That just makes it even more complicated. At least economics, most people can look at their personal situation, and have some sort of gauge on how the economy is doing from that.
Healthcare is more complex. People cannot look at their personal situation and gauge how healthcare is from that. Most people say that they like their insurance, until they have to use it. Most people that have had to actually use their insurance don’t like it too much. Especially before ACA.
They judge insurance based on what their premiums are, and what the co-pay is to take their kid to the doctor when they are sick. Less than 10% of Americans need insulin, so why does anyone care about the cost of it?
The problem there is that an elevator pitch is not going to be accurate.
Obama said, “If you like your insurance, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep them.”
And that was true for the vast majority of cases. But he was still called a liar for that. If he had caveated it, with, “Unless your plan is substandard, and will not actually cover you when you need it, and of course, I have no control over your employer, so they may decide to change the benefits that they offer, and your insurance company may decide to change its networks, or you doctor may choose to drop out of one, or even retire.” then it would have been more accurate, but is then getting into those very messy details that you say we need to avoid.
The people tend to like pretty much everything that the ACA had to offer, they just don’t like the ACA.
It may be an argument that could be put forward that people like not having to worry about pre-existing conditions, but you really cannot be honest on that without admitting that in order to cover those, you need to have a mandate.
Whenever they do that, they are called socialists.