[Aurornis]

I didn't say I had objections to it. I said it was unpopular with the general public when you told them the details.

This is an example of a situation where people dislike the system but when you ask them about it they like their part of the system.

For example, people generally have an extremely low opinion of Congress, but on average they like their own Congress person.

You get similar results when you poll people about healthcare and health insurance: People generally hate the health insurance system, but if you start talking about taking away their health insurance or their doctor and replacing it with an unknown system, they get upset.

> Why would you want duplicating coverage anyway? Is it not strictly better for any consumer to only be paying for the extra coverage you want on top of the public coverage?

Duplicating coverage is superfluous if you assume the new plan would be better in every way and you give up nothing in the process, obviously.

However, the fear is that upending the entire system would require people to give things up and replace it with unknowns. There's a good chance that some people would be forced to be reassigned to different doctors under a centrally-planned system, or that access to things would be reset and need to be re-determined under new guidelines.

If this doesn't make sense, consider a situation where someone got special approval for off-label coverage of a drug (happens all the time) but the new government insurance had stricter guidelines about which conditions could be treated with which drugs (to keep cost down). Those people could lose access to medications or treatments that were covered privately.

We tend to think of "Medicare for All" type plans as being without downsides, but when you get into the details of changing the entire health care system out and banning the old ways, it's inevitable that some people would start losing things they liked. And that's where people get upset.

[redserk]

To be fair, there was a log of disingenuous fear mongering around the notion of "the government is getting rid of your insurance".

It would be extremely difficult to get an accurate idea of what the general public thinks about a measure before certain interests get involved with publicizing FUD.

[Aurornis]

> fear mongering around the notion of "the government is getting rid of your insurance

But that’s literally what the bill said.

Why is it “fear mongering” to state the effects of a bill? People truly didn’t like this idea.

[themoonisachees]

Because it's being disingenuous. The insurance isn't getting removed, just like "the HVAC tech is removing heating" is not a coherent statement if the tech is just replacing your furnace. You might have opinions about the performance of the new furnace, but saying that the heating is going to be removed is simply untrue beyond discussing the logistics of that change.

[Aurornis]

I don't think you understand what people disliked about the idea.

They understood that it was being replaced. Nobody ever pretended like health care was going away and being banned. People weren't assuming that. That would be nonsensical.

People thought the bill was going to be about a Medicare option for all, but then it came out as forced Medicare for all. People didn't like that.

It wasn't fear mongering, people just didn't like that. It's demonstrably unpopular, and this isn't news to anyone who has been paying attention.

[redserk]

Your error is assuming that everyone is a rational actor and is doing the research to make an informed decision.

This is simply not the case and it's naive to think otherwise.