A Newsweek/Daily Beast poll conducted after the recent Supreme Court ruling on the ACA finds that:
By a 50–45 margin, voters disapprove of the court’s decision, a Newsweek/Daily Beast poll finds. Read the complete results.
Voters are reacting in broadly negative ways to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the legislation known as Obamacare, a new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll finds, with a majority disapproving of the ruling, fearing health-care costs and taxes will rise, and preferring Mitt Romney to President Obama on the issue.
At the same time, voters scored the ruling a short-term political win for the president by a huge margin.
Overall, 50 percent of those polled said they disapprove of the court’s 5–4 decision, while 45 percent said they support it. Consistently, a majority of voters said that they oppose the individual mandate (53 percent); believe taxes will increase (52 percent); believe their personal health-care costs will increase (56 percent); and disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care in general (58 percent). Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Observations:
Democracies are run by votes not polls. Polls change rapidly and based upon how the question is asked.
Ours is a sort of democracy with elements of a republic and balances to lessen chances of being oppressed by a majority ruling. the SCOTUS is the most potent balance against that. An important element of “life appointment” is to lessen popular pressure on their deliberations
The polls on this issue reflect what is being polled at the moment. Most polls involved with the “mandate” are strongly opposed to it. However, most polls on other aspects of the ACA such as protection from preexistent limitations, age cutoffs, exorbitant increases in premiums, coverage for adult children and other aspects find significant approval margins. The problem is all these popular aspects of the act must somehow be paid for and that is where a mandated coverage through either insurance or a tax comes in.
Indeed, it appears that our fall election is heading toward being a vote on the ACA. Seems rather sad to give little attention to some of the other issues facing us as a nation.
All of the sudden, I’m seeing stories like this one: Your health care is covered, but who’s going to treat you? More patients, fewer doctors, fewer primary care doctors, etc. Doesn’t sound good. If you don’t have enough doctors, no health care plan is going to work.
Ironically, the White House is still trying to sell that its a penalty, not a tax. I have to agree with them. A tax on doing nothing? Absurd. We might as well start taxing the unemployed. You’re taxed for on making money, purchasing goods, using products and services.
Roberts stretched the definition of “tax” for some reason. My theory is that. for some reason, he feared a confrontation between the Supreme Court and the other two branches of the federal government. Or, maybe, he didn’t want to be known as one of the people that killed universal health care.
Some are focusing on what he said that supposedly limits the commerce clause in the future. I don’t buy it. Ultimately, his opinion will have little impact on the commerce clause and he’s opened the door for Congress to use taxes to coerce people to do Congress’ bidding. More than anything, he complicated the issue, and other issues to come, which is what lawyers do best.
Re: “Roberts stretched the definition of “tax” for some reason.”
According to Roberts’ opinion, this is the reason:
“Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155
U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285
U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.
4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–
44.
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.
(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.”