Our first votes in the poll are coming in "no." If you voted, tell us why you do or do not support "Obamacare."

It's amazing that people who have Medicare would say no to other's having health care. Obama show's that he is a leader and the courts agree. Remember you are polling a Republican area of voter's ask this question to those who live in Detroit or Flint and the poll would go the other way. WWJD

The Affordable Care Act helps the healthy man who needs to purchase insurance, the senior who relies on Medicare to keep her diabetes regulated, the father whose son battles leukemia, and the aspiring small-business owner. How contradictory and indeed “un-American” that my nation, founded on the principles of equality and justice, has for far too long protected the interests of solely the rich and powerful, regardless of costs to the public good, particularly when it comes to human health. The decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the Affordable Care Act resonates with me, not only as an American, but also as a human being, because it supports my country’s pursuit of health care equality the “American Way” and affirms that the preservation of health represents a common human heritage that knows no political or ideological boundaries. Certainly, the reality of my country’s “freedom” referred to above ultimately hinges upon the welfare of its people.

Obamacare stifles growth and jobs big time. Here's how.

Q: I understand that businesses above a certain size have to provide a health care insurance option, but do they have to pay for it? Does the law require a certain contribution from the employer, or can the employer make the employees just pay, say, 99 percent of the premiums?

A: This is where the law seems a little bit tricky. It doesn't stipulate how much of the premiums employers have to pay, but it does say that overall, employers with more than 50 workers have to provide a plan that covers 60 percent of the covered expenses for an avg population. The plan can't cost more than 9.5 % of family income.

In other words, the govt dictates the plan to a firm with 50+ workers. If the firm then decides not to offer the govt plan, it pays at most a $2000 penalty per worker, a lot less than what most firms are paying for worker health care now. ( a family of four is $12-20 thou/ yr. depending on locale.) The firm is now out of the health care business. The worker goes on the govt plan and pays for it, maybe, some via tax credits, IF they pay fed taxes. (49% in USA don't pay Fed taxes). There is no $2000 penalty for 50 or less workers for a firm. Why expand to 50+?? Many firms will conclude it is not worth the hassle to grow. Result? Job loss. Solution? Fix the old health care system, ie no rejections, 26 yr old kids ok etc. Obamacare is too complex and a huge regressive tax, especially to the lower class.

One more reason jobs will diminish with Obamacare. Stay with me here.

Say the company has 59 workers. Obamacare forces it to offer govt approved insurance . If they don't , the law provides for a penalty of $2000 per worker, exempting the first 30 workers, or, in this example, $2000 x 29 which equals a $58,000 penalty. The company, if marginal, and many are, may decide to drop some business, and 10 employees, thus saving immediately $58,000 and lots of govt paperwork for havng less than 50 workers. Guess which workers the company will likely drop. Yep! The lower paid ones. The less educated, and more likely to be on Obamacare anyway with a family member, which, if even just one , including any from their family, was on a govt Obama plan, out of the 50, would trigger the penalty to $3000 x 29 workers, or $87,000.
For that much savings, the company would make sure they only hire entry kids from the 'higher' income families who are likely not to be on govt. Obamacare plans, but company plans. Just one on a govt plan would trigger a huge penalty. So much for hiring the ones who really need a job. Many companies close to the '50' but on the plus side will automate, add temps, etc to get below that magic 50 threshold. They will go even lower to make sure there are no 'oops'. Does that scenario enhance job growth, or stifle it? The new mantra will be 'cap at 49'. Tell me different and why.

I vote NO, the problem is the per capita cost per year for health care in Japan is $2,729. In Sweden $3,470 and in the USA $7,538 (OECD Health Data). Something wrong with the US Health care system? And ObamaCare does not look at the real problem.