Since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the "individual mandate," the centerpiece of the Affordable Health Care Act that President Obama signed into law last year, Patch readers have weighed in by the hundreds to share their opinions.
Though the ruling happened more than a week ago, our readers continue to debate the proposal, so we're re-featuring the poll that led to this debate. Because the argument hasn't died down, we figure some of you who missed the original story may have new opinions to offer.
To review, five of the nine justices agreed that the key to the act—the requirement that people either buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty—is allowed under Congress' ability to impose using its taxing power.
- Stillwater: From Michele Bachmann to Betty McCollum, locals' reaction was mixed
- Oakdale: Chuck Wiger: This Affirms the Reform Efforts
- Roseville: Blogger Sara Barsel: A lot at Stake With Ruling
- Woodbury: Woodwinds Doctor's Reaction ‘Quite Favorable’
- Fridley: Blogger Chris Fields: A Complicated and Nuanced Ruling
- Hudson, WI: Local Republicans React Strongly to Ruling
- Richfield Reactions: Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare
- Minnetonka Reacts to Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare
- Supreme Court Ruling on “Obamacare” Brings Reaction in Maple Grove
- Lakeville Reacts: Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare
- Edina: Reaction Mixed on Supreme Court's Obamacare Ruling
- Hopkins Residents, Leaders React to Court's Health Care Ruling
- Southwest Minneapolis: Supreme Court Obamacare Ruling Could Hurt Local Small Healthcare Providers
- Mendota Heights: Southeast Metro Reacts to Supreme Court Ruling
- St. Louis Park Politicians, Candidates Take Sides on Obamacare Ruling
- Park Nicollet CEO Praises Obamacare Ruling
- Shakopee Area Reacts to Health Care Ruling
- Northfield: Minnesotans React to Health Care Ruling
Because that mandate survived, the Court did not need to decide which other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding.
On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.
Other details of the high court's ruling on what is often referred to as "Obamacare" are still being examined.
Since everyone else is weighing in, we want to know what you think.
Answer our poll question and tell us in the comments how you feel about the court's decision.