Obamacare

Here's How Unpopular ObamaCare Is: Fewer Than Half of Democrats Want the Law Upheld

|

Sean Higgins at Investor's Business Daily reports on a new IBD health care poll:

Polls continue to show it has little popular support either. For example, a poll just conducted for IBD by TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence found that only 22% said they wanted the justices to uphold the entire law, while 37% said strike down the whole thing and 30% said to strike down only the law's individual mandate to buy health insurance. Another 10% were unsure.

Strikingly, the same poll found that while 39% of Democrats wanted the law upheld, 38% wanted the mandate struck down and another 12% wanted the whole thing thrown out. In other words, 50% want part or all of the law tossed. Even taking into account that some of those may be liberals who dislike ObamaCare because it isn't more expansive, it's a striking rejection of the president's main accomplishment by his own party.

As Higgins points out, this is worth remembering next time one of the law's defenders argues that the Supreme Court will lose its legitimacy if it strikes down the law. Bipartisan opposition to ObamaCare, and to its mandate in particular, is so strong that even amongst Democrats less than 40 percent are willing to say they want the law upheld. In the court of public opinion, at least, the law has already lost. 

In March, a Reason-Rupe poll found similarly high levels of opposition to the law. Indeed, virtually every poll has found that the public is opposed to the law

NEXT: Speculating on Why U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Rates Are at Historic Lows

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Joaquin Phoenix was the only thing good about that movie.

    1. By the way…

      Veganism: more or less crazy than Scientology or Judaism?

      1. Less crazy than both. But on the annoyance scale it’s jews < vegans < scientologists.

        1. I have never even talked to a scientologist let alone been annoyed by one.

          And why Jews at all?

          They only want us to pay for their defense of their homeland…not all that different then what Europe, Japan and Korea does.

          1. Kirstie Alley, John Travolta, Greta Van Susteren, Kelly Preston, Lisa Marie Pressley, Juliet Lewis and Tom-fucking-Cruise.

            Oh yes, my friend, you have been annoyed by a Scientologist.

          2. Do you have a religion based against your profession?
            One of Scientology’s main beliefs is that psychiatrists are evil, powerful people who want to take over the universe and must be stopped at all costs.
            Truly funny, because many psychiatrists I’ve met are afraid to look people in the eye, much less dominate anyone.

        2. Mad, you have one hell of a sensitive measuring device if you can distinguish a difference between vegans and scientologists on the annoyance scale.

      2. Vegans- simply a waste of oxygen

      3. veganism is far worse, and far more self-righteous than either.

    2. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but I do wish the movie hadn’t been so over the top. I’ve always liked Oliver Reed–that was his last film, wasn’t it?

      1. Indeed it was his last, he died during filming. Richard Harris’ last film, also, I believe.

    3. Yeah cuz 300 and Spartacus are fucking horrible…

      WTF??!

      1. Yeah, 300 is fucking horrible.

        1. What, you don’t like an absolute overkill of hyper-stylized slo-mo?

          Sam Peckinpah should be the only person ever allowed to use more than one instance of slo-mo in a movie. And he’s dead.

          1. THIS! IS! A FUCKING SHAMEFUL TREATMENT OF HISTORY!

            1. Needs more abs.

            2. Yeah, well, tell it to Zack Snyder. His next project is a reboot of Superman. The only movie he’s done that wasn’t a comic book or a remake has been Sucker Punch.

              1. His next project is a reboot of Superman.

                Why? For the love of SOD, WHY?

                1. Because it makes money. Hollywood is cashing in on all their established brands. I don’t like it, but I can’t blame them.

                  1. The well is almost run dry. Retread after retread after retread.

                    Doesn’t anyone have remotely an original idea, or to be more precise, original execution anymore?

                    1. Superman told strictly from the perspective of Lex Luthor. Can include the origin story of Luthor as a bald mad genius, but not strictly necessary.

                      Luthor.

                    2. Luthor.

                      If it’s decently cast and well-written, I could devour this idea.

                    3. Dude, they’re remaking Spider Man. Again.

                    4. As annoying as it is, it is a sensible business decision. The studio already owns the property and the rights to it, and so doesn’t have to pay for that. It has name recognition that will draw more people in. It’s easier to write (read: you can hire a cheaper screenwriter) because there’s already a framework for the story. Big actors will fight over the chance to reprise a classic role.

                      It’s all win from the studio’s perspective. Original movies still get made; you just have to look for them. Recently, Chronicle was really good and I’m going to go see Cabin in the Woods this weekend.

                    5. I understand the business sense. I guess I just want something different. I don’t even watch teevee anymore. There’s just not anything compelling, and I’m tired of being beaten over the head with blatant political allegories. And I don’t think I’m intellectually or artistically void; maybe I’m just lazy.

                      I watch movies to escape the world, not be reminded of how shitty it usually is. And one can only watch so much splatter flickage until you get worn out. I guess I’m just fickle. I want to see something compelling that sparks my mind, something that says “Wow, that was just awesome.”

                      I’ll check out your recommendations, Epi.

                    6. Rent this this weekend, or tonight, whenever you want. You’ll have fun.

                    7. Already saw it bro, remember? I keep that in my back pocket…it’s so hilarious that I want to return to it sparingly. Like a fine wine or 40 year old scotch, not wear it out like a French whore.

                    8. It’s not that there aren’t new ideas, it’s that the studios are scared of them.

                    9. Then the studios need to take some risks, instead of depending on the yet to be born to pay to see recycled dreck over and over.

                      “OOH, look at that, the 57th reboot of Superman. It’s all shiny and pretty. Giggle!”

                    10. Studios are huge companies and hate taking risks. Producers who take risks and fail big never work again. There is a lot of risk-aversion going on.

                      But every once in a while, they still take risks. Lord of the Rings was a huge fucking risk, but it paid off, bigtime. I’m sure the Weinstein brothers have been kicking themselves for years for not finding a way to finance that sucker. But New Line took the risk and reaped a tremendous reward.

                    11. Lord of the Rings was a huge fucking risk, but it paid off, bigtime.

                      And then there’s John Carter.

                    12. John Carter has made its money back, and has time to make some more.

                      It’s the flops that kill careers and even studios. Just ask Michael Cimino and United Artists.

                    13. Not according to the studio that released it. It’s somewhere between a $100 – $250 million write-down.
                      http://bit.ly/GzLDub

                      Here’s an article on a possible scenario where it does okay (but even then it loses $53 million):
                      http://bit.ly/ADSWpA

                    14. Well, Chronicle looks interesting. I’ll see it and let you know what I thought. Who knows, maybe I’ll be blown away.

                    15. Lord of the Rings was a huge fucking risk, but it paid off, bigtime.

                      Yeah, only because Peter Jackson was at the helm.

                      Can’t wait for The Hobbit.

                    16. I’m concerned about The Hobbit. The book was much less complex than LotR, is if for a younger audience. I wonder how he’ll play it? Does he go with the kids story or does he punch it up to the LotR level?

                    17. *as

                    18. I heard from an insider that he’s going to try to do the same to The Hobbit as he did when he remade King Kong.*

                      So, you know, we’re all gonna be thrilled.

                      *No such conversation ever took place.

                    19. The whole appeal of The Hobbit, at least for me, is it isn’t SUPER SERIAL like LOTR. It’s kind of fun and light, and I like it that way. If he punches it up to LOTR, it won’t be The Hobbit, and it will suck.

                      I still have some faith in PJ, and doing The Hobbit light and with humor is right up his alley.

                    20. I agree, he should stick to the tone of the book, BUT, I think the larger audience may be looking for the sophisticated action adventure film and be disappointed.

                    21. There’s plenty to work with there.

                    22. The whole appeal of The Hobbit, at least for me, is it isn’t SUPER SERIAL like LOTR. It’s kind of fun and light, and I like it that way. If he punches it up to LOTR, it won’t be The Hobbit, and it will suck.

                      I still have some faith in PJ, and doing The Hobbit light and with humor is right up his alley.

                      The key is whether he portrays Beorn and Bard the Bowman well. LOTR definitely missed Tom Bombadil.

                    23. Producers who take risks and fail big never work again.

                      Case in point, what was the last Micheal Cimino film you saw?

                2. Because the last reboot of Superman fucking sucked.

          2. What, you don’t like an absolute overkill of hyper-stylized slo-mo?

            No, just not a big fan of gladiator movies, Captain Oveur.

            1. Listen, kid! I’ve been hearing that crap ever since I was at UCLA. I’m out there busting my buns every night. Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes.

              1. Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl…

                1. Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.

              2. Yes, yes. I remember. I had lasagne.

                1. I’m going to jump in here and recommend Attack the Block as a recently made original kick ass movie.

    4. I found a great dating bisexual site DATEBI*C’O’M. It is a serious& safe dating site for the bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships. I have to say DATEBI*COM the best site I have ever joined so far. They verify all members. Unlike other sites,NO scammers or fake profiles here, and you can meet many rich or mature women as well, including celebs, famous stars.BEST OF LUCK!

    5. I’m an attractive, caring, honest, warmhearted woman in search of bilover to explore bisexuality. I, so got a profile(lilygreen98756) on ====Datebi dot /c’0/m===. It’s the first and safest place for men and women looking for intimate encounters, casual encounters. Come in and discover the excitement you deserve! ^_^

      1. registration FTW!

      2. nancyddffd|4.10.12 @ 9:34PM|#
        “I’m an attractive, caring, honest, warmhearted woman in search of bilover to explore bisexuality…”

        I’m gonna guess that at least three lies are included here.

        1. Man you’re generous – I would put the minimum at 5.

        2. I count six statements that could be true or false. I think the over/under for fibs is probably 5 1/2.

          1. Can we put the lies into a Fib-onacci sequence? I couldn’t resist, even though I should have……

  2. To be a bit more accurate those Democrats just hate the insurance companies and want a public insurance option. If the mandate were to buy from Uncle Sam it would poll better.

    1. You know, you’re probably right about that.

    2. To be a bit more accurate, those Democrats just want someone else to give them free stuff.

      1. Some, not most. Private insurers practice rescission and are much more likely to withhold treatment than Medicare is.

        Distrust of insurers is rampant when the bottom line is paramount to them.

        Many gatekeepers earn bonuses for denying procedures to patients. The distrust of insurers has been earned.

        That doesn’t make the mandate Constitutional though.

        1. Private insurance is a contract. They pay what the contract specifies, no more or less.

          1. Yes, but they enjoy anti-trust immunity so they collude. A key stipulation in 2010 for them was retention of that immunity.

            http://thehill.com/homenews/ho…..hcare-bill

            1. “Health insurance is one of the most significantly regulated areas of the economy,” Ignani wrote.

              Most insurance companies sold off their health insurance long ago because it’s a tough business. The overhead required to keep track of federal and 50+ state and territorial Departments of Insurance can only be afforded by a few companies.

          2. Whenever there is ambiguity in the contract, they value saving money over providing health care. Where they can’t deny coverage, they delay for as long as possible.

            People hate medical insurance companies for a reason.

            1. “Where they can’t deny coverage, they delay for as long as possible.”

              Yep, just like a bureaucrat.

            2. Doctors,et al, provide medical care, dickhead. Patients are responsible for their health care.

              Big difference, douchenozzle.

              Medical care is not a right.

              1. A distinction that is lost on far too many legislators, regulators, bureaucrats, and miscellaneous functionaries.

              2. Patients are responsible for their health care.

                So you on board with getting rid of that prescription nonsense then, doc?

        2. Private insurers practice rescission and are much more likely to withhold treatment than Medicare is.

          Bullshit. 2 years ago, my CMS claims were rejected outright to the tune of 38% or so.

          Private insurers? 10%.

          Guess which one I don’t accept anymore…

    3. To be even more accurate they want single payer.

      1. The “payer” being everyone else.

        1. Great point. There’s no such thing as “single payer” except in a system where everyone pays for his own fucking health care.

      2. Ignore the sockpuppet, sage. Just walk away. There has been too much pain, too much suffering.

        1. has the lord registered yet? lol….

    4. So only 50% of 30% of americans want a public insurance option?

      Sounds like shrike is making a good case to eliminate medicare.

      By the way the article already made this point:

      Bipartisan opposition to ObamaCare, and to its mandate in particular, is so strong that even amongst Democrats less than 40 percent are willing to say they want the law upheld.

      Don’t give Shrike credit for repeating what Peter already pointed out.

      1. You mean people actually read the articles here?

        /jk

        1. Or bother to read my misquote:

          Even taking into account that some of those may be liberals who dislike ObamaCare because it isn’t more expansive, it’s a striking rejection of the president’s main accomplishment by his own party.

          It was Sean who Peter quoted who said it.

      2. I would eliminate Medicare if I could. Its the biggest sham this side of the defense weapons industry.

        1. and yet, it was your side that painted Paul Ryan as granny killer. That ‘sham’ sets the tone for what private carriers will and will not pay.

  3. Obamacare is synonymous with loser at this point. No one wants pollsters to smell the stench of that on them. (And by no one, I mean no one but that specific 39% of the Dems who answered their phones.)

    1. I don’t care what the polls show. I don’t have any respect for the American loyalist. I don’t believe in democracy. I believe that I should rule by brute force.

    2. who answered their phones.

      I have not cold answered my home phone in 10 years.

      What is wrong with people

      1. I haven’t had a home phone in 10 years.

      2. I’ve been getting robo survey calls on my fucking cell phone. Which makes me think how much extra I would pay for a button that doesn’t just disconnect the call, but reaches across the wire and bitch-slaps the fucker that called me.

        1. I smell an app! We’ll be billionaires!

  4. In the court of public opinion, at least, the law has already lost.

    *cough*TARP*cough*

  5. So repeal it in Congress, and don’t going bitching the Supreme Court, hoping for some zombiefied Lochner-era Constitution-in-Exile to do for you what democracy can’t.

    1. What the fuck are you talking about?

      1. He is saying when the constitution supports popular sentiment he opposes it.

        Basically the rallying cry of the left for the past 80 years.

        1. Thanks. I must have left my hippy translator at home.

          1. hippy translator? I hope you got that for free.

            1. I tore out the pages on drug references and tossed the rest in the trash.

      2. It’s Mary Stack, dude. Ignore her or insult her.

        1. Bingo. Looks like someone got a new IP address. And is still butthurt about being banned.

          Suck it Mary you crazy, nasty bitch.

    2. If Lochner is the lefty equivalent of zombie-Hitler, why do they love Roe so much? Substantive due process is substantive due process, the only difference being the precise right that is being read into the Due Process clause.

    3. So repeal it in Congress, and don’t going bitching the Supreme Court, hoping for some zombiefied Lochner-era Constitution-in-Exile to do for you what democracy can’t.

      ‘Don’t going bitching the Supreme Court?’ Its like a billboard in China.

      But as to the fuzzy thought smudged more with fuzzy words, surely this creature’s mind sees Constitutional utility in overturning DOMA some day? Roe versus Wade perhaps?

      Constitutional social machines only work when they work my way is the concept here. What an intellectual farce – too easy with the lefties.

  6. Well we now have two strikes against government controlled health care.

    I think we may have just seen the end of establishing massive government programs.

    I am surprised it took this long to stop the FDR idiot wave.

    1. “I think we may have just seen the end of establishing massive government programs.”

      If only.

    2. Drinking again, JC?

    3. When the Xerox overheats the era of Big Government will be over – as Slickster promised long ago…

  7. Bread and roses

  8. OT. According to Obama, he’s Johnson to Romney’s Goldwater:
    “Obama sees biggest divide since Johnson-Goldwater”
    From the copy:
    “This election will probably have the biggest contrast that we’ve seen maybe since the Johnson-Goldwater election, maybe before that,” Obama told donors…”
    Riiiiiight.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..027D14.DTL

    1. It may well be as dirty an election as 1964. Obama is a prick like Johnson.

    2. If Romney is Goldwater, I’m Pope Piux IX.

      1. Or maybe even Pius. I guess I’m not infallible at proofreading.

      2. ‘They told me if I voted for Goldwater, we’d have war. They were right’.

        1. They told me if I voted for Goldwater, we’d have war. They were right

          It was a police action to prevent a domino effect, authorized with a non-binding Congressional resolution. War? Whatever.

    3. Johnson and Goldwater wanted the exact same policies, only Goldwater preferred that state governments carry them out?

      1. Hey, whadya expect? Obama wasn’t a history prof!

        1. If he thinks that a decision about the scope of the Commerce Power is like Lochner, he’s not much of a law prof either.

  9. Another fresh new IBD poll:

    http://www.tipponline.com/pres…..y-46-to-38

    1. Your hero is still below 50%, shriek. Not good for an incumbent.

    2. Romney is the waiting-for-the-incumbent-to-stumble candidate, and that is all. Obama could be hurt by an economic double-dip (most likely precipitated by developments in Europe over which he has no control) or by an extrinsic shock — like Katrina, or a war outbreak with a “rogue state.”

      One thing that is not going to happen is Romney somehow ‘reinventing’ himself in the next six months as some kind of person the voting public is going to mobilize for with positive enthusiasm.

      Romney is just the “not-Obama,” waiting for the position of “not-Obama” to become politically relevant beyond the fever swamps of white male ressentiment.

      1. “white male ressentiment”? lulz. Take your meds Mary.

      2. “Romney is just the “not-Obama,”
        And Obama’s claim to fame is that he isn’t W.
        And he’s right; he’s worse.

      3. Go fuck yourself Mary. No one cares what you have to say.

  10. Don’t expect Democrats who oppose Obamacare to jump on the free-market approach to healthcare. They still wholeheartedly believe in socialized medicine, they just don’t believe Obama’s version will work.

    1. If you are going to be banging a 25 year old employee behind your wife’s back, it is probably a bad idea to get drunk and stick her on the back of your Harley. Just saying.

      1. It probably is a bad idea. It sounds like such a good idea though.

      2. John|4.10.12 @ 8:30PM|#
        “If you are going to be banging a 25 year old employee behind your wife’s back, it is probably a bad idea to get drunk and stick her on the back of your Harley.”

        John, you’re on to a universal law here.

    2. and lot more interesting story than Obamacare. Depending on who the Hogs head guy is, this changes the dynamic of the SEC West pretty significantly.

  11. Did the end of this thread just vanish?

  12. Actually 52% like Obamacare, as no mandate doesn’t mean no program. There’s just no way of covering the costs in that case.

    Keep in mind we already have a mandate to treat those who come into the emergency room.

    1. And that mandate is very very different than the requirement to purchase a qualified health insurance plan.

      1. we already have a mandate to treat those who come into the emergency room.

        Just so. It is forced commerce like the insurance mandate. Being required to provide gods and services to somebody is as much of an imposition as being required to purchase goods and services from somebody.

    2. EMERGENCY ROOMS!!

      The be all and end all of the justification process.

      Look man, I’ll give you a case study with a data point of one. I am a poor dude and I have been uninsured for evahs. I don’t go to the fucking doctor regularly and probably won’t ever. If I get real sick and need care after I buy mandated insurance guess where I’m going, chief. That’s right the motherfuckin’ emergency room.

      I don’t have money for insurance and I don’t have money for care and I am goin to the emergency room any-goddamn-time I fuckin feel like it. How has the law changed anything.

      Oh, and I prefer opanas and old E to broccoli; so there’s that…too, eh.

      1. Just a reminder not all hospitals are required to provide emergency care, and after EMTALA passed many hospitals closed their emergency rooms in response.

        1. Yes, many did. But ‘public’ hospitals still provide emergency care and those are probably every bit as ‘available’ as would be care under Obamacare or the Brit or Canadian models.
          And cheaper to boot, since they only require some fudging of the books to make me pay for it rather than eleventy-hundred pages of government forms (processed by eleventy-hundred paid bureaucrats) to, oh, still fudge the book and still make me pay for it

        2. Well, some did. Not many. Most states require a licensed hospital to have some kind of emergency facility (even boutique heart hospitals, here in Texas), and the way EMTALA has been applied, even not having an emergency room may not get you off the hook for being required to take a patient who “presents” in “an emergent condition”.

          1. Under EMTALA, if you have any department which provides at least one-third of all of its visits for treatment on an urgent basis without requiring a previously scheduled appointment, you qualify as having an emergency department. This includes individuals who may present as unscheduled ambulatory patients to units (such as labor and delivery or psychiatric units of hospitals) where patients are routinely evaluated and treated for emergency conditions.

        3. @the monkey behest to the man in the banana suit

          You can bet yer sweet ass that if you lose a game of skull v. railroad spike the medical personal of any institution will be obliged to take you, if only to keep whatever they have left of their humanity.

          Laws, regulations and such will be sorted out later.

    3. Suderman has covered this many, many times. The cost to the system of the uninsured is around 3% to 6%, much less than the cost imposed by hypochondriac soccer moms. IOW, those who pay into the system in the form of insurance take out more than they pay in with state issued mandates being a huge contributor to this problem. The more that is paid out of pocket, the more price discipline enters the market and the more affordable medical care is for us all.

      You can abide by the market and have cheap available services like the good old days, or you can design schemes that balloon the cost, and then come up with more elaborate schemes to keep those cost down through rationing.

      BTW, what you are about to reply to the last sentence is called scarcity not rationing. It is the condition of existence upon which you have no solution better than that imposed by the law of marginal utility.

  13. Since Romney’s probably paid people $millions$ already to forget asking this question, perhaps we should.

    Question: Let’s say the Supremes invalidate the mandate for only trains but not ships fit through the Commerce Clause. So, the Feds can’t compel one to buy insurance products – but what about States like MA that already do exactly that?

    Can States do that so long as its within their borders? That is the law of the land if the Supremes shoot down Obamandate – but of course nobody’s ever brought suit to validity of MA system to best of my mind. Is that Romney’s position then after Supreme June? What else could it be? What will Romney say to the suit that will get rolling in MA courts within coming months of Supreme verdict a’la Heller leading to the Chicago case? Will Romney claim they’re legally wrong?

    Kinda leaves Romney looking stupid and advocating a horrible precedent, especially in tinker-mother-states like CA. And where does dope fit in there? Messy, messy. Romney’s already dug himself a deep dark hole here – flip-flopping in the undulating dark sea of Rosie O’Donnell’s folds about States vs. Feds on this issue. Oops.

    Romney needs to bail on MA healthcare somehow to ride the coming wave instead of only gargle rather than drown in it like his donkey buddies. If he can surf that wave, he’ll probably win I’d bet.

    1. It’s actually a pretty easy out for him. Just start now publicly denouncing Romneycare as a horrible experiment. That he’s learned his lesson the hard way and that Obama is obviously a moron for having used his plan writ large.

      1. I don’t think it will be so easy for the Mitt-tron3T droid to reprogram himitself yet again. Right on the national stage no less.

        He’s so beyond a flip-flopper, he’s a Mobius strip of political contortion through the years – if he were to repudiate Romneycare he would become a new discovery in geometry beyond Reiman and Ricci.

        Nobody would buy the new software, and Obama would skewer him with it. Romney would have to be more nuanced with the Service Pack update, and I don’t know how he does that.

        1. Hmmm, good point.

  14. I don’t get why a libertarian site is so interested in polls. The tyranny of the majority and all that.

    1. THIS. I so wish the majority would stop interfering with my liberty to force other people to do stuff.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.