Who Likes Obamacare?

  • submit to reddit

Linda Door of Laguna Beach, Ca., protests outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, March 26, 2012, as the court begins hearing arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, derisively labeled 'Obamacare' by its opponents. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Linda Door of Laguna Beach, Ca., protests outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington in 2012, as the court begins hearing arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, derisively labeled "Obamacare" by its opponents. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

The White House hopes to get 7 million people to sign up for Obamacare when it becomes available in October and is launching a huge publicity campaign in all 50 states this summer. Three years after it became law, the majority of Americans are still opposed to the president’s health care law.

The Kaiser Family Foundation has been collecting data on how Americans feel about the Affordable Care Act since 2010, and, unsurprisingly, have found that the biggest determining factor is party affiliation. Democrats are on board, Republicans loathe it and these opinions are reinforced by ongoing partisan rhetoric.

You can explore how different groups of Americans’ opinions about the law have changed over time in this interactive. Note that if someone does not support the law, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he or she is opposed to Obamacare; in a separate poll, CNN found that nearly a quarter of those who say they oppose the law think that it doesn’t go far enough. Also worth noting: The number of Americans who don’t know what to think about the law has been on the rise since the election, and recently reached an all-time high.

  • submit to reddit

BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.

  • The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
  • Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not be tolerated.
  • Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.

If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.

We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send an email to feedback@billmoyers.com

Find out more about BillMoyers.com's privacy policy and terms of service.

  • NotARedneck

    Who cares what wealthy fat heads and tax evading morons think?

    Of course, in the long run, a publicly funded, single payer system
    will get support from most people. It is this case in all places that
    have such a system.

  • edgewise

    Who Likes Obamacare?

    Compared to what?? The problem with asking the question this way is that it should also be viewed in the context of what the alternatives are and were. There are many Republicans who are simply against any program with a Democratic–and particlarly Obama–stamp of approval. That won’t change.

    To simpy ask who likes it, and to be told yes or no, tells us very little. Not even what people really think or want.

    We should be asked what the difference is between now and what was happening when we did nothing to address the healthcare coverage for millions of Americans. Have things improved? We should be asked how the ACA expenses and coverage compare to the programs of other countries. We should be asked if we support the concept of universal health coverage. Of public healthcare. We should be asked how ACA coverage and expense compares to Medicare. And we should be asked what alternatives, if any, we would have preferred to see enacted–and what sort of financial and medical coverage we’d like now, if different from the ACA.

    My take: the ACA is a poor substitute for Single-Payer, Medicare-For-All. Its more costly and cumbersome. Most other contries have better systems of universal coverage.

  • Odette Hélie

    Of course, facts, hard facts prove that a single-payer system is a rational option. Unfortunately, corporatism and self-fulfilling prophecy regarding the advantages of health-care privatization hinders the efficacy of our system in Quebec (Canada), But to me, anything less than universal public health insurance is unacceptable unless we agreee to live in a brutal society. Americans spend so much on health care and get so little in return (American health statistics often lag behind those of developing countires). Americans should know that the administrative cost of our health care system is far below theirs. So what is the problem is it costs less and is more efficient ? Seems like the perversion of the concept of freedom will sink America.

  • Joseph A. Mungai

    Did Kaiser differentiate between people who wanted Medicare for All (single payer) and those that wanted to pay for-profit health insurance premiums whether they are working or not? http://wpasinglepayer.org/learn-about-single-payer/poll-results-on-single-payer

  • Therese Meuel

    edgewise I agree with your points but suspect most people would not be able to answer the questions you pose based on accurate information. I find that most people who have employer sponsored health care have no problem with the previous (current for them) system. It’s only those of us who’ve been living with the “free market” system that have taken the time to educate themselves on the new law and the alternatives such as single payer.

  • pruthj

    Give it a chance! All the Republican vitriol and trashing of the health care plan is the problem.

  • Anonymous

    The problem is that most people have made zero effort to find out about what the law includes. If you don’t know anything about what you are talking about, your opinion is worth nothing. The media does a huge disservice in putting opinions which are based on thin air on a par with the opinions of those of us who have done our homework. It’s like saying that the diagnosis made by a drunk you met at 2AM in the ER is worth the same as what the MD tells you after examining your x-rays and blood work. Classic example of the dumbing down of America.

  • http://www.facebook.com/fthilgal Betty Chapman Paola

    The reason the crooked members of ALEC dont like this it goes against their GREED policy, so they brainwash their constituents into believing its a bad thing. ALECs members dont care if people die. Big Insurance want the power back, if your sick, you cant have insurance. They also want to set the prices on your cost of insurance. Alec, Big Insurance have all spent billions trying to stop Affordable Healthcare Act. This is already working and lives are already being saved. This is all about Big Insurance and their GREED!

  • Anonymous

    I Do not care one way, or the other, as long as I am allowed to sue my DR.s and HMO’s if they harm me with intent.

    Allow me to do this as an individual patient/citizen unhindered by State Laws designed to restrict the individuals rights to hold those who do harm in our health care, civilly accountable for their actions in a real court of law, with out having to be mired down in a MED board that is not representative of the people as a whole. WA Med board has 21 members, only 6 are average citizens, the rest DR,s and Lawyers. Hmmm? Who are they really representing??????? These are the people who set the Standard of Care here in WA State.

    Please see my fight and my Online Petition to get the State of WA to ad one more RCW that would allow the individual patient/citizen the ability to exercise their civil right, if they so choose, in a real court of law. Thus by passing the board and its quagmire all together, if the individual chooses to exercise there civil rights under the US Constitution.

    Dr.s and HMO’s, should not be dictating and implementing social policy into hour health care, without us, the people, being able to challenge back, in a real court of law, unhindered and unobstructed by any State law designed to infringed upon ones individual civil rights.

    So don’t be mislead on this debate. Weather I pay 10,000 a year for my health care, or I pay ZERO. If I am not able to challenge the care and services received, both the good and the bad. Then they the HMO,s get to be the ultimate deciders, on the care you and I receive. Or in many cases, the care and services we don’t receive.

    Please see my petition and my fight and songs on you tube.

    http://org.credoaction.com/petitions/give-us-our-civil-right-to-sue-dr-s-who-harm-with-with-intent-back-in-wa?source=twitter-share-button

    http://youtu.be/8bK3Owux-JU http://youtu.be/iqgoRaTjmrQ http://youtu.be/zt-UrsddpEI http://youtu.be/VoFo-6VEA_8

    Thanks, and Power back to all the people at the table someday.

  • Anonymous

    I am for Obama care. Hospitals charged double for services to someone without insurance. They inflate the bill, but if the patient is insured, the insurance company pays half. Plus they do give care to those who can not afford it, then they charge it back to the government as “hardship cases.” Also consider that the emergency rooms are big ticket. Hospitals could have had a clinic for those with inability to pay, but by taking them into the ER, they could charge back a bigger bill.
    Still in America, everyone should have enough to eat, a roof over their head, a good education, and health care. I would much rather our tax money go to the people who need a leg up, rather than see Exxon/ Mobile pay no taxes, be allowed to gouge consumers, then get millions back for not paying taxes, simply because they could afford to buy congress and the voters can not.
    There has to be some justice somewhere.

  • NEILE

    All of these people need to be considered, PRIVATE CONTRACTORS, Deciding who and why, IT’S MONEY!
    DR’S LAWYERS AND CEO MAKERS.
    I OFTEN WONDER WHY WE THINK LIKE WE DO?

  • Anonymous

    Insuring everyone will reduce my insurance premiums. Companies won’t have to pay more to cover the cost of those who can’t/won’t/don’t pay for their own care. Besides, if everyone has access to preventative care, they will be healthier and won’t have as many serious illnesses. Plus, CBO has said costs are coming down and rising at a slower rate than before ACA was passed because of restrictions in the ACA against excessive profits and reasonable ratios of premiums vs payouts.

  • Jean Smith

    I am one that does not like it because it catered to the insurance companies and big pharma. by not including a public option.

  • Where has America gone

    Before “Obamacare”, I couldn’t get health insurance for love or money because I have pre-existing conditions, any one of which was a complete “strike out” according to insurance brokers. When the first phase of Obamacare kicked in, insurance companies couldn’t refuse me, but they could charge a gigantic fee, which put health insurance still out of reach. So I moved to Costa Rica, which has excellent health facilities at prices I could afford to pay out of pocket, and purchased a health policy with a high deductible just in case of major accidents or illnesses. I would be happy to pay a reasonable fee for health insurance, especially because we only stay in Costa Rica part of the year. I am all for Obamacare and most American citizens were demanding health care reform before Obama was elected. And then Sarah Palin and right wingers started spreading lies that Obamacare would create “death panels” etc. In the state of Arizona, because states had to agree to certain provisions or they wouldn’t be eligible for federal aid to health care, the right wing governor and legislature of Arizona refused, most probably because they don’t want to cooperate with President Obama on anything and stymie him whenever possible. As a result, the state of Arizona available funds for health care was greatly reduced, and one of the ironic consequences of that is that Arizona decided to balance their health care budget by creating a policy that people who are on the state program for the poor are now denied even the possibility of any transplant — thereby not even giving them the “benefit” of a death panel, but rather a straightforward death sentence.Now there’s right wing compassion in action.

    All I want to know is how much does it cost and where do I sign up?

  • Dorothy

    It’s not about whether we like or dislike Obamacare. It’s more the question of why don’t we have single payer and why wasn’t it allowed to be placed on the table? Many people who disapprove do so because they also would rather have Medicare For All.

  • Sally

    Already most insurance plans have high deductibles for catastrophic health problems and this can amount to several thousand dollars out of pocket including premiums and copays each year. None of this is addressed nor is care of the elderly such as in nursing homes or in their homes addressed. Most health care dollars are spent now at the end of life and Medicare offers 100 days of nursing home coverage. Then you have to pay out of pocket and you are not eligible for medicaid until you have less than $2000 of assets. So people have to sell their homes, spend out their savings etc. Drug costs for seniors will go down slowly to 25% of retail cost by 2020. Seniors are taking most of the meds and so this is insane. They should not be charged for drugs and the government was not able to negotiate with big pharma for discounted rates as the military get. Jill Stein works as a medical doctor in MA and said that Romneycare has not impacted bankruptcy of people from health care costs. You can see what happens to elderly people when they have extended stays in nursing homes. I do not agree that Medicare for all is a model. We need to look at other countries where there is no cost for drugs or nursing home stays. Many doctors are now saying in the US that they will not take patients on medicare if reimbursement rates are reduced.

    I think the preventative tests (but may only be free until you are diagnosed with a problem in which case the test becomes diagnostic), coverage for pre-exitisting conditions, extending coverage to children to 26 years of age, and health exchanges to help people get group rates are all good measures of the ACA. But causing seniors to continue to pay retail cost for drugs and the slow implementation of reduced rates is not good. Cost inflation may cancel out a significant part of the benefit. Now with chained CPI planned for social security, seniors incomes will not be following the cost of living. There are insufficient primary care doctors in the US and our model of health care depends on treating sick people not preventing disease. The ACA is moving toward a prevention model but does not go far enough. The movie Escape Fire discusses changes that the US health care system must make to increase wellness and prevent disease and provide better working conditions for health providers so meaningful patient-doctor(health team) relationships can be established so that meaningful treatment plans are possible. We do not necessarily need lots of expensive technology. Rather we need more time for doctors to meet with patients and study their cases. People need incentives to change their lifestyle to improve their health such as reductions in cost of insurance premiums. These options to improve health must be widely available. If you live in poverty you may not be able to eat fresh vegetables and fruits uniess you grow them yourself or have school gardens that provide food for the schools.

    I am not sure that fining a hospital if a patient is readmitted within a month of release is the right way to do business. I have seen many friends have secondary problems such as after being admitted for cancer treatment having a heart attacks. You cannot predict that being treated successfully for one disease is going to mean you will not be in the hospital again within a month. Yes outcome-based assessments are good but not realistic in our medical system and with a population that is going to be half diabetic in the near future. As in the film Escape Fire, a new model of health care is needed and must be much more holistic.

    Finally paying for the premiums is not going to be easy for many people. A family for four may expect to pay ~$16000 a year and get a small government subsidy if the family earns ~$80,000 according to one analysis I have seen. And yes I have hear of many people’s health insurance rates increasing by 50-100% in the last few years. And these plans have large deductibles for catastrophic incidents. So this adds several thousand dollars of liability to the cost each year. People with chronic problems can easily have such expenses. That is probably why Stein said that the situation is not going to prevent people from going into bankruptcy. What is missing is straightforward explanations of the ACA.

    Single payer not-for-profit health care that focuses on wellness and well being is what is needed.

  • Sharon M. Mullins

    as Ricky explained I am shocked that anybody able to profit $7438 in 1 month on the computer. did you look at this site w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

  • http://www.medicareforall.org/ SinglePayerActivist

    Excellent point, edgewise, that a survey is limited when it only asks a “like or not like” question about Obamacare.

    Yes, the ACA compares VERY poorly compared to Improved Medicare for All, single-payer health care. Obamacare (ACA) kept all the three health care bureaucracies that we have (government + health insurance companies + related, supporting groups and individuals that feed off the other two) and increased the amount of bureaucracy.

    What result can we expect from Obamacare? The USA will continue to be the ONLY free-market country with out-of-control health care costs and its citizens will pay more taxes related to health care than ever before. I was on a team that studied the entire law back in 2010. We counted 601 reasons that our taxes will increase. That increase is primarily due to the increase in bureaucracy that I mentioned above.

    - Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate

  • Anonymous

    You want people to change their health styles. Hmmm? Will you want me to have blues eyes and blond hair before long so that i will fit in to your perfect little template? If you all just lived like us, we would all be better off attitude? While I can agree with a holistic approach to my care, I do not need the approach forced on me, and then me not be able to challenge what is forced on me in a court of law. You want people to be and act a certain way, you do not force them to be that way through back door legislation and austerity measures in our private health care. And you most certainly do not violate my civil rights to fight back with state laws that infringe upon my Individual Civil Rights. Please see my earlier post. I will look at this movie Escape Fire and educate my self as to what you are saying, and thanks for sharing and partaking and voicing your opinions in this very important social debate. That affects all of us all in our daily lives more than we realize. Peace and thanks. I think we are some what on the same page, but I just want an ability to challenge my care, no matter what social health policy some public officials are trying to shove at me this time around? It’s a holistic movement now, fine, what about the next big health phase? Are we going to start gene testing and say that only people with the best gens get certain treatments? Can you see where things can lead, if we the People are not allowed to challenged back civilly and in a timely fashion. It does not matter if it is O care, or R care. What ever you call it is fine, just let me be able to fight back civilly and fairly in a real court of law should the care I receive, or not receive harm me.

  • Anonymous

    Justed watched your movie and loved it. I may even re post it after I am done watching it. It did not change my feelings that we need to be able to challenge our care civilly and with out being hindered by state law, no matter what kind of care it is. We need to be able to challenge it civilly as individuals in a real court of law, in a timely manor. Which is not the case as the laws stand now. Thanks.

  • Pam

    I have dropped my catastrophic, high deductible insurance to spend the $500/month on maintaining my health. I feel much better.

  • Gene Ogorodov

    The ACA is a flagrant sell out by the Democratic Party. Ostensibly it was designed to provide greater accessibility to medical care, but neglecting to control costs and funding it through penalizing hospitals, excise taxes on patients, and reducing the fundign for Medicare and Medicaid has ensured that it will do the reverse. Far from searchign for a way to improve the health of the nation the rogues in Washington have devised a means of padding the profits of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries as ballooning costs threaten to make many of them obsolete as medical coverage becomese pohibitively expensive for the vast majority of Americans.

    In the interim, while the ACA is being implemented, medical industry profits will return to the halcyon days of the 1990′s but when the dust settles a decade or two after full implementation medical care in the US will be far more expensive and inaccessible as annual costs grow beyond our physical GDP (real GDP – (Financial Sector – Other parts of Government Sector)). Needless to say if Congress refuses to address the cost of medical care in the US before 2020 they will be endangering the position of the US in the world.

    The Federal Government currently spends more on medical care per capita than any other nation in the English Speaking World or Western Europe. If Washington were simply to re-allocate the money it already spends on Medical R&D and invest in hospitals, clinics, and medical schools, the US could have a national health care program to rival any one currently in existence.

    For me the ACA is the last straw, with regards to the Democrats. This atrocity has demonstrated that the Democratic Party is NOT a moderate alternative to the bellicose Republicans. Our political overlords have sold themselves to perverse private interests that should NEVER have been allowed to influence national policy. Both parties are two political wings of a plutocratic tyranny that is determined to rape and pillage the US the same way it raped and pillaged Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and a hundred other countries around the world. It is no longer in their interests to feed us from the crumbs off their table; they now must consume us too.

    I will not support medical reform in the US that doesn’t include the nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry and the indictment of executives in that industry for preventing much needed medicines from reaching patients in the US and around the world. For too long the US government has been the champion of blood money, protecting and facilitating despicable people who eat the hopes and dreams of children and drink scotch splashed with the tears of the destitute.