j.r. leonard

What does that have to do with what I said? The ACA, like almost every major policy change involves tradeoffs. If you want to wave hose tradeoffs away, cool. Your right. But then don’t wonder why some people have a different view

I don’t know what kind of person would consider 20 million more people having health insurance a bad trade for paying a slightly higher premium themselves. People die without healthcare. If they oppose it for selfish reasons then let’s just call that selfishness.

If you want to tell people what they should or shouldn’t value or how they ought to view policy tradeoffs, you are well within your rights But other people will have different opinions and will vote differently. That’s the answer to the conundrum posed in that original Tweet

Then let me ask you which is better: 20 million more people with insurance and some folks pay higher premiums so sick people can be insured too. Or not doing that.

This conversation is not about what I think is better. And that’s what I’m trying to communicate

Even for folks who pay slightly higher premiums, now they get to inhabit a country where fewer of their neighbors die from lack of healthcare access. That’s a benefit.

You’re trying to say they opposed the law because all they cared about was themselves. You’re probably right. I don’t like these people. And I hope you don’t either.

Here is my one normative opinion in this conversation: that is a terrible take and is probably why Democrats don’t win more elections. People don’t like moral scolds, especially when it’s paired with an unearned sense of superiority