What I like to do is make an argument clear and incisive and simple.
Parity has me beat. While it seems to me obvious that it is not at all equal for my insurance to pay out for treatments I refuse, I am not unable to communicate that simply and easily and well enough to get an "A Ha" of comprehension.
Every time I befuddle and don't convince, my formulation of the issue gets more strident.
When simple language doesn't convince, I begin to speak in headlines:
Board approves more dollars for force over user objection.
When I can't adequately rally my peers I speak in bolder terms:
Civil rights denied.
And I watch this in myself and see the beginnings of zealotry.
And I wonder is this how it starts. When rational discourse doesn't work, and when one believes strongly in a cause, does one then turn to the irrational, the yellow journalism and shrill language of a DJ Jaffe, the tyranny of the worst case that AMI uses so effectively. Are AMI arguments so irrational and emotional and skewed because those families can't convince anyone that they are indeed innocent and their kids are indeed diseased. So they turn to emotional evangelizing, and at that they are effective. But their arguments are intellectually transparent. Why are they so easily able to fool the legislators. What need are they filling?