j.r. leonard

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

What would you have us do instead? Not pass these types of laws and just ... sort of dither ?

They voted against a law that got their neighbors healthcare/ that’s not being a scold it’s just pointing out a fact. They care more about themselves than other people. They would have everyone who got coverage lose it again. How is that ethical?