I would argue the exact opposite. I've always found private companies to be far more responsive to my needs than government.
This isn’t meant to be a partisan statement, more to the point of how the voting system works in the US.
Besides that, people aren’t going to vote based on privacy. All a politician has to do is tell “terrorism” or “think about the children” and they can pass anything they want.
Not to mention that most regulations come via agencies run by unelected officials and judges are unelected and have a lifetime appointment.
I do agree though, health care data handling is probably too niche to get people diselected, most voters are going to be more woried about other issues.
Pretending there was a popular vote when there wasn't is like claiming whichever team scored the most points during a series of games won the series dispite the fact that the series is decided based on which team won the most individual games (although some tournaments do include total points scored as a tiebreaker).
The fact that the popular vote is ignored because of how the system is designed is the entire point.
Without arguing if it's a good or a bad thing, we do not have a popular vote, and summing the votes of the individual contests is not a meaningful estimation of what the results would be if we did. If someone wants to take the time to make a nuanced estimate, with consideration of how turnout might change and what results we might see, that would make for an interesting discussion, and I'm sure we'd all have fun arguing over the details of the assumptions and the results.