Those who favor the law may believe that the law's successes have shown that the increase in federal spending was sufficient and does not need to rise further. However, those opposed to the law may believe that the PPACA's shortcomings have demonstrated that the federal government should not assume such a great role in providing health care.

In their study of the issue, Stephen L. Morgan and Minhyoung Kang, both sociologists at Johns Hopkins University, acknowledged that other factors besides the PPACA could have influenced attitudes on government health spending, but asserted that the landmark health law was the biggest reason for the attitude change. The evidence: While the same survey showed Americans' were skeptical of increasing spending on a number of fronts, they were far less likely to believe that health care was underfunded.

"The leading explanation is that the campaign to discredit the bill took a toll on everyone," Morgan told the Washington Post. He further suggested that public often responds to government expansion by becoming more skeptical of further expansion, even if it supports maintaining the recently-implemented programs.

The polling data suggests that it will be difficult for Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, to make good on their proposals to expand the law. Clinton recently unveiled a number of ideas to lower drug costs for consumers, including capping monthly out-of-pocket prescription drug expenses and having the federal government negotiate directly over Medicare drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

Efforts to restrict price increases might have gained a little favor, however, from recent highly-publicized cases in which pharmaceutical companies dramatically raised medication prices. The outrage generated by a pharmaceutical company that raised the price of a life-saving pill from $13.50 to $750 came so fast and was so intense that the CEO backtracked only a few days after the decision, saying he would reduce the price.