Health

5 Things: Public Opinion Behind Government on Health Care

Published

11 years ago

June 26, 2015

Jessica Ellis, right, with “yay 4 ACA” sign, and other supporters of the Affordable Care Act, react with cheers as the opinion for health care is reported outside of the Supreme Court in Washington,Thursday June 25, 2015. The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

EMILY SWANSON, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Most Americans wanted the Supreme Court to side with the government on whether the federal government could continue subsidizing insurance premiums in all 50 states under President Barack Obama’s health care law, according to polls conducted before the justices’ ruling Thursday.

In a ruling that preserved health insurance for millions of people, the court upheld the nationwide tax subsidies.

Polling ahead of the decision showed that few people had much confidence that the court could rule objectively in King v. Burwell.

Five things to know about public opinion on the Supreme Court’s decision on the health care law:

___

MOST WANT LAW UPHELD

Fifty-six percent of those questioned wanted the court to rule in favor of the Obama administration, according to an April Associated Press-GfK poll.

Thirty-nine percent preferred a ruling for those who brought the case. The plaintiffs had argued that actual wording of the law should have limited the government to subsidizing premiums in states that had set up their own health insurance exchanges, rather than relying on the federal government exchange.

Nearly three-quarters of Democrats and a slim majority of independents wanted the court to rule in favor of the government; a majority of Republicans wanted the court to limit insurance subsidies under the law to states with their own exchanges.

Among people who opposed the health care law generally, 58 percent wanted the court to limit the government to subsidizing premiums only in states with exchanges. But a significant minority of the law’s opponents (39 percent) thought the court should have ruled that the government could continue to subsidize premiums in all states.

___

LITTLE CONFIDENCE IN COURT’S OBJECTIVITY

Nearly half of Americans were not too confident or not confident at all that the Supreme Court could rule objectively in the case, according to the April AP-GfK poll. Just 1 in 10 were very or extremely confident, while another 4 in 10 were moderately confident.

Six in 10 opponents of the law, compared with 44 percent of the law’s supporters, were not confident in the court’s ability to rule objectively.

A CBS News-New York Times poll released Monday found that three-quarters of Americans thought the justices sometimes let their personal or political views influence their decisions rather than deciding solely based on legal analysis.

___

FEW CLOSELY FOLLOWING CASE

In the April AP-GfK poll, just 13 percent of Americans said they were following news about the health care case extremely or very closely, while 60 percent said they were not following the case closely.

Likewise, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted in June found that 44 percent of Americans had heard nothing at all about the case, and 28 percent had heard only a little.

That’s true even though the vast majority of Americans, 78 percent, called health care a very or extremely important issue in the AP-GfK poll.

___

MOST WOULD HAVE WANT CONGRESS ACTION

If the court had ruled against the government, 51 percent of Americans in the April AP-GfK poll said they would have liked Congress to update the law to allow the federal government to subsidize premiums in all states. The poll found 44 percent would have preferred that Congress leave the law as is, letting states decide if they wanted to create exchanges that would allow people to receive subsidized premiums.

The Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted in June also found most said Congress should pass a law if necessary so that people in all 50 states could be eligible for financial help. And 55 percent of Americans living in states without their own exchanges said they would have wanted their state to create one if necessary.

___

CONTINUED DIVIDE OVER HEALTH LAW

In general, the April AP-GfK poll found that 27 percent of Americans support and 38 percent opposed the 2010 health care law, while 34 percent were neither in favor nor opposed.

But there was a significant partisan divide over the law, with 52 percent of Democrats supporting the law, but only 11 percent of independents and just 5 percent of Republicans saying the same.

The poll found 44 percent of Americans approved and 55 percent disapproved of the way Obama has handled health care. But more Americans trusted the Democratic Party than the Republican Party on handling the issue, 34 percent to 24 percent.

___

The AP-GfK Poll of 1,077 adults was conducted online April 23-27, using a sample drawn from GfK’s probability-based KnowledgePanel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

Respondents were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey methods, and later interviewed online. People selected for KnowledgePanel who didn’t otherwise have access to the Internet were provided access at no cost to them.

___

Online:

AP-GfK Poll: http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

5 Things: Public Opinion Behind Government on Health Care

Don't Miss

Republicans Push Back Against Proposed Dietary Guidelines

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

COMMENTARY: The Biases We Don’t See — Preventing AI-Driven Inequality in Health Care

For decades, medicine promoted false assumptions about Black bodies. Black patients were told they had lower lung capacity, and medical devices adjusted their results accordingly. That practice was not broadly reversed until 2021. Up until 2022, a common medical formula used to measure how well a person’s kidneys were working automatically gave Black patients a higher score simply because they were Black. On paper, this made their kidneys appear healthier than they truly were. As a result, kidney disease was sometimes detected later in Black patients, delaying critical treatment and referrals.

Published

2 months ago

February 10, 2026

Oakland Post

Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson, M.D (D-San Diego). File photo.

By Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson, M.D., Special to California Black Media Partners

Technology is sold to us as neutral, objective, and free of human flaws. We are told that computers remove emotion, bias, and error from decision-making. But for many Black families, lived experience tells a different story. When technology is trained on biased systems, it reflects those same biases and silently carries them forward.

We have seen this happen across multiple industries. Facial recognition software has misidentified Black faces at far higher rates than White faces, leading to wrongful police encounters and arrests. Automated hiring systems have filtered out applicants with traditionally Black names because past hiring data reflected discriminatory patterns. Financial algorithms have denied loans or offered worse terms to Black borrowers based on zip codes and historical inequities, rather than individual creditworthiness. These systems did not become biased on their own. They were trained on biased data.

Healthcare is not immune.

These biases were not limited to software or medical devices. Dangerous myths persisted that Black people feel less pain, contributing to undertreatment and delayed care. These beliefs were embedded in modern training and practice, not distant history. Those assumptions shaped the data that now feeds medical technology. When biased clinical practices form the basis of algorithms, the risk is not hypothetical. The bias can be learned, automated, and scaled.

For us in the Black community, this creates understandable fear and mistrust. Many families already carry generational memories of medical discrimination, from higher maternal mortality to lower life expectancy to being dismissed or unheard in clinical settings. Adding AI biases could make our community even more apprehensive about the healthcare system.

As a physician, I know how much trust patients place in the healthcare system during their most vulnerable moments. As a Black woman, I understand how bias can shape experiences in ways that are often invisible to those who do not live them. As a mother of two Black children, I think constantly about the systems that will shape their health and well-being. As a legislator, I believe it is our responsibility to confront emerging risks before they become widespread harm.

That is why I am the author of Senate Bill (SB) 503. This bill aims to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare by requiring developers and users of AI systems to identify, mitigate, and monitor biased impacts in their outputs to reduce racial and other disparities in clinical decision-making and patient care.

Currently under consideration in the State Assembly, SB 503 was not written to slow innovation. In fact, I encourage it. But it is our duty must ensure that every tool we in the healthcare field helps patients rather than harms them.

The health of our families depends on it.

About the Author

Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson (D–San Diego) is a physician and public health advocate representing California’s 39th Senate District.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

As California Hits Aging Milestone, State Releases Its Fifth Master Plan for Aging

“California’s Master Plan for Aging started a powerful movement that is shaping the future of aging in our state for generations to come,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement, calling the initiative a “future-forward” model delivering real results for older adults, people with disabilities, and their families.

Published

2 months ago

February 9, 2026

Oakland Post

iStock.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

On Jan. 27, California released its Fifth Master Plan for Aging Annual Report,titled “Focusing on What Matters Most,” outlining the state’s progress and priorities as its population rapidly grows older.

The report, issued by the California Health and Human Services Agency (CalHHS), provides updates on the Master Plan for Aging’s “Five Bold Goals”: housing, health, inclusion and equity, caregiving, and affordability.

The report comes as Californians aged 60 and older now outnumber those under 18 for the first time, a demographic shift expected to accelerate over the next decade.

Launched in 2021, the Master Plan for Aging takes a “whole-of- government” and “whole-of-society” approach, coordinating state agencies, local governments, community organizations, and private partners. The annual report highlights significant milestones, including more than 100 California communities joining AARP’s Age-Friendly Network and $4 million in state funding awarded to local organizations to develop aging and disability action plans in 30 communities statewide.

The report also underscores California’s leadership at the national level, noting that dozens of states have followed its example and that federal legislation inspired by the plan was reintroduced in the U.S. Senate in December 2025.

CalHHS Secretary Kim Johnson emphasized the plan’s focus on equity and resilience amid ongoing challenges.

“The Master Plan for Aging continues to provide a vision, a focus, and a platform for collaboration,” Johnson said. “Equity is at the center of all that we do.”

Looking ahead, the report notes that by 2030, one in four Californians will be age 60 or older, positioning the Master Plan for Aging as a central framework for meeting the state’s long-term social, economic, and health needs.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Community

Candidates Vying for Governor’s Seat Debate at Ruth Williams–Bayview Opera House in San Francisco

The gubernatorial debate participants included Antonio Villaraigosa, former Los Angeles mayor; Matt Mahan, San Jose mayor; Betty Yee, former California state controller; Xavier Becerra, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, and attorney general of California; Steve Hilton, political commentator and political adviser; Tom Steyer, entrepreneur, and Tony Thurmond, California’s superintendent of public instruction.

Published

2 months ago

February 9, 2026

Oakland Post

The gubernatorial debate was hosted by KTVU’s Greg Lee, KTTV’s Marla Tellez and KTVU’s Andre Senior. The candidates are (l.-r.): Xavier Becerra, Steve Hilton, Matt Mahan, Tom Steyer, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Betty Yee.

By Carla Thomas

On Tuesday, Feb. 3, seven candidates took the stage at the historic Ruth Williams–Bayview Opera House in San Francisco for the gubernatorial debate, hosted by the Black Action Alliance (BAA) in partnership with KTVU and sister station KTTV Fox 11 in Los Angeles.

For many voters, it marked a first opportunity to hear directly from several candidates seeking to lead the nation’s most populous state.

Crucial topics and issues addressed throughout the debate included housing, crime, immigration, climate change, health care and homelessness.

The debate was moderated by KTVU political reporter Greg Lee alongside KTVU’s Andre Senior and KTTV Fox 11’s Marla Tellez.

Candidates also addressed inflation and the rising costs across the state, impacting everything from groceries to childcare and health care.

Thurmond vowed to generate 2.3 million units of housing by placing 12 units on each parcel of available land in the 58 counties of California. Steyer agreed that billionaires should pay their fair share of taxes.

Hilton wanted to cut taxes, help working-class families, and end the Democrats “climate crusade and insane regulations.”

Yee offered a more transparent governmental approach with accountability, given the state’s debt.

Gonzalez said, “This debate was a great way to see who has great ideas and who has substance.”

“It’s important to have the debate within a community that requires the most,” said business leader Linda Fadekye.

Attendees included State Controller Malia Cohen, representatives of the National Coalition of 100 Black Women, the National Coalition of 100 Black Men, the San Francisco African American Chamber of Commerce, and Black Women Organized for Political Action, among others.

Event host, the Black Action Alliance (BAA) was established to amplify the voices of the Bay Area’s Black community, whose perspectives have too often been overlooked in politics and public policy.

Loren Taylor, CEO of BAA, said it was important to bring the event to the Bayview in San Francisco and shared his organization’s mission.

“The Black Action Alliance (BAA) stands for practical, community-driven solutions that strengthen public safety, address homelessness, support small businesses, expand affordable housing, and ensure access to quality education—issues at the heart of the Black experience in the Bay Area,” said Taylor.

California’s primary election will take place on June 2 and the general election will take place on Nov. 3.