Public Split on Health Care Ruling

A lot of ink has been spilled discussing who wins politically in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling. A new poll from USA Today and Gallup suggests the answer is simple: everybody. Or maybe nobody.

46 percent of Americans agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and 46 percent oppose it, according to the poll. The remaining respondents were unsure.

The polling broke down along party lines. 79 percent of Democrats supported the ruling, while only 13 percent of Republicans did. Meanwhile, only 16 percent of Democrats opposed the ruling, while 83 percent of Republicans did. Independents narrowly supported the ruling by a 45-44 margin.

The sharp and even split suggests that neither party has much room to grow support based on the ruling. While former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney has made repeal of the Affordable Care Act a centerpiece of his campaign, that appears to be more of a direct appeal to his base than something that will move the middle.

Similarly, while President Barack Obama has touted the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, he does not appear to have much room to turn his victory in the court into swing-voter support.

Only 31 percent of voters wanted the law repealed in its entirety. 21 percent of voters wanted parts of the law repealed, while 13 percent felt the bill should not be tinkered with and 25 percent felt the law should be expanded. Those numbers show the gravitational pull of strong Republican Party opposition to the legislation. 85 percent of Republicans wanted all or part of the law repealed, while only 49 percent of Independents and 27 percent of Democrats did.

While the discussion of politics has been the major part of the discussion, most voters said they would not vote based on health care alone. 19 percent of Democrats and 18 percent of Independents said they viewed health care as the most important issue that would decide their vote. 27 percent of Republicans said the same.

Voters did express concern about the increasing politicization of the Supreme Court. 64 percent of voters said politics played too big a role in the decision, including 47 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of Independents and 87 percent of Republicans.

The poll was conducted June 28, 2012, and surveyed 1,012 adults. The poll has a margin of error of ±4 percent.

Related Stories

Politicos React to Obamacare Ruling

BREAKING: SCOTUS Upholds Obama’s Health Care Law’s Individual Mandate

Health Ruling to End Campaign Mystery, Unleash Ads


Image Credit: Donkey Hotey


Dr Clue
Dr Clue4 years ago

@David F. Yours would seem a perverse interpretation of freedom. One could almost believe that you thought the words below were written by and for Walmart,Kaiser and other corporations and that Halliburton created the earth in seven days.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Kevin Brown
Kevin Brown4 years ago

David said "Our difference comes down to you hating free enterprise and favoring Government and me hating the loss of freedom to an overbearing government, at the cost of Capitolisim."

David don't you dare deign to tell me what I do and do not hate, nor to paint yourself as the protector of freedom for slavishly licking at the boots of your corporate masters.

By the way how often do corporations actually give dividends to stockholders? The answer is almost never. The rights of a stockholder is pretty much limited to selling the stock and maybe voting for a preapproved slate of directors every few years.

The greedy bastards who run the corporations mostly just give themselves huge salaries and bonuses while firing US workers and making those that are left take pay cuts or just ship their jobs overseas.

Corporate CEO's used to make 10-15 times what the average worker made in yearly salary. Now they make 300-400 times what the average worker makes and cry about government regulations keeping them from being profitable.

Go ahead David, be a shill for your corporate overlords all the while telling yourself it is about "freedom." I on the other hand know the difference between freedom and slavery, and those greedy bastards want to enslave us all.

Dr Clue
Dr Clue4 years ago

With some of the modular load fire suppression systems being brought online by the forestry service, at best and as an interim solution it might be reasonable to dry lease the air-craft as opposed to wet lease arrangements.

In the long term it would be better IMHO to combine the modular load system with while using existing military aircraft and even better if the forestry service received updated aircraft that the military is aiming to retire from their fleets. At least those would be newer than WWII

At the end of the day , when you out source the service you have no assets to show for it and simply have to keep on paying whatever the market demands for air craft which may or may not be available when you need them.

Dr Clue
Dr Clue4 years ago

@David F The national forest service maintains and operates a fleet of it's own fire fighting aircraft. In cases of larger or multiple fires they do bring in other craft from the military and yes if need be, privately operated craft.

A large part of the need for the additional out sourced aircraft arises from the fact that funds have not been made available to replace aging craft , some of which are from WWII

Anytime these services are outsourced , one has to pay the operator the costs of operation plus of course a profit. This makes about as much sense as driving a rental car every day, instead of simply owning ones own vehicle.

David C.
David C4 years ago

@David F

As usual you avoid the issue - I guess because you have no answer. Medicare costs in El Paso Texas are roughly one half of those in McAllen. The cities are smilar in size, have a similar number of immigrants. Both have the same unfunded mandates,. The high cost in McAllen shows quite conclusively that factors other than either law suits or unfunded mandates are the primary drivers of cost.

You appear incapable of debating by any method other than anecdotes and absurd generlizations from the specific to the general.

Kevin Brown
Kevin Brown4 years ago

David-Corporations exist for one reason, to make money. They have no interest in "promoting the general welfare." They are amoral by their very nature. You can argue how "wonderful" they are, I am sure they are happy to have anothe corporate shill (hey fox news is in the business of creating. I, and many of us here on Care2, do not suffer from "Stockhom Syndrome" and will not worship the greedy bastards who wish to economically enslave us.

Kevin Brown
Kevin Brown4 years ago

Boy you folks on the right just love your anecdotal horror stories, don't care much for peer-reviewed studies or the word of the vast majority of people who live in single-payer countries. None of that matters, but some anecdotal story, oh yeah, that you guys just love.

David C.
David C4 years ago

@David F
“Free market efficiency is always better than government” Hmmm. Efficiency is what you get out divided by what you put in. In industry, efficiency can be defined as cost of production. What’s the “product” of a health care system? How about health? How might we measure health? How about length of life, particularly high quality life? How about reducing premature deaths – as of infants?

The efficiency of the US health care system sucks. The UK delivers equal or better public health than the US at 50 cents on the $. Other universal care countries do even better.

How about public/private efficiency comparison in the US. Cost of production includes administrative overhead. The cleanest comparison is traditional Medicare versus Medicare Advantage. The latter is run by private insurance companies. Both have the same overhead for collection of funds/premiums, the same demographics among the insured. Traditional Medicare administration 2%, Medicare Advantage 11%. Which do you think is the more efficient?

On your absurd suggestion that tort reform is a major factor, please explain why McAllen Texas is the second highest Medicare cost city in the US despite Texas tort reform.

Kevin Brown
Kevin Brown4 years ago

David F. said "the fire tankers are from private free market companies that provide a service far more efficiently then the government could."

That's because the fire tankers protect corporate interests (i.e. their tankers). Why should the government pay to protect a wholly corporate interest? Bad example, try again.

Oh, by the way Dr. C was being sarcastic about Franklin being a commie, you know, because he created the idea of a "public" fire department and the right now claims that everyone who does things like that is a "socialist" or a "commie."

Pogle S.
Pogle S4 years ago

In my opinion, every country in the world needs a National Heath Service like the UK has. I know that Obamacare is not exactly the same but it is a huge step in the right direction of love and compassion for all people and not just for the rich and selfish!