Sven Wilson at Pileus does a great job of taking one of my favorite hobby horses out for a trot: he thinks one of the reasons ObamaCare has gotten in so much trouble with the public is that it violates "an ironclad law of redistributive politics," namely the importance of providing targeted benefits to loyal political interests, while spreading the cost anonymously across the entire tax base. This way, you get a group of happy beneficiaries who will eagerly vote to reward politicians for their "free" goodies (and later, when the whole thing turns sour, to protect their interests) without creating a corresponding group of grumpy taxpayers who resent covering the cost. Santa's sleigh flies best when the taxpaying reindeer wear blinders.
Wilson argues that ObamaCare, thanks to all those insurance cancellation letters and jacked-up premiums, made the fatal mistake of concentrating its costs and producing a backlash:
Vulnerable Democrats in Congress are starting to panic because they are seeing the consequences of violating the law of diffuse and concentrated interests. Those insurance cancellation letters and the higher prices faced by a portion of those shopping on the exchange are a small portion of the population (probably less than one percent), but they are highly concentrated, not to mention vocal.
If you are, for example, a healthy young man running a small start-up business, you are likely to see your rates on the individual market go up considerably, especially if you are successful enough not to qualify for a subsidy. Under ObamaCare, the transfers from the young to the old increase, as do transfers from men to women and from the healthy to the unhealthy.