What are the insights we can learn from polls during the recent congressional debate? The first insight is that the Republican Party, which is in the majority in Washington, is much more divided on health care issues than was recognized at the time of President Trump’s election, so it is difficult to enact major legislation.The second insight is how polarized Republicans and Democrats are about the overall future of the ACA. Throughout the debate, the majority of Republican adherents favored repealing the ACA, whereas Democrats did not. This made it very difficult to have any compromise legislation. Not widely recognized is that one of the reasons no bill was ultimately enacted was the split among Republicans between repealing and replacing the ACA or repealing it without a replacement.On most specific policy issues in the debate, Republicans and Democrats disagreed, but there is one major exception. The two parties’ adherents agree that the number of people covered by Medicaid should not be reduced in any replacement bill.Finally, the most important change over time was not the increase in public approval of the ACA, but rather the increase in overall support for universal coverage. When confronted with millions of people losing coverage, the public became more supportive of the principle that the federal government should ensure coverage for them.

中文翻译：

---

公众对《平价医疗法案》的未来的看法

在最近的国会辩论中，我们可以从民意调查中学到什么见识？第一个观点是共和党，这是在大多数在华盛顿，是不是在特朗普总统选举时被公认的健康保健问题更加分歧，因此很难制定重大legislation.The第二个观点是如何两极分化的共和党人和民主党人都在关注ACA的整体未来。在整个辩论中，大多数共和党信徒都赞成废除ACA，而民主党人则不赞成。这使得很难有任何折衷的立法。没有得到广泛认可的是，最终没有颁布法案的原因之一是共和党人在废除和替换ACA或废除不替换ACA之间存在分歧。关于辩论中最具体的政策问题，共和党人和民主党人不同意，但是有一个主要例外。双方的支持者都认为，不应在任何替代法案中减少医疗补助的人数。最后，随着时间的推移，最重要的变化不是增加了对ACA的公众认可，而是增加了对ACA的总体支持普遍覆盖。当面对数以百万计的人失去承保范围时，公众越来越支持联邦政府应确保为他们提供承保范围的原则。而是增加了对全民保险的总体支持。当面对数以百万计的人失去承保范围时，公众越来越支持联邦政府应确保为他们提供承保范围的原则。而是增加了对全民保险的总体支持。当面对数以百万计的人失去承保范围时，公众越来越支持联邦政府应确保为他们提供承保范围的原则。