Like it or hate it, Thursday morning's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of provisions of the nation's new health care law was big news -- so we asked you what you think about it.
And boy did you respond.
"I feel like a cloud has been lifted and maybe there is hope in this nation after all to fix some of the very serious issues we have," Deb Parkins posted in response to a general Facebook question.
"The Republicans have fought this tooth and nail for two years and finally, the results are in. It is Constitutional after all according to the majority vote by the highest court in the land. I'm not a fan of Justice Roberts but today I am in total agreement with his vote. That's a rarity. Now I'd like to know if Rush Limbaugh is truly going to leave the country as he said he would if it is upheld," she wrote.
"If the justices would have decided on it according to the Constitution instead of mostly along party lines it would not have passed," Rich Hellegas Sr. of Pottstown wrote in an e-mail to The Mercury.
"I figured the liberal justices would stay with their party because they don't know any better, but I was totally surprised by Justice Roberts and his decision," Hillegass wrote."But before Obama gets too excited he should be reminded that a vast majority of people are against it and it will show in November's election."
We received 30 responses to our Facebook question as well as 54 votes on a poll question.
The poll showed 32 readers did not agree with the Supreme Court decision, while only 18 of you did.
(Four smart allecks voted for a third, reader-added option: "It doesn't matter if I agree, I'm not on the Supreme Court so my vote doesn't count." so thanks for that.)
We also tried to dig a little deeper this time, and set up a place where people can tell us what they think would make our health care system better.
(It's at http://www.allourideas.org/mercuryobamacare and we'll leave it up for a while to see if people want to continue talking about this subject.)
Results of that more nuanced poll showed how difficult it can be to find out what people really want out of the system.
While 17 people cast a vote for "get government out of health care," 15 cast a vote for "expand Medicare," a government program.
Thirteen people voted for "No penalty for not carrying health insurance," while 14 agreed that the system should "extend coverage to children up to 26 years old."
And you don't have to work too hard to guess that reaction among our local representatives in Washington, D.C. was strictly along party lines.
"Frankly, this is an extremely disappointing ruling. But the Supreme Court clearly did not rule that ObamaCare is a good law, just that it doesn't violate the Constitution," U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-6th Dist., said in a prepared statement.
"Now it's up to Congress to affirmatively go out and fix it. To do that, we'll start by voting to repeal the law and then replace it with common-sense, market-based, patient-centered reforms that will work better to make health insurance more affordable and accessible, and relieve our job creators and taxpayers of excessive taxes and big-government regulations," said Gerlach.
On the other side of the aisle, things were a little more up-beat.
"Today's Supreme Court decision is a win for the American people," U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-13th Dist., said in an equally prepared statement. "After a half-century journey, there is finally a uniquely American solution to affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans. This victory reaffirms that the Affordable Care Act was the right thing to do for American families," said Schwartz.
"With this decision, seniors can afford lifesaving medications, children with pre-existing conditions can get the care they need, 30 million more Americans can afford coverage, families won't go broke because of an illness, small businesses can provide affordable coverage for their employees, and young adults can remain on their parents' coverage," she wrote.
"The ultimate power has and always been with the "We the People' not the government. I guess it doesn't really matter now, since the Constitution has been effectively overthrown and we now have a Socialist government," posted David Erb.
"It's the end to medicine as we know it," posted Joan M. Stephens. "The insurance companies have a scapegoat for denial of claims-- the government decides --not the doctor, not the family, not even the insurance company, but a government employee in D.C. how much and what type of care you'll receive."
"Joan M. Stephens, I can only HOPE that it is the end of medicine as we know it!," replied Scott Speese.
"Do you understand that we have the absolute worst medical system of all industrialized nations? The government doesn't decide how much and what type of care you will receive. All this plan does it makes it much easier for those of us that are less fortunate in our financial resources to get the same quality of care as anyone else," Speese wrote. "Before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act do you know how much power the individual insurance companies had over who can and cannot be covered?"
"The Court's decision was the right one," wrote Richard L. Lindberg. "Providing for the health care of all citizens fulfills the Declaration of Independence's promise of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.'"