Indeed, you make a good point. Let’s take a look at the questions asked in this poll.
“Q: Overall, do you support or oppose the federal law that made changes to the health care system? 39% Support. 54% Oppose”
That right there is significant. Opposition has never been higher. Not for any WP poll at least.
Then they asked this question:
“Q: The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding a case that could undermine the entire health care law by blocking federal subsidies that help some low and moderate income Americans pay for their health insurance. Do you think the court should or should not take. 38% Should. 55% Should not. “
The problems here should be obvious. First the question is cut off so we really don’t know what they were asked. Were they asked, “Do you think the court should or should not take...action to limit this subsidy?” OR, “Do you think the court should or should not take...the subsidy out of the law?”
Now maybe this is a problem viewing the webpage on my phone but I don’t think so. The question is cut off.
We this have no way to know what was asked other than the implication from the Post that what was asked was the latter possibility. Or something like it.
Even if that’s what was asked, the point you brought up is valid, because most might hear that question and have no idea what it means. So, to not sound stupid, and not sound like they want all parts of the law going away, like the prohibition of pre-existing conditions exclusions, most might indeed answer “the SC should not” take away the subsidies. It’s a meaningless answer though, one out of ignorance (even for the best case scenario for the Post described above).
The bottom line is we all know that most people “support” the law insomuch as it prevents any pre-existing condition from being a reason to deny coverage to an individual. Other than that though, even John Q is starting to see the light especially where his own wallet is concerned. And that, the Post really doesn’t want to report.
The question in this case is simple. Should the Supreme Court limit laws to what they say or interpret them for the convenience of the Administration? The issue isn’t what the effect on subsidies or exchanges might be, but how to read a law. But, of course, the WP would never put that question to the respondents, the results would come out against the side they support.