[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.