Wherein the author discusses healthcare costs in terms of a quantity of iPhones in response to a legislator suggesting that people pay for health insurance instead of a new iPhone. The Republican POV on this issue is that Obamacare only changes redistributes wealth rather than increasing any efficiency in healthcare.
The author will choose to mention things like,
If the bill becomes law, a lot of people would get less generous subsidies to help them afford insurance.
Without mentioning the flip side – that a lot of people won’t have to pay as much to subsidize others.
The author will say something like,
Nevermind that smartphones are especially important for lower-income folks as a way to find jobs and do other essential tasks.
Maybe the author thinks people deserve what they need? We should have a need-based distribution of wealth controlled by the government?
The author chooses to recount scenarios when a person doesn’t have insurance – twisting a knee, having a baby, getting cancer. She doesn’t mention… not having any health problems and saving money. She also doesn’t mention getting a terminal cancer for which there is no productive medical intervention. The article isn’t persuasive to me because it makes no attempt at objectivity, not even a pretense. Based on the comments, it’s clear some other people really like the idea of being subsidized, so they’ll go along.