And it really depends on whom you ask, and how. Much of the opposition to THIS particular reform is from people who think it does too LITTLE (cost control efforts were essentially an afterthought from the past few months, and thus only present in the reconciliation bill headed to the Senate later this week. )

But there's a reason why we have elected representatives rather than just referenda on everything. Many past government decisions that lacked majority support at the time were still right. Abolition, womens suffrage and desegregation didn't magically cease to be immoral after decades because they suddenly had majority support for the first time. There are ample counterexamples, too; US entry to WWII had strong majority opposition right up until 7 December, 1941, and prohibition was so popular it became a Constitutional Amendment--that had to be repealed by ANOTHER Amendment twenty years later. That's why we let the man on the street pick the (theoretically) experienced and intelligent lawmakers rather than simply letting the men on the street make all the laws.

This particular bill is, sadly, just corporate welfare to the least needy industry I can imagine. They're already munching on a sizable and growing chunk of US GDP, and forcing everyone in the country to give them more money isn't going to fix that, not even if much of that money comes from federal subsidies paid with higher taxes. They're attacking the wrong end of the problem, trying to patch a hole by simply throwing more stuff into it rather than actually covering it. Without cost controls all the government subsidies and personal mandates in the world are a spur to costs, not a remedy.