Freedom-Hater-care's downfall is what we knew it would be: gummint gravy gumming up the market value of goods and services

So, now that FHer-care is in place, do folks like it better?  In a word, no.

According to new polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has closely tracked Obamacare for years, 37 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act, while 53 percent have an unfavorable view. That's an eight-percentage-point jump in unfavorability over last month, and a two-point drop in favorability over the same time.

Why the shift? It's not because millions of Americans have suddenly become conservative Republicans. Kaiser found that disapproval of Obamacare has risen across the board. Among Democrats, for example, the law's unfavorable rating jumped six points in July, while its favorable rating fell four points. A similar thing happened among independents and — it hardly seemed possible — among Republicans who already hated the law.

Obamacare's unfavorables also rose among all income groups — people who make less than $40,000 a year, those who make between $40,000 and $90,000 a year, and those who make more than $90,000. The same among all age groups. And the same for race and ethnicity: Disapproval rose among whites, blacks, and Hispanics.

Rather than a shift among some identifiable group, Obamacare's rising unpopularity seems to be a product of the simple fact that, several months into its implementation, more and more people are having personal experience with the law.

Folks who do like it better take a very simple view: Hey, I have greater access to health care at a reasonable cost!  They fail to see that it's based on their fellow citizens making up the difference between what they pay and what the insurance companies and hospitals and clinics get.  In a word, redistribution.

A majority of the people who said Obamacare has directly helped them said its prime benefit was greater access to health coverage and care. A majority of those who said Obamacare has directly hurt them said its main effect was to increase their health costs.

Overall, the numbers reflect Obamacare's design; it was intended to offer taxpayer-subsidized health coverage to a relatively small group of people (the roughly 15 percent of the population that had no health coverage) by imposing costs on the far larger group who had coverage and were satisfied with it. Given that, it's not surprising more people report a negative than positive Obamacare experience.

But - and I'll try to keep you out of the weeds here - come next year, they're going to get a wake-up call from the regime's baseball bat, the IRS:

The size of each person's subsidy is tied to a "benchmark" plan. Poorer consumers only have to spend a certain percentage of their income for that plan; the government pays the rest of the premium. If you choose a more expensive policy, you have to pay the difference on your own.

This year, about 3.4 million people picked the benchmark plan or went one option cheaper. But as those plans raise their rates and new options come to the market, they'll often lose their benchmark status to cheaper competitors—and their customers will find themselves on the hook for a bigger share of their premiums.

"I would expect that probably the majority of 2014 enrollees are going to be impacted pretty substantially," said Milliman analyst Paul Houchens.

Let's say your income is at about 150 percent of the poverty line—roughly $17,000 per year. The law says you don't have to pay more than 4 percent of your income for the benchmark plan in your area. You chose that plan this year, and you're getting a pretty generous subsidy.

Your plan wants to raise its rates by 5 percent next year—not great, but not the end of the world when you're only paying about $50 per month out of your pocket. You like the plan, the premium increase doesn't seem like a lot, and HealthCare.gov was a headache last time, so you just auto-renew.

Unbeknownst to you, though, new insurers have started offering cheaper plans in your area. Your plan is no longer the benchmark plan; a cheaper one is. So now your subsidy is based on the cost of that plan, not the one you have. This means you're on the hook not only for every dollar of your plan's 5 percent premium increase, but also for every dollar of the difference in price between your plan and the new benchmark plan.

These technical changes in subsidies could turn a 5 percent premium increase into a spike of 30 to 100 percent in the net costs for low-income consumers, according to a recent Milliam analysis.

Memo to the cattle-masses who were perfectly fine with the government poking its nose into your finances and categorizing you based on them for the purpose of determining how much cattle feed to dole out to you:  This is what you get when you turn over your freedom and the responsibility that comes with it to the leviathan state.