Partisanship, Polling, and the Affordable Care Act

Brodie, Mollyann; Hamel, Elizabeth C.; Kirzinger, Ashley; DiJulio, Bianca

doi:10.1093/poq/nfz016

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This research bridges the literatures on (1) changing political attitudes with age and over time in life-course sociology (Alwin, Cohen, and Newcomb 1991; Street and Cossman 2006b), (2) political polarization and support for government spending in political sociology (Johnson and Schwadel 2019b; Pacheco, Haselswerdt, and Michener 2020), and (3) public opinion on health care in medical sociology (Brodie et al 2019; Corman and Levin 2016; Dalen, Waterbrook, and Alpert 2015) and advances scholarship on how political affiliation contributes to public opinion on government intervention in health care and how this association varies by age and over time. We know there has been a growing political divide in the United States (see, e.g., Anderson, Lytle, and Schwadel 2017; McCright, Xiao, and Dunlap 2014), but life-course theory of social change has the potential to shed light on the age dynamics of the partisan divide.…”

supporting

confidence: 69%

“…Many previous studies of the effect of political polarization on the health care system have focused on elites in Congress (Hacker and Pierson 2018; Quadagno 2014). Others have focused specifically on public support for the Clinton and Obama health care plans (Brodie et al 2019; Kriner and Reeves 2014; McIntyre et al 2020; Morone 2016; Skocpol 1996). The findings from previous research prompt an investigation of the effects of political polarization not only among elites but also among the public.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public Support for Government Intervention in Health Care in the United States from 1984 to 2016

Yuan

Lee

2022

Socius

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on public opinion regarding government’s role in health care has paid little attention to how public opinion has changed among different age groups over time and to how the intersection of age, birth year, political affiliation, and historical time shape public opinion. In this article, the authors ask, Who supports governmental spending on health care, and how has this changed over time? The authors propose a life-course perspective to study political polarization in the health care domain using General Social Survey 1984 to 2016 data. The results indicate that the growing political polarization in support for government intervention in health care across the 32 years studied occurred among middle-aged adults. The findings of this study contribute new understandings of how age and party membership interact in contributing to political polarization regarding government’s role in health care over time.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 69%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Support for Government Intervention in Health Care in the United States from 1984 to 2016

Yuan

Lee

2022

Socius

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By March 2010, the ACA was extremely unpopular, successfully framed by its opponents as a job killer, government overreach, and full of "death panels." At the same time, individual provisions, including community rating, preexisting condition protections, and the ability to keep adult children covered until age twenty-six, were very popular (Brodie et al 2019). Pelosi was referring to this apparent paradox when she said, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it" (Brill 2015, 190).…”

Section: Walking a Tightrope To Pass The Affordable Care Act 2009mentioning

confidence: 99%

Walking the Gendered Tightrope

Haussman¹,

Kedrowski²

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Walking the Gendered Tightrope analyzes the gendered expectations for women in high offices through the examples of British Prime Minister Theresa May and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Even at their highest positions, and while completing their greatest achievements, both May and Pelosi faced gendered critiques and intraparty challenges to their leadership. While other books have analyzed the barriers to higher office that women face, this book reveals how women in positions of power are still forced to balance feminine stereotypes with the perception of power as masculine in order to prove their legitimacy. By examining intraparty dynamics, this book offers a unique comparison between a majoritarian presidential and Westminster parliamentary system. While their parties promoted Pelosi and May to highlight their progressive values, both women faced continually gendered critiques about their abilities to lead their caucuses on difficult policy issues, such as the Affordable Care Act and two Trump impeachment votes for Nancy Pelosi, or finishing Brexit for Theresa May. Grounded in the legislative literature from the United States and Britain, as well as historical accounts and personal interviews, Walking the Gendered Tightrope contributes to the fields of gender and politics, legislative studies, American politics, and British politics.

show abstract

Stability and policy threats: US public opinion after a decade of the Affordable Care Act

Haeder,

Sylvester

2024

World Med & Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) continues to shape US politics at the elite level. We know less about whether this conflict still carries over to the broader public. Moreover, we know little about the degree to which the conflict reaches into its various policies and whether the policy threats to the ACA can affect public opinion. We fielded a large, and demographically diverse survey of US adults using Lucid (N = 6066) from July 8–21, 2020. The survey contained an experiment that introduced the topic to respondents as the 2010 health reform law, the ACA, or Obamacare and at times highlighted the potential undoing of the ACA by the US Supreme Court. Analyses were conducted using Ordinary Least Squares regression. Our findings indicate that perceptions of the ACA differ substantial based on partisanship and racial prejudice. Framing still matters in the minds of Americans and their perception of health reforms in general and its individual components by extending these differences. However, we find only very limited evidence for changes to public attitudes related to the policy threat of the Supreme Court ruling the ACA constitutional in California v. Texas. The ACA remains a political battleground in the minds of Americans. The politics of the ACA continue to be shaped by perceptions of race and partisanship.

show abstract

Partisanship, Polling, and the Affordable Care Act

Cited by 10 publications

References 16 publications

Public Support for Government Intervention in Health Care in the United States from 1984 to 2016

Public Support for Government Intervention in Health Care in the United States from 1984 to 2016

Walking the Gendered Tightrope

Stability and policy threats: US public opinion after a decade of the Affordable Care Act

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About