POLL: Should the Supreme Court Overturn Obama’s Health Care Law?

The country's highest court is set to rule Thursday on the Affordable Care Act.

It’s an epic decision that could change the way healthcare is approached in the United States.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule Thursday, according to Huffington Post, on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, signed into law March 23, 2010.

Dr. Ulder Tillman, Montgomery County health officer, is among those who will be paying attention to the Supreme Court decision. She said the county has worked to prepare for changes in the healthcare system implemented by the state of Maryland. The county was awarded a $190,000 grant, provided for by the healthcare legislation, that would help with chronic disease prevention, Tillman said. 

The Supreme Court’s decision will include a ruling on the constitutionality of the law's “individual mandate” requiring all U.S. citizens to buy health insurance.

Opponents of the mandate say it’s an unprecedented exercise of government power—requiring people to buy something—and could be expanded to cars to help the auto industry, or even broccoli.

Obama has argued that the commerce clause in the Constitution allows Congress to regulate healthcare, and that expanding coverage would lower costs, according to the Economist, which summarizes both the supporting and opposing arguments to the issues that have been debated at the high court. 

In Maryland, about 750,000 people were uninsured between 2009 and 2010, according to Linda Bartnyska, chief of cost and quality analysis at the Maryland Health Care Commission.

Locally, , slightly lower than the state average of 13 percent and higher than the national average of 11 percent.  

"For the most part, for county government, so much of it [the Affordable Care Act] has been prepartory," Tillman explained.

"If everything stopped we would be greatly disappointed—we would have to figure out what to do with the uninsured in our county." 

Do you have a health insurance story? Share it in the comments below.

Robert Cornish June 26, 2012 at 03:08 AM
This is such a large, complex, and far reaching question that it hardly seems fair to ask John and Jane Q. Public that question. There are so many implications entangled in the bill, that not even congress seems to have a full grasp of its consequences. But it seems reasonable to look into some kind of national health plan that ensures access to care and seeks to lower the runaway costs of healthcare. Yet the media inundates us with sound bytes - mostly from well-to-do people who HAVE health care coverage, telling us that this is socialism. One could argue that the requirement for car insurance is a similar requirement. If you own a car, the state requires you to buy insurance. If you own a body, can the state (in this case that national state) require that you buy insurance for it? I'm starting to wonder why I have to pay to send other people's kids to school. An investment in the nation's future? What about the nation's health? Not an investment in its citizens?
Bora Mici June 26, 2012 at 03:35 AM
That's a really high percentage of uninsured people in Montgomery County!
A J Dodson June 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Repeal it!!!!
Carleton MacDonald June 26, 2012 at 08:03 PM
Please give a well-reasoned argument why, not just a sound bite.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »