There you going again, Obama won both elections and the debate about Obamacare so says the final decision-maker in the land: The Supreme Court (Conservative one).
Do you understand what the Supreme Court said about it exactly? They didn't make a sweeping statement that Obamacare is the final law of the land. You seem confused.
Their ruling was simply that it was legal for congress to pass Obamacare because it qualified as a tax and congress has constitutional authority to levy taxes. That's it. No more, no less. All it means is that Obamacare is not against the constitution, not that the Supreme Court has declared it the final end-all be-all law as you seem to think. It proves nothing other than it is legal. It doesn't mean it is right, or good, or even publicly supported, or what the majority wants, rather just that it is legal, from a constitutional standpoint. Their ruling has no weight other than legality.
You also seem to miss another point. Electing Obama does not equal voting in favor of Obamacare. Nowhere on the ballet I filled out was there any proviso that I accepted or rejected Obamacare based on how I voted in the election. Making that connection is a false dichotomy. That is, in fact, why I used the examples I did earlier of rhetoric that sways voters. Obama ran as much on an anti-Romney campaign as he did on any other platform. In fact Obamacare, or "The Affordable Care Act" didn't even exist in it's legislated form during the election. The part of Obama's platform that addressed this was that he was committed to reforming healthcare, presumably so everyone had access to insurance. The details were not hammered out until well after the presidential election, and the vote in the senate happened on December 24, 2009. To state unequivocally that a vote for Obama is exactly equivalent to a vote for Obamacare is just absurd and is proof of brainlessly following party rhetoric.
Also, do you know why the Republicans are against Obamacare, and what the main difference is from Ronmeycare that has them up in arms? Do you know the turning point from what started as a fairly decent bi-partisan exercise and turned into the mess it is now? It is actually pretty interesting if you take the time to understand what both sides are saying and their traditional stands on such issues.
But to do that you would have to acknowledge that both sides might have a point, and actually be willing to accept that one side isn't perfect. I don't expect that from you given your assumptions and rhetoric, but I encourage you to try anyway.
