A RECENT poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 49% of respondents did not know the legal status of Obamacare. They would be forgiven for being confused. The administration got a small boost today, when an appeals court in Virginia threw out two suits brought against the new health law. It was the latest chapter in the continuing legal saga, and not exactly a nail-biter. All three of the appellate judges were appointed by Democrats and two were appointed by Barack Obama himself.

The fight in Virginia is the third to be decided by an appellate court. In June a court in Ohio ruled in favour of the law's individual mandate. Last month a court in Atlanta ruled against it, siding with 26 states that had challenged the law. A decision is pending in an appeals court in Washington, DC. Eventually the battle will be settled by the Supreme Court, though it is unclear when.

Even if the Supreme Court were to rule against the individual mandate, however, the fight would drag on. Last month I spoke with Neera Tanden, a former health advisor to Mr Obama who is now at the Centre for American Progress. She said that if the Supreme Court struck down the mandate, the law could be adjusted. “The individual mandate is the most effective way for this thing to work,” Ms Tanden argued, but added that Democrats could devise another system to encourage Americans to buy insurance. Today's ruling was less a step forward than a reminder of how long it will be before the fight over health insurance is settled—if it ever is.