A Rasmussen Poll conducted December 5 and 6, polled 1000 likely voters who were asked five questions, the first of which was:
Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of the new health care law?
The response was 17% had an opinion of the law that was Very Favorable, 27%, Somewhat Favorable, 16% Somewhat Unfavorable, and 36% Very Unfavorable. That means that only 44% saw the law in a good light while 52% saw it negatively. Most other polls have seen similar results.
Why would a majority view the Affordable Care Act unfavorably? It was sold as an economic savior. We were told that the ACA would help reduce the National Debt. And, it would lower your cost of health care costs as well. We were promised that we could keep our current health care plans, and doctors, if we wanted to do so. The government has failed to deliver on every one of these promises. You could either say we were lied to, or, the architects of the bill were “too stupid” to understand well enough to foretell the actual consequences.
There was a great deal of negative press about Health Insurance Companies in the lead up to selling ObamaCare. It continues today (witness last Sunday night’s hit piece on health insurers denying mental health services) and many say it is as a diversion so people will blame private industry (instead of a failed government system that dictates most of the private insurers actions). With all the hard-sell of a government run health care option, I have often wondered why the government is not taking more flack about the lack of performance of the ACA or ObamaCare as it is often called.
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal and The Best of The Web said it best:
“Had ObamaCare actually delivered on its promises—providing good coverage to those who lacked insurance, and permitting those who liked their plans and doctors to keep them—it would be wildly popular. By contrast, a private corporation that marketed a defective product via fraudulent promises would soon go out of business, and its decision-makers would face civil and perhaps even criminal liability.”
To me, there is a clear double standard. What we were sold was something most of us would favor. What we have gotten is a bad case of bait-and-switch that in almost any state would be prosecuted by the Attorney General (or Department of Consumer Protection, etc.). Should the architects and builders of ObamaCare face civil charges? I think so, if for no reason other than to signal to other politicians and bureaucrats that this sort of activity is unacceptable and will be punished…..just like it would be in the private sector. What do you think?