Bleeding Hearts, Death Predictions, and GOP Health Law

Give Democrats credit.  

Democrats  know how to speak with one voice.    The chorus of voices have received their main talking point against the GOP's  America Health Care Act,  

That point is:  22 million people will lose their health plans,  and hundreds of thousands  of these people will surely die from lack of care at the hands of the cruel Republicans.

Democrats who have made these  predictions of wholesale deaths include: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton,  Bernie Sanders,  and Al Franken (author of "Al Franken - Giant of the Senate"),  and countless others.  

The Republican alternative is portrayed as a "Slaughter of the Innocents"at the hands of ruthless and heartless  politicians without a heart but with plenty of money.  It's the needy suffering from the greedy.  It's the rich exploiting the poor.   It's tax cuts of the rich versus care cuts for the poor.

The message is, of course, that only those  currently received care from compassionate subsidized ObamaCare plans will survive if the debacle known as the American Health Care Act  is not enacted.

Not mentioned in this chorus of bleeding heart voices are these facts.   Millions of people have already lost their doctors and health plans and access to their hospitals because of ObamaCare policies, and there are no reports of mass deaths from the ACA.   A report from a large controlled study of Oregon Medicaid patients indicates that patients on Medicaid have no better results than those not on Medicaid.  Medicaid patients have a hard time finding access to doctors,  only 45% of whom accept new Medicaid patients because of low reimbursements and punitive regulations that negatively effective the doctors' bottom lines.

Republicans have a hard time countering the Democrats'  compelling emotional arguments which are highlighted by plaintive anecdotes of potential loss of coverage of those by those now subsidized by a "compassionate" government.  

Never mind the unsubsidized middle class no longer able to afford higher premiums and sky-high deductibles. Emotional arguments are more effective than rational arguments about the unsustainable costs of open-ended federal programs.