If the court decides that the ACA is unconstitutional, health insurance providers will be allowed, once again, to deny these people coverage or require they pay more. But other key elements remain, including subsidies and protection for people with pre-existing conditions.
Some 72 percent of those polled are also in favor of keeping provisions that prohibit insurers from charging sick people more, which is also being challenged in the lawsuit.
"Since taking office, the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have unleashed a targeted attack on the Affordable Care Act, despite the rising popularity of its protections".
If the judge rules that the health law is unconstitutional because Congress zeroed-out the individual mandate, 17 million people could lose their insurance and popular provisions - such as protections for preexisting conditions and coverage for young adults up to age 26 - could be wiped out.
The requirement and the penalty were once considered integral parts of the health care law. That said, Americans in some states are more likely to be covered than others.
But when Congress eliminated the tax penalty in December for those who do not have health coverage, it removed the only justification for the individual mandate, rendering the law unconstitutional, the suit argues.
In a Texas courtroom, a group of Republican attorneys general, led by Ken Paxton of Texas, are set to face off against a group of Democratic attorneys general, led by California's Xavier Becerra, in a lawsuit aimed at striking down the federal health law.
The steady outlook means the health care law won't be an easy target for Republicans this year, an election issue that's worked well for them since 2010. They argue that because Congress gutted the individual mandate - zeroing out the penalty for not having coverage starting next year - the rest of the law needs to go as well. "I think all these bills maintain the stability of our health care market". But it did say that without the tax, the provisions of the law requiring insurance companies to sell to people with preexisting conditions and not charge them more should fall, beginning January 1, 2019.
Almost 80 percent of those polled said pharmaceutical company profits were a "major reason", followed by 71 percent who cited fraud and waste in the health care system and hospitals charging too much. Eight in ten (78%) say drug companies making too much money is a "major reason" why people's health care costs have been rising, up from 62 percent in 2014.
Tesla tumbles on new executive departures, Musk interview
The comedian offered the 47-year-old billionaire a marijuana and tobacco cigarette, which are legal in the state of California. A request Friday for an interview with Musk for this article, through Tesla's media affairs office, had not received a reply.
Also opposing the lawsuit are leading national groups representing patients, including the American Diabetes Association, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the advocacy arm of the American Cancer Society. The Trump Justice Department decided not to defend the ACA in the case.
Rovner also interviews Chad Terhune, who wrote the latest "Bill of the Month" feature for Kaiser Health News and NPR. The GOP tax-cut bill repealed the ACA requirement that Americans have health insurance or risk fines, effective next year.
Democrats have made the case an issue in the midterm elections, blasting Republicans over the lawsuit and warning that it threatens to abolish popular protections for pre-existing conditions.
"California lead state coalition", Henneke said.
Paxton didn't comment after the hearing, but they were clear in court.
"This legislation is a common-sense solution that guarantees Americans with preexisting conditions will have health care coverage, regardless of how our judicial system rules on the future of Obamacare", said Sen. This year the average increase nationally was about 30 percent.
Acknowledging the hole in the proposal, Tillis spokesman Dan Keylin said the bill has only limited aims.
Many legal experts have said the Texas case appears to be a long shot. He added that he did not plan to intervene in the Texas litigation on either side.
Writing off this case would be a mistake, warned Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law and frequent commentator on the health care law.