Well that’s interesting.
How many do we need? Would you have opposed Obamacare if the Republicans had trotted out someone who lost some aspect of critical care due to a narrowing of their doctor network, and as a result their child died? What if they could find 100 people that were tragically affected? Would you change your mind then?
When the federal government makes any change to any program whatsoever in a nation of 300 million people, there will be many winners and losers. The change to wetlands laws caused people to lose their homes. Every regulation hurts someone, even if it’s beneficial overall. If the Republicans trotted out the wife and children of a businessman who committed suicide because a regulation pushed his business into foreclosure, would you consider that a valid argument against tax hikes?
Would everyone stop posting anecdotes? It gives pubs the excuse to yell “anecdotes are not data!” and besides that it has been made manifestly clear in this thread alone that the suffering of others is not germane to their thoughts on whether other people should get health insurance.
But, there was this one time that an anecdote changed a republican’s mind.
Ah, well, I can’t argue with that. Carry on then.
To be serious, though, anecdotes can change minds, if it is an anecdote that means something to them.
Most republicans didn’t go for SSM, or really any rights towards homosexuals, no matter the stats you showed them, they just didn’t care.
It was only when they had family that were gay, that they changed their minds on the subject.
So, you are absolutely correct that no matter the number of anecdotal stories that you tell them, they will not change their minds, but stats don’t work on them either.
The only thing that ever really changes anyone’s mind is an anecdote that they can relate to.
Republicans? The people who will dismiss science and fact based on some random person’s blog? :dubious:
Anecdotes will not change their minds. However, anecdotes that agree with their existing beliefs, even a single anecdote that is entirely fictional, will cement in their minds that their existing beliefs are entirely correct forever.
To be fair, liberals and other people are susceptible to this too, though not as effectively since empathy and facts can on rare occasion drill holes in their defenses.
And it just gets better n’ better.
Trump wants to repeal ACA now and worry about replacing it at some later date:
Or, as Rand Paul puts it, “work on replacing it right away.” WTF does this mean? Dismantle it overnight and produce a solution a few nights later? A few weeks later?
How is the proposed AHCA “beneficial overall”?
Man, it’s really hard for conservatives to make any good arguments for this bill. Some conservative posters on here make debatable arguments for their positions so at least I can see the logic they use, but this thread is just empty of that.
Bricker, some of us are genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on Medicaid—see posts #1224 and #1227.
The only argument that really holds water is the extremist tea-party argument that “Government shouldn’t be in the business of health care at all.”
It’s a harmful, dangerous, and ugly viewpoint, but at least it is logically self-consistent.
The Senators who say, “This bill will reduce premiums” are the really evil sons of bitches, because they know damn well it will do exactly the opposite.
The CBO appeared to agree with those Senators.
You didn’t find my “I think it might save me money” argument compelling?
What about plans that are actually worth something?
Medicaid Todd’s could force a lot more rural hospitals to close, severely curtailing access to Medical Care in a timely fashion. And it’s not just for a few people. It’s for quite a few.
Then again, those bumpkins could just move to more metropolitan area, right?
With a one-year deadline. Because we all know Congress always meets a deadline.
It has been shown that it is not really going to be saving you money.
Premiums may go down by as much a 4% less than they would without the plan. Note, this does not say that they will be 4% less than they are now, but 4% less than they would be with the current ACA in place.
Your deductibles and out of pocket expenses will be going up by substantially more than 4%.
Saving on your premiums is not the same as saving money. You might think it will, but unless you are always super healthy and never actually use the insurance you are paying on, you will almost certainly come out behind.
With a concomitant reduction in covered services.
Tell ya what…I’ll sell you a mountain bike for $300 or a car for $40,000. You’d prefer the bike, of course, since it’s cheaper, right?