Obamacare has been around for ten years and it's been growing steadily more popular the entire time:
Even a third of Republicans have a favorable view of Obamacare these days. To put this into perspective, the overall approval rate for Obamacare is 59%. That compares to about 80% for Social Security.
And use of Obamacare has nearly doubled since Joe Biden was elected:
Expanded subsidies are probably the main reason for increased use of Obamacare, but not the only one. Following the pandemic many states started unenrolling people from Medicaid, and some of those who lost coverage switched to Obamacare. Overall, though, net coverage has gone up.
Fifty-nine percent is “everyone?”
Pretty close. A 59 percent victory in an election would be described as a "landslide."
And I think Kevin's main point is that the favorable trend is upward across the various political groupings, Republicans and independents as well as Democrats.
Even a landslide victory isn’t “everyone.” Fifty-nine percent isn’t even virtually everyone.
It's a manner of speaking - lighten up!
Kevin "lives" via numbers. So calling-out when he misrepresents what the numbers show is appropriate.
Oh, and stop calling me Francis!-)
But he didnt.
The common usage of 'everyone thinks/feels/likes/etc' never, ever implies literally everyone.
Literally noone is confused by this.
But making things up to argue over is why the internet exists! So good work! Everyone agrees!
So, what then is 80% approval for Social Security? More than everyone? How much lower than 59% could it be and still be everyone? 55%? 51%?
Does it have to be literally everyone? No, of course not. Still, Kevin has stretched the common usage beyond its limits.
There's always the 25% "Obama = bad" crowd, and the solid 10% "Undecided/Duh" bunch. And a 4% polling error.
Yes I would bet most of the opposition has little or no idea what the ACA is or does, it's just knee-jerk anti-Obama, anti-Democrat.
And, of course, there is the 10% or so in some surveys who say they favor the ACA but oppose Obamacare.
(That's not an issue in this survey, though, since the question explicitly identifies them as the same.)
Even if a Republican utilized the ACA themselves, or their close relatives (children) needed to get healthcare from the ACA, in a survey, most will continue to crap on it because that is what their tribal leaders have taught them to do. Afterall, it's nickname "Obamacare" is the crowning achievement of their hated adversary.
I sure hope people remember this November how Orange Jesus and his MAGA clowns tried desperately to eliminate the ACA, and that all they had as a replacement plan was utter bull shit.
More of this, please.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/314707958100630
Yes, but next week Donald will announce a plan for medical care that is a fraction of the cost of Obamacare and many times better. Of course he has been saying this for about eight years now.
Back when he was President, the disgraced former guy (TDFG) said he would announce a much better plan in two weeks. Here he is again. And in just a few more days, TDFG will repeat that "in a week, he will announce a much better plan". And in June, he'll say it's a week in the future. And in August, September, and October. It will always be a week in the future, because he's big on promises and short on delivering.
Still don't like profits finding their way into private pockets...
What's interesting is how long it takes for the population to become aware of the benefits of a change like this and, more importantly, to realize that the fearmongering was lies and exaggerations. Ten years is a long time.
And this understates how man people gained coverage through the ACA under Biden, since some states have added Medicaid expansion since Biden was elected, and that increases coverage without adding people enrolled in ACA plans.
I take it the frequency of the KFF tracking survey was significantly reduced circa 2021? Or is there some other explanation for opinions having become much more "smooth?"
"....everyone loves Obamacare"
Really?
- My lefty friends think Obamacare is REALLY inadequate
- My righty friends think its over reach
- My middle of the road friends are neutral to happy about Obamacare. They say its better than nothing.
So I THINK folks accept Obamacare versus really love it.
What's more popular than Obamacare? Medicare for all, at 69%.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/494602-poll-69-percent-of-voters-support-medicare-for-all/
The usual response would be that the question didn't mention the cost involved.
From the link it is not obvious whether it mentioned any cost or not. Without that you canot take it seriously.
The cost argument for opposition to universal health insurance is ludicrous and represents a failure of MSM to engage in any thought or investigation of the issue. Government in the US already pays for about 67% of the cost of US healthcare and spends more per capita for healthcare than the total per capita cost of healthcare in any peer country. That our total per capita healthcare costs are around twice that of peer countries is mostly due to the excessive administrative costs created by our private, for profit, health insurance non-system. These costs consist not only the profit and operating cost of the insurance companies, but the even greater costs imposed on healthcare providers trying to get paid. Canada has far from the most efficient health insurance scheme, but for healthcare categories amounting to 68% of US healthcare costs in 2017, the total administration cost in Canada was about $550 US per capita vs about $2500 per capita in the US. Medicare-for-All could see savings of well over $700B/yr in this catagory.
The next biggest categories of potential savings are drug costs and fraud elimination. I can go on a screed about these too, but the realistic potential savings could amount to over $500B/yr.
Note that no country pays for 100% of healthcare costs. The asymptotic limit seems to be about 90%. So, given existing US government spending, we only need about a trillion in savings to break even under Medicare-for-All. Coming out ahead is a real possibility. We are also not counting the HR costs to employers, or the time costs of fighting for coverage of the insured, or the opportunity costs of people staying in stupid jobs for the insurance, or the lost to society of the 5 million or so people mindlessly shuffling paperwork for providers and insurance companies who could be doing something worthwhile instead.
Anyway, I agree the polling questions should be modified in two ways. 1. It should make clear that Sanders' bill is a comprehensive expansion in the generosity of Medicare, not just dumping people into the existing program. And 2, the likely cost to the government of adopting such a program is likely to be less than nothing, while individual premiums go to 0.
It's easy to love a hypothetical - it can become whatever you want and you don't have to sweat the details.
As every senior knows, Medicare by itself is not adequate. It needs to be combined with other private insurance. When people say "Medicare for all" they are referring to some fantasy solution.
Clearly you've never bothered to read Sanders' bill.
Republicans used to claim they were against Obamacare 'because when people started to use it they would like it'.
Pretty much the Republican serious rationale for everything they do.
For Republicans, people getting health care is a bad outcome.
And the remainder of Republicans hate it so much, they forego the subsidies. After all, one shouldn't partake in something one hates -- that would be hypocritical.
/S