> Most people with private health insurance like it.
Most people don't use it all that much, and in the common case of employer-paid premiums, the actual cost is significantly masked. As your link notes, the more care you need, the less likely you are to enjoy the experience. They dig their heels in more; sometimes egregiously so. https://www.propublica.org/article/unitedhealth-healthcare-i...
> Why would heavy users of health services be concentrated in the minority cohort that is dissatisfied with their insurance?
"Why would people who drive a lot care the most about gas prices?"
The more you use health insurance, the more chances you have to run into the kafkaesque bits. Someone who sees a GP once a year and thinks their premium is $50/month because that's the bit they have to chip in while their employer covers the rest is largely gonna go "this is fine!"
Right but there's no such selection effect for whether or not people have employer-provided coverage, and the cohort of households that do strongly approve of their current insurance coverage. I don't see how the argument you're making could hold up statistically. There are a lot of chronically ill people with employer-provided coverage; in fact, most non-senior chronically ill pts fall into that bucket.
> Right but there's no such selection effect for whether or not people have employer-provided coverage…
False. Someone with significant medical issues may well need a higher acuity plan than the employer offers. I, for example, was on the exchanges until last year, for this very reason; my employer's coverage would not have made financial sense.
> There are a lot of chronically ill people with employer-provided coverage…
The chronically ill are less likely to be employed.
Seems like a just-so story given the numbers. Why would heavy users of health services be concentrated in the minority cohort that is dissatisfied with their insurance?