The Supreme Court's ruling is a clear, unambiguous and complete victory for long-overdue healthcare reform. It sends an unmistakeable message that the building of a better, fairer healthcare system will continue to move forward," said Ron Pollack of Families USA.

"Implementing health reform will provide peace of mind for our families - the peace of mind tht only comes when our loved ones are sure to receive the health care they need when they need it."

Critics of the law indicate that they intend to make the November elections a referendum on the Supreme Court's ruling. If Republicans are successful in regaining the Senate and the White House, a move to repeal the ACA would be almost assured.

"The Supreme Court made it clear that the American people will be the ultimate judge of the ObamaCare," said U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas.

However, "We must replace it with reforms that expand access and enhance care without adding trillions of dollars to the national debt and inserting Washington bureaucrats between Americans and their doctors."

"It is dissapointing that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the ACA, especially as it pertains to the individual mandate," said Bill Hammond of the Texas Association of Business. "The business community has always been very concerned about the cost of the law, the economic effect it will have on the country when fully implemented and the effect on employees trying to navigate a complicated and confusing system.

"Unless Congress takes action to replace this plan with something that is more workable, we will see many jobs lost and many businesses that offer insurance to their employees now will drop that coverage. Congress shouldn't be allowed to dictate the day to day lives of Americans and of business, and that's what this ruling allows. There is still time for Congress to fix this before full implementation in 2014 and we will be working to make sure that happens."

To share your thoughts on this information,

As the ruling was announced President Obama said in response, "We will continue to implement this law and we'll work together to improve on it."

"What we won't do - what the country can't afford to do - is re-fight the political battles of two years ago or go back to the way things were. With today's announcement, it's time for us to move forward," Obama added.

The healthcare law, known formally as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is the biggest overhaul of the $2.6 trillion healthcare system in about 50 years. It was signed by Obama in March 2010 and promptly put to the test in the courts by 26 of the 50 states and a trade group for small businesses.

The court's decision largely vindicates Obama and Democratic lawmakers in their attempt to fix a system that, while representing 18 percent of the economy, leaves 16 percent of Americans uninsured, a fact that sets the United States apart in the industrialized world.

The U.S. system, unlike other rich countries, is a patchwork of private insurance and restrictive government programs. The United States pays more for healthcare than any other country, but about 50 million of the roughly 310 million Americans still have no insurance at all.

The Obama law was meant to bring coverage to more than 30 million of the uninsured and slow soaring medical costs.

Opponents said the individual mandate was an overreach by the federal government and that Congress had exceeded its powers. The court was deeply divided on this issue, but the majority ruled that Congress's taxing authority allowed the mandate.

The law's "requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," Justice Roberts wrote for the court's majority.

"Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," Roberts wrote.

In another part of the decision, the court said Congress went too far in a part of the law that requires states to expand the government's Medicaid health insurance program for the poor with the goal of covering more of the uninsured.

The court said this problem can be fixed by precluding the federal government from stripping states of existing Medicaid funds if they did not comply with the expansion, and that this did not require striking down other parts of the law.

Most respondents in the survey favored banning insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions; letting young adults stay on their parents' insurance plans until age 26; and making companies with more than 50 workers offer insurance to their employees. All are parts of the law.

To share your thoughts on this information,