3 ms·
> If it were called Obamacare and ACA in the news media and politics equally, then yes. > ...but that wasn't the case. You can't just ask them questions about
by croon 9y ago
> If it were called Obamacare and ACA in the news media and politics equally, then yes.
> ...but that wasn't the case. You can't just ask them questions about a less popular name and expect less-informed people to know it's the same thing.
But that was the point. "Less-informed people" aren't disliking something based on its content, which was what you originally claimed, but based on its branding and ads (attack or otherwise).
Yes, people don't want higher premiums, but they do want all the other stuff that comes with it. The results of similar polls will change dramatically once people experience what the effects of a repeal means.
Which is proof that they don't answer to polls about the policies in it, but its brand.
- moduspol 9y ago> Which is proof that they don't answer to polls about the policies in it, but its brand. It's proof that you can confuse people by calling something one thing for a few years and then ask them about something else and telling them good things about it. Virtually any policy can be made more popular this way.
- croon 9y agoI guess we agree on the concept, but differ in assumption of whether ACA is unpopular due to smear or favorable in polls due to phrasing. I'm convinced that (while it having many flaws) no one in the poorer 80% of the country would prefer the AHCA over the ACA if informed on both. Which might seem obvious economically, but it's also clear that polling or voting doesn't turn out that way, which I take to mean that obfuscation through attack ads and aimed media is doing effective work.