[dannyr]

I'm curious what do you think would have happened if you just let it go.

"This is a hard and unanswered problem. This statement is so strong that, if it were true, it would eliminate a vast territory of alternate paths to answers ("oh, you did X? My code saved 50 lives this year.")."

It seems like you are more of the problem rather than Brandon's statement. No matter what Brandon says, accurate or not, people will still find a flaw in it. People will see what they want to see.

If you want to eliminate alternate paths to answers, the sure way to do that is not say anything at all.

[aamar]

I hope my clarifications help explain what I meant in my parent comment.

I believe the following are potentially bad consequences of Grayson's/Mikey's claim spreading:

- People work on insuring others, at the expense of other activities that they would otherwise believe to be more valuable.

- Insuring people (or the ACA) is deemed a failure because mortality rates do not come down as "expected", plausibly leading to the ACA's repeal.

- A developer expends time working on the project expecting mortality rates to improve; when it doesn't, the uncritical idealist becomes an uncritical cynic, rejecting any future promise of saving lives/improving things.

[yummyfajitas]

Why would your second point be a bad consequence? If the ACA doesn't work and we repeal it, isn't that a good thing?

[aamar]

In the ideal world, we'd analyze all of the ACA's costs and benefits and decide whether or not to repeal. But realistically, the most visible "promised" benefits (not necessarily those promised by the authors of the bill) are overweighted in the analysis.

I believe the ACA should be understood to promise increased insurance rates leading to (a) less medical bankruptcy and (b) moderate improvement in certain healthcare measures (not mortality). I don't think it should be deemed a failure in any sense if it fails to reduce mortality amongst the newly insured.