And he doesn't care about the uninsured, eh?
Well, if "care about" = "actually do something about", IMO voter skepticism is justified.
A tax cut is of little assistance to someone whose problem is that they are faced with a choice between bankrucpy because they being billed $3000 week for radiation treatments when they are unemployed and thus uninsured, and forgoing the treatment and hoping that surgery alone was successful.
Now, I can see a wide range of public polices to deal with their problem.
a) At one end of the "personal responsibility / public responsibility" scale is "Life is unfair. Thanks for playing".
b) Next over is something like a program of low-interst Federal Loans to such individuals, to be deducted from current income and/or from their estate, if any.
c) Next over is a national insurance scheme providing insurance against catastrophic acute health care costs for the unemployed, funded by mandatory tax contributions.
c) Next over...and so on.
And IMO, if someone's position is a) and a) only...well, the politcal system is eventually going to tell you "Life is unfair. Thanks for voting."
You want universal health care. And that's about all you see, and you predicate your activism in post upon one single "exhibit" as representative of the "many of voters".
Your exhibit A is not any type of representative sampling of population in the US.
Further, you ignore many other instances of reality.
The homeless person who arrives at the ER room in critical stages of Cancer. Does he get booted? NO. Does the taxpayer pick up his fees? Yes.
Illegal Immigrants? Do they get a bill? No.
I think your hypothetical is precisely that -- a hypothetical.
But sounds quite caring.