That's a little bit true, but it misses the point.
Congress tries hard to give people what they want. The problem with healthcare is that people want a number of things, some of which are mutually exclusive, and the intensity with which they want each one varies based on their particular circumstances at any given time.
Based on 45 years of observing patients and their families, I would say the top three "wants" are 1) Immediate access to all the care needed for a particular event, 24x7x365 and regardless of geography or season. 2) No payment at the point of service and no charges they can't afford, and 3) No one denied "emergency" care who can't or won't pay for it, or at least, if it happens, it happens in a way that they don't have to read about it or hear about it.
The "system", since 1965, has been pretty good at delivering #1, or something close to it.
The problem is that the machine that delivers #1 has been paid for with debt and money printing. This has created a crisis that the politicians KNOW they have to deal with, but without seeming to take away #1.
Number two is why "insurance" still exists, even though medical needs are not rare like car crashes or house fires. Oh, and it still exists also because it provides rivers of cash to Members of Congress. You can, for a time and by granting tax deductions to large employers create the appearance of no payment at the time of service and no unaffordable charges, but what is really going on is overpayment for some things, underpayment for others, and no payment for illegal aliens and others without insurance. Obamacare and Romneycare are the eventual result.
It's number three, though, that makes a single payer system an (eventual) certainty. Congress passed, and Reagan signed, a bill in 1986 that required hospitals (I'm not sure about other providers) to give any and all emergency care, and care to women in labor, without regard to payment, and in answer to "how can we pay for this", Congress said, "Who knows? You figure it out". The way this has been "figured out" has made every bill, every charge, every Medicare cost report, and every internal budgeting process since then an exercise in subjectivity (to put it kindly).
Yes, "the People" hate Obamacare and want it repealed, that is absolutely correct.
They also want insurance for pre-existing conditions, coverage for their adult children, coverage (of some sort) available to everyone, free care for emergencies and childbirth, and other things.
The fact is, the only thing the people hate about Obamacare is the name, and paying for it.
Getting rid of the rest will end the careers of Members who vote for it, and usher in a 1974-style left wing Congress that will nationalize the whole thing.
This is why I expect Trump to support a single payer scheme with a robust private option within a few months - he really has no other choice.
I am not sure paying for Obamacare is the main problem that voters have.
As someone who purchased my own insurance for a number of years (I have recently changed jobs and no longer do so), the problem for me was the disparity between the effects of Obamacare on the self-employed and those in employer provided plans. Quite frankly, the cost of Obamacare became prohibitively expensive for me over a three year period. Health insurance was one of the primary reasons I changed jobs. The employer provided insurance I have now is probably the best I’ve ever had, and I contribute very little to it.
As an aside, I think it grossly unfair that many highly compensated professionals have “Cadillac plans” which pay for things like greatly reduced prescription drug prices and orthodontic work, all of which are completely tax free to the employee.
perfectly reasoned and practical analysis.
unfortunately (grin)