bad news for President Obama, especially when it comes to the public perception of his signature legislative achievement.  Only 22% believe it will make the quality of health care better — twenty points lower than those who want the bill upheld.  Forty-two percent believe it will make health care worse, and another 30% believe it will do nothing to improve or worsen health care, which makes nearly three-quarters of likely voters who believe ObamaCare will either be ineffective or worse.

That’s not the only problem for Obama in this poll, either.  Democrats have owned the health care issue for years over Republicans, usually well into double digits.  Today’s poll shows a dead heat between Democrats and Republicans on trust regarding health-care policies, 44% each (indies give Dems the edge, but within the MoE at 40/37).  That’s a big problem for Democrats heading into the fall elections, especially with Obama getting hammered on another traditional Democratic strength, the economy [see update III].

Finally, there is a big vote of no-confidence in the Supreme Court as well.  The Hill asked whether the justices decide cases based on the Constitution or on their own personal political beliefs.  By more than 2-1 (56/27), voters believe the justices act on their personal political beliefs rather than the Constitution.  That ratio holds up across every demographic in the crosstabs.  One presumes that a 5-4 decision on this case will only corroborate that impression.

Update: Reason responded to my issue with the D/R/I composition.  In an e-mail from Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications for the Reason Foundation, the original D/R/I was 30/28/37, which undersamples Democrats and Republicans a little but gets the ratios reasonably close.  The published 41/38/13 resulted from adding leaners to the D/R and subtracting them from independents.

It’s nice to have a publication actually respond to these concerns, but then again, I have always considered Reason to be top-drawer anyway.

Update II: In my last update, I mistakenly wrote that the original D/R/I of the sample was 30/28/27.  It was 30/28/37, which I have fixed above.  Sorry for the confusion on the typo.

Update III: Actually, I should note that the Democratic polling advantage on health care disappeared two years ago, and Republicans had a double-digit lead on the issue at the midterms.  This is an improvement for Democrats, but it’s still no longer one of their core advantages.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I don’t believe Justice Kagan is impartial on the issue of “health care”.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/a-note-on-kagan-and-health-care/

Lourdes on March 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

If she does not recuse herself, then this whole exercise is pretty much bogus.

UltimateBob on March 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM

The Supremes can reject it, but Obama will ignore that, and remove the mandate, and proceed as if nothing happened.
[snip]
Do you know any differently, I would love to hear it?

Fleuries on March 26, 2012 at 9:48 AM

If true, and Obama’s re-elected, our only hope is (1) capturing a Tea Party-influenced majority/leadership of both Houses of Congress (ideally 2/3 of the Senate, but that won’t happen) and (2) impeachment.

I can dream, can’t I? [Even if not convicted by the Senate, an impeachment (including numerous other offenses) is still in order ... but the House apparently wouldn't impeach Obama for any reason ...]

ShainS on March 26, 2012 at 11:05 AM

A distinction without a difference. Embracing big government solutions is a terrible precedent. Romney wants this issue to disappear though. He is probably praying nightly to Joesph Smith SCOTUS tosses the entire law.

NotCoach on March 26, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Another effing dingbat. Fukhead you do realize that Obamacare is unconstitutional while Romneycare is not. And again idiot Romney does not support Obamacare. Learn to think . This is exhausting.

CW on March 26, 2012 at 11:26 AM

A distinction without a difference. Embracing big government solutions is a terrible precedent. Romney wants this issue to disappear though. He is probably praying nightly to Joesph Smith SCOTUS tosses the entire law.

NotCoach on March 26, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Another effing dingbat. Fukhead you do realize that Obamacare is unconstitutional while Romneycare is not. And again idiot Romney does not support Obamacare. Learn to think . This is exhausting.

CW on March 26, 2012 at 11:26 AM

NotCoach is not a troll and is not a dingbat. His observation that “Embracing big government solutions is a terrible precedent” is correct.

His observation that “Romney wants this issue to disappear” is also correct. Are you arguing that, somehow, ObamaCare makes Romney a stronger candidate, when Romney caused RomneyCare to be enacted? That argument is absurd. Santorum says that Romney is the weakest candidate in the Republican field to challenge Obama on ObamaCare. He is right.

ObamaCare may be unconstitutional (we hope), and RomneyCare may be constitutional. These do not detract from NotCoach’s points.

Neither does your logic-free foul-mouthed rant.

HeatSeeker2011 on March 26, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Another effing dingbat. Fukhead you do realize that Obamacare is unconstitutional while Romneycare is not. And again idiot Romney does not support Obamacare. Learn to think . This is exhausting.

CW on March 26, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Again, a distinction without a difference. The constitutionality of either is irrelevant. But what is relevant is the propensity of Romney to embrace gigantic government turds almost identical to Obama’s embrace of giant government turds. I am sure that Romney can find some constitutional way to burden us all unnecessarily.

NotCoach on March 26, 2012 at 11:38 AM

I believe the Constitution requires me to buy beer.

Oh wait, it requires YOU to pay for my beer.

And deliver it to my house. Cold.

Give me liberty!

NoDonkey on March 26, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Give me liberty AND give me a beer, but preferably I’d like the beer first.

theblackcommenter on March 26, 2012 at 11:38 AM

It’s too bad that the Supreme Court doesn’t take into consideration not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law and the methods that were used to get it passed.

Something this controversial where (1) more than half the nation is against it; (2) where it was not truly voted for by half of our country’s duly elected representatives (with zero Republicans voting for it); (3) a law that was passed based on lies, manipulation, behind closed doors and with supterfuge; and (3) a prime example of the first of many “dictates” that can happen as time passes, i.e. the mandate that an organization provide something that is concientiously opposed to on religious grounds can be issued by unelected bureacrats in Washington DC — these have to be taken into consideration or justice will not have been served.

iamsaved on March 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Not to mention all the waivers given to unions and others, and that apparently it does not apply to members of Congress. If this abomination stands, it has to apply to everyone.

RedHotinNJ on March 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM

hardly. unless it’s for sale, regulating your home brewed beer wouldn’t be ‘necessary and proper’. unlike regulating healthcare.
sesquipedalian on March 26, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Dear god you are not that bright.

Monkeytoe on March 26, 2012 at 11:42 AM

I wonder if they have already started to build all the debtors prisons they will have to put everyone in when they refuse to pay for their Obamacare premium?

How many waivers are we up to now…. and have government workers been added to the same plan yet?

Reform was a given…. that most could agree with. Mandated Government take over of healthcare is yet another example of what happens when people do not take individual freedoms as a right bestowed upon us by the constitution seriously.

Some have compared state laws that compel you to carry car ins. if you own or drive a car as making the argument for ObamaCare legal somehow… yet, a case could be made out of mandating Everyone, who does NOT have a car to purchase car ins. or face a fine or jail time to cover everyone else who does own or drive a car… would be a better comparison. In other words forced participation is unconstitutional.

ActinUpinTexas on March 26, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Roscoe Filburn, was an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small quantity of winter wheat — some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his own property. When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay.

Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce

Thus, according to supreme court precedence, if I brew beer in my home for my own consumption, I am affecting interstate commerce. By idiotic liberal definitions that is.

This is exactly what conservatives mean when talking about judicial activism. It is re-writing the constitution to mean nothing. According to a liberal, the commerce clause and/or the “necessary and proper clause” means that all that other b.s. laid out explicitly in the constitution about limiting the federal gov’t’s power is meaningless. That the vague platitude portions of the constitution override the more explicit portions of the constitution.

I’ll never understand why liberals believe that a gov’t with absolute power will somehow be a good thing. It is baffling. I suppose that they believe that b/c they think they are so damn smart and care so much about everything, they’ll rule as benign dictators for our own good and we’ll all appreciate the utopia they will obviously create. That history demonstrates the falsity of such childish beliefs is of no moment to them. this time it will work!

Monkeytoe on March 26, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Supreme court will punt

liberal4life on March 26, 2012 at 11:53 AM

…I’ll never understand why liberals believe that a gov’t with absolute power will somehow be a good thing. It is baffling…

Monkeytoe on March 26, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I always enjoy your comments, Monkeytoe.

About that part ^^ (“why liberals believe that…”): they, the Left, are on a continued march toward Communism. Some of them recoil at the name, Communism, and work to call “it” “progressivism” or Liberalism, whatever…

but, the fact is, their ongoing disasterous infringements on our Constitution are all about exploiting the resources of others to service a “communal” or Communist forced-resource. Thus, they push the ruse of what they want as being “for the folks” and “for the community…” when it’s all about communal, Communist dictation of all supposedly ” for all”. It’s the same nonsense that’s proven to fail time and time again elsewhere, but here we see it all over again here.

Lourdes on March 26, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Supreme court will punt

liberal4life on March 26, 2012 at 11:53 AM

That is entirely possible. I think odds are against it though. I think they’ll rule on the merits. But, wouldn’t be shocked if they punted.

Monkeytoe on March 26, 2012 at 11:57 AM

NotCoach is not a troll…

HeatSeeker2011 on March 26, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Sometimes in the morning when I am still half asleep and I look at myself in the mirror I think there is a troll in the bathroom…

…and is not a dingbat.

Open to debate.

NotCoach on March 26, 2012 at 11:57 AM

All, quit calling it ObamaCare. It cares for NO one.

Obama and the Congress-critters, plus hundreds of thousands of Obama cronies are exempt from it. If it were so great, they’d be first to sign up. To Hell with ALL of you.

Call it The Affordable Care Act, then mock the affordable/care in it, and destroy it, before it engulfs you.

p.s. the callers on C-Span are most all morons, incl. the ‘independents’ and righties. No wonder the land is where she is.

Schadenfreude on March 26, 2012 at 11:59 AM

By the way-POLITICO- say Only Romney has the health care bonafides
to argue AGAINST Obamacare

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 12:00 PM

We all know the lying commie Kagan is not impartial. If she doesn’t recuse herself she should be tossed off the court. She lied about her involved prior to Obamacare’s passage and she lied when questioned about it. She should not be sitting on the highest court in the country.

jqc1970 on March 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Lourdes on March 26, 2012 at 11:56 AM

The liberal brain is built upon a mountain of ignorance and just about zero historical perspective. The simple truth is that they can’t see past the ends of their noses. Without understanding liberty, or the potential threats to it, it is simple to understand why they embrace outcomes over limited government.

NotCoach on March 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Again, a distinction without a difference. The constitutionality of either is irrelevant.

I presume that you really do not believe this statement. The constitutionality of both is highly relevant, for many, many reasons. If OdumboCare is found constitutional, then we no longer have a limited federal government, period. It really is as simple, as relevant, and as scary as that. It is a BFD!

guitarman67 on March 26, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Stop explaining the constitution to lefties. They equate it with a roll of toilet paper.

Schadenfreude on March 26, 2012 at 12:10 PM

guitarman67 on March 26, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Apples and oranges. ObamaCare’s constitutionality does not change the fact that I am leery of a man who embraces the same type of solutions as the governor of a state.

I am sure that Romney can find some constitutional way to burden us all unnecessarily.

NotCoach on March 26, 2012 at 11:38 AM

NotCoach on March 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM

I think the most interesting thing about the first day’s hearing is the SCOTUS commissioned lawyer hired to argue the idea that this issue can’t be heard by the SCOTUS until 2015 because Obamacare is a tax and the mandate provisions that don’t go into place until 2014 so they don’t get reported on 2014 income taxes until April 2015. In other words, the SCOTUS is at least willing to give themselves an out of having to do something about this before the election.

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2012 at 9:27 AM

For the Supreme Court to take that out would be equivalent to a police officer seeing a driver doing 100 mph in a residential neighborhood but saying that he can’t pull him over until he runs over a kid.

Same logic.

When you see imminent harm and very large questions about constitutionality, you’ve got to decide the case before the damage occurs.

cane_loader on March 26, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Sounds like from the reports Alito gave the Obama Gang a smack down
Saying which is it a tax or penalty

Conservative4ev on March 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Supreme court will punt

liberal4life on March 26, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Doesn’t sound like it in the reports. Only libs are saying they are going to punt. You need to be punted

Conservative4ev on March 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM

One of the selling points of ObamaCare is that children are covered until age 26. No requirement that they live under the same roof.

My daughter is 24 and declined to take our employee based child coverage, and opted for her own insurance. Which is an individual plan, and costs about $40 / month than if she were covered under our plan. ($100 /mo instead of $60 / mo)

So instead of a $350 deductible, 80/20 coverage, she opted for $5000 deductible, but she gets three free doctor visits per year. To her she get independence from us, and since she is quite healthy, the three visit are more than enough. She hasn’t been to a doctor more than about once or twice a year since she was born.

Darn conservative kids :-)

Dasher on March 26, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Personally, I’d rather them keep the mandate if they keep ObamaCare.

Make voters as angry as possible.

The judgement really is win win. They either throw out an arrogant President’s crowning achievement, which is hated. Or they keep the most hated part of a hated bill.

Make America suffer until they realize what they did in 2008.

Chuck Schick on March 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM

I really wish at least one of these polls would ask the anti-ACA respondents why they want the law repealed. No prompting, to multiple choicing, no leading questions; just have them state simply and directly why they oppose the Affordable Care Act.

I know that “essay” questions on such surveys would be logistically unworkable, but it would be great to see a detailed explication of something that I believe to be true: that a big chunk of opposition to the ACA is based on false information, most of it promulgated by politicians and media outlets taking advantage of the law’s complexity for political gain.

Drew Lowell on March 26, 2012 at 12:43 PM

This looks like a symptom of poor civics instruction in the US

The election of Obama, or the reelection of most democrats is a symptom of poor civics instruction. So is the so called ‘seperation of church and state’ being interpreted as a 1 way wall disallowing the church to comment on the state. But we have poor civics even in congress, where some can ‘deem and pass’, and none exercise any restraint on the judiciary.

AnotherOpinion on March 26, 2012 at 12:44 PM

The Supreme Court will pull another “Dred Scott”. It will take a Constitutional amendment to abolish ObamaCare.

By the way the 13th amendment rendered the “Dred” mute. Thus allowing the Supremes to avoid any further “decisions”.

rpupton on March 26, 2012 at 1:02 PM

All, quit calling it ObamaCare. It cares for NO one.

Obama and the Congress-critters, plus hundreds of thousands of Obama cronies are exempt from it. If it were so great, they’d be first to sign up. To Hell with ALL of you.

Call it The Affordable Care Act, then mock the affordable/care in it, and destroy it, before it engulfs you.

Schadenfreude on March 26, 2012 at 11:59 AM

“Grechen, stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen! It’s not going to happen!”

TouchingTophet on March 26, 2012 at 1:08 PM

sesquipedalian on March 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

A Simple Question for a Simple Mind:

Why shouldn’t Kagan recuse herself?

Now, a brief pause while sesqui comes up with an answer…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGdlJWfx1GA&feature=related

Del Dolemonte on March 26, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Almost 4 hours later, and sesquipedalian has still not come up with a reply.

Keep studying on it, Jethro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGdlJWfx1GA&feature=related

Del Dolemonte on March 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM

something that I believe to be true: that a big chunk of opposition to the ACA is based on false information, most of it promulgated by politicians and media outlets taking advantage of the law’s complexity for political gain.

Drew Lowell on March 26, 2012 at 12:43 PM

The Democrats control the White House and the Senate. They also control the National Media. They have all gotten their “message” out, for 3 years now.

And the American People don’t like it. It’s that simple, sorry.

BTW the pollsters have asked more than just “simple questions” when polling about this.

http://pollingreport.com/health.htm

Del Dolemonte on March 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Although the U.S. Constitution places some limits on state power, the states enjoy guaranteed rights by virtue of their reserved powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. A state has the inherent and reserved right to regulate its domestic commerce. However, that right must be exercised in a manner that does not interfere with, or place a burden on, interstate commerce, or else Congress may regulate that area of domestic commerce in order to protect interstate commerce from the unreasonable burden. Although a state may not directly regulate, prohibit, or burden interstate or foreign commerce, it may incidentally and indirectly affect it by a bona fide, legitimate, and reasonable exercise of its police powers. States are powerless to regulate commerce with Indian tribes.

The ACA aka Obamascare does just that. Places limits in what and how much the states control and will be considered an interference to intrastate ccommerce that will preclude the benefits of interstate commerce.

ACA overturned on unconstutionality of the individuasl mandate 6-3.

DevilsPrinciple on March 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM

to wit : Whether any transaction constitutes interstate or intrastate commerce depends on the essential character of what is done and the surrounding circumstances. The courts take a commonsense approach in examining the established course of business in order to distinguish where interstate commerce ends and local commerce begins. If activities that are intrastate in character have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce that their control is essential to protect commerce from being burdened, Congress may not be denied the power to exercise that control.

In 1995, for the first time in nearly 60 years, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress had exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce. In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995), the Court ruled 5–4 that Congress had exceeded its Commerce Clause power in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C.A. § 921), which prohibited the possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school.

In reaching its decision, the Court took the various tests used throughout the history of the Commerce Clause to determine whether a federal statute is constitutional, and incorporated them into a new standard that specifies three categories of activity that Congress may regulate under the clause: (1) the channels of interstate commerce, (2) persons or things in interstate commerce or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and (3) activities that have “a substantial relation to interstate commerce … i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” The Court then applied this new standard to the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act and found that the statute could be evaluated under the third category of legislation allowed by the Commerce Clause. But the Court noted that the act was a criminal statute that had nothing to do with commerce and that it did not establish any jurisdictional authority to distinguish it from similar state regulations. Because the statute did not “substantially affect interstate commerce,” according to the Court, it went beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause and was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power.

These will be the guidelines for ACA, especially under Roberts.

DevilsPrinciple on March 26, 2012 at 3:56 PM

something that I believe to be true: that a big chunk of opposition to the ACA is based on false information, most of it promulgated by politicians and media outlets taking advantage of the law’s complexity for political gain.

Drew Lowell on March 26, 2012 at 12:43 PM

The Democrats control the White House and the Senate. They also control the National Media. They have all gotten their “message” out, for 3 years now.

And the American People don’t like it. It’s that simple, sorry.

BTW the pollsters have asked more than just “simple questions” when polling about this.

http://pollingreport.com/health.htm

Del Dolemonte on March 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Del, thanks very much for that link. Turns out I guessed right. With the exception of the mandate, people are “opposed” to the law itself, but they support what’s actually in the law.

To save folks from clicking-and-searching, here’s what the Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll found when the asked 1,208 adults nationwide from Feb. 29-March 5.

(The number after the statement represents the percentage of people who were “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable”):

“The law provides tax credits to small businesses that offer health insurance to their employees.”
80%

“The law requires health plans to provide consumers with easy-to-understand information about benefits and coverage.” 79%

“The law will provide financial help to low- and moderate-income Americans who don’t get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage.”
71%

“The law allows people to appeal to an independent reviewer if they disagree with their health plan’s decision.”
71%

“The law will expand the existing Medicaid program to cover more low-income, uninsured adults.”
70%

“The law will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history.”
69%

“The law eliminates out-of-pocket costs for many preventive services, such as blood pressure or cholesterol screenings.”
69%

“The law requires insurance companies that spend too little money on health care services and too much on administrative costs and profits to give their customers a rebate.”
57%

“The law will require employers with 50 or more employees to pay a fine if they don’t offer health insurance.”
54%

“The law will increase the Medicare payroll tax on earnings for upper-income Americans.”
53%

“The law will require insurance plans to offer a minimum package of health insurance benefits, to be defined by the government.”
51%

“The law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance by 2014 or else pay a fine.”
32%

Drew Lowell on March 26, 2012 at 4:36 PM

That Rachel Maddow fellow standing next to the President in the photo looks like he’s gained a little weight.

rihar on March 26, 2012 at 4:40 PM

That Rachel Maddow fellow standing next to the President in the photo looks like he’s gained a little weight.

rihar on March 26, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Actually, I think that’s the “other” Cheney daughter.

Hope dad’s ok!

KeninCT on March 26, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Only blacks (74 percent), Democrats (71 percent) and liberals (75 percent) want the law upheld.

That simply amazes me. The last time the government said to black people, “We’re from the Government and we want to give you free healthcare ,” it really didn’t turn out too well for them.

LifeTrek on March 26, 2012 at 6:09 PM

TWT Video: Health care debate outside Supreme Court
Uploaded by washingtontimes on Mar 26, 2012
*******************************************

http://www.washingtontimes.com Tea Party Patriots hold photos of commentator Andrew Breitbart as they debate health insurance during a rally against what they call “obamacare” in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building as the court hears oral arguments on the challenges to the Affordable Care Act
==========================================

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DImJQiomJAg

canopfor on March 26, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2