Mother Jones has a piece up titled, “The Election Is Tomorrow, and Americans Still Don’t Understand Obamacare.”
[Ethan] Rome, ["executive director of Health Care for America Now, an advocacy group that has been deeply involved in promoting Obamacare and educating the public on how it might help them"] believes that [Obamacare opponents] like Hadley and Woodruff will eventually come around to the health care law once they experience the benefits first hand. But those benefits aren’t coming fast enough to help Obama in this election. And they may never materialize if he loses. After all, the Republican candidates Woodruff and Hadley are supporting are planning to get rid of those health care improvements long before they ever have a chance to win Democrats any votes.
In describing the greatness of Obamacare, the MJ piece uses the words “may be,” “could,” and “might” a lot. It’s a complicated piece of legislation where even supporters aren’t 100 percent sure how it may/could/might help. Why should voters be any different?
Also of note, asking these questions in Utah is kind of like going to Harlem and asking why you’re going to vote for Obama when Romney will hold public teachers more accountable for their failures, and then getting surprised that the voter is still voting for Obama.