Advocates of Obamacare in defense of it in spite of all the flaws and the ever increasingly list of unintended and intended- but not advertized- consequences ( eg tax payer subsidies for insurance companies that might loose money on the exchanges) typically fall back on the twin refrains of "health care will be available for nearly everyone" and social justice is being promoted.
Of course, those folks are conflating health care with having insurance but ignoring that for a moment it looks more and more unlikely that the nearly everyone )(usually estimated to be about 30 million) will actually get the insurance cards . So far fewer of the uninsured are actually shining up on the exchanges.McKinsey did a study and their analysis indicates that the vast majority of those who are signing up were already insured and only about 11% were moving from the uninsured group to the insured group. See here for some details of that study. If McKinsey's analysis is even close to be correct the 30 million claim will not likely be reached.
As far the social justice argument let me repeat that Rawls defended inequality if it benefited the most disadvantaged in society but while some of that is happening with Obamacare , a significant number are forced into paying more for insurance and often buying benefits which they can never use.
So the plan seemed to be that the young, healthy would sign up in sufficient numbers to fund the scheme and the uninsured would rush to the website and sign up since getting those 30 million insured was the purported reason for the legislation in the first place. So far it seems that neither of those things are actually happening in sufficient numbers to prevent the so called death spiral.More aspects of the Obamacronycare law come to light, one of the most recent one being the news that HHS is writing or rewriting the details of subsides to bail insurance companies to make them even more generous.
And this quote from Coyote Blog which comments on the fact that many people who are now getting subsidies had insurance before:
"So, we know that 80% of the people are getting subsidized on the exchanges,
and now we know that 70-90% of those previously had a unsubsidized
policy beforehand. This means that what the exchanges are doing is NOT
insuring the uninsured, but converting people previously responsible
for their own health care into government dependents. The more cynical
out there will argue that was the whole point in the first place."
And for what party will folks dependent on the government likely vote?