What Americans Really Want on Obamacare: Fix It, Don't Just Extend It
Most polls indicate that Americans want to keep the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies. That finding is technically accurate but it only tells part of the story.
Standard polling on healthcare subsidies typically measures public sentiment: Will my costs go up? Should Congress prevent that? These are legitimate questions that yield useful data. But they capture what voters think about the problem rather than how voters want to see the problem solved. America’s New Majority Project set out to answer that next question not just whether Americans want help, but what kind of help they actually want.
The results should reframe how Washington approaches this debate.
Beyond Yes or No
In December 2025, ANMP presented voters with three substantive choices: keep the enhanced subsidies permanently, end them immediately, or phase them out while implementing real reforms to the underlying system.
This approach reflects ANMP’s core mission: giving voters meaningful options and discovering how they want to see challenges resolved.
The plurality choice: phase out and reform.
36% of voters prefer phasing out the emergency subsidies while structural reforms take effect
This includes 39% of Republicans, 32% of Democrats, and 37% of independents
Among swing voters the constituency that decides elections 41% want a responsible phase-out
Only 28% want permanent extension of emergency measures
Only 23% want immediate expiration
The middle path responsible transition combined with genuine reform commands the broadest coalition across partisan lines.
Americans See the Deeper Problem
These enhanced subsidies were emergency measures passed during COVID. They were explicitly temporary, never designed as permanent policy. ANMP’s research reveals that American voters understand this context and have drawn clear conclusions about what it implies.
Nearly two-thirds of voters (65%) agree with a fundamental proposition: if we still need emergency subsidies a decade after the Affordable Care Act’s implementation, then the ACA itself requires significant reform. This includes 26% who “strongly agree” and just 7% who “strongly disagree.” Majorities across every demographic group reach the same conclusion. Those most likely to strongly agree are Republicans (40%) and Baby Boomers (31%).
The depth of this sentiment is striking. When asked what level of change Obamacare needs:
31% say Obamacare should be repealed and replaced entirely
20% say it needs a major overhaul
That’s 51% calling for major changes including 77% of Republicans, 52% of independents, and 28% of Democrats
Just 28% say the program needs only targeted fixes
Only 11% say no changes are needed
That’s a 51-39 advantage for major changes to Obamacare.
Finding Solutions, Not Just Opinions
This preference for fixing the problems in Obamacare rather than just hiding them matters for a Congress caught in familiar gridlock. The House passed a three-year extension. The Senate rejected it. Bipartisan negotiations repeatedly stall. Each side knows what the other opposes, but neither has clearly mapped where genuine agreement might exist.
ANMP’s data shows voters want a phase out of the subsidies paired with reform. The political path exists. The data to illuminate it exists. What remains is the political will to act on it.
A Path Forward
Alternative solutions have been proposed that would lower premiums in the individual market, give patients more control, and reduce taxpayer spending. The current focus on enhanced credits could serve as an opportunity to pass long-desired reforms rather than simply perpetuating emergency measures.
ANMP’s research suggests two strategic imperatives:
Flip the script. Use the focus on enhanced credits as proof that Obamacare needs major changes. If emergency subsidies remain necessary after a decade, the underlying system has failed to deliver on its promises.
Take the high ground. A phase-out of enhanced credits in exchange for significant reforms represents exactly the kind of responsible governing that voters are looking for not cold-turkey cuts, not permanent emergency measures, but a genuine path to a better system.
The Bottom Line
Americans are not simply asking Washington to subsidize a broken system indefinitely. They are asking for something more substantive:
A responsible phase-out, not abrupt termination that disrupts coverage
Structural reforms that address why costs remain unsustainable
Greater individual control over healthcare decisions
An end to permanent emergency measures that substitute for actual solutions
Voters aren’t rejecting help but they don’t want emergency policy turned into permanent law. Instead, they want to fix the system that made emergency measures necessary in the first place.
ANMP’s mission is to discover not just what Americans think about the challenges facing the country, but how they want to see those challenges resolved. That’s how to truly restore a government of, by, and for the People.
On Obamacare, the answer is clear: fix the system, don’t just extend the emergency measures. The data exists to move past the current impasse. The question is whether Washington is ready to use it.
America’s New Majority Project creates and shares trustworthy opinion research and strategic messaging guidance. We work with partners to empower candidates and activists who are committed to bringing power back to everyday Americans and restoring a government of, by, and for the People.
 |
|
I think the true health care "fix" will necessarily be a shift from operating as profit centers for insurance companies and private equity investors to being operated as a public service. That has the government running the funding scheme while keeping providers and hospitals as privately run operations. This isn't social medicine. It's basically public funding of private health care. This is the way it works in Korea and Taiwan. Forget 'pre-existing' conditions, in/out of network, and all the paperwork hassles. Yes we have co-pays, but very nominal. Because hospitals and doctors offices get paid based on the number of patients they see, delivery of service is incentivized. For minor things we can usually see a doctor the same day. No waiting for 4 months for first time patients. In Taiwan our insurance is about $59 per month. Everyone is required to pay into the system, but low income people can get government subsidies.
Interesting take on the polling data. I think you're right that most surveys miss the nuance – people want healthcare fixed, not just more band-aids. The 51% wanting major changes is a pretty strong signal that just extending subsidies indefinately isn't what voters are asking for.