Could you provide the measures you are using to say the benefits don’t outweigh the disadvantages? Particularly since you’re saying its such an extreme. Otherwise, all you are providing is rhetoric and not what one would call a persuasive argument. If you want to convince people, rhetoric doesn’t work. At that point, you can just say anything you damn well please because you “believe” it to be true, but don’t actually have any factual foundation for such a statement. I could point out that the uninsured population went from about 16% before ACA to 8.9% in the first half of 2016 (the latest I could find numbers). That’s of the total US population. The American Hospital Association said uncompensated care went from being 6.1% of their expenses in 2012 to 4.2% in 2015. A study showed the average individual didn’t experience any premium hike in through the marketplace as long as they were willing to do the research and find the best plan. Premium growth has slowed down (but there’s no real direct evidence ACA is responsible for this… most evidence points to little overall effect on premiums, positive or negative). One third of the population did see some premium hikes (keep in mind, its also true to state 64% of people did *not* see hikes). Arizona was the worst (even though Trump tried to imply other states were worse by saying Arizona wasn’t one of the bad ones). Exchanges are currently stable according to the CBO, so they’re not “exploding” as some certain people like to claim. Deductibles have gone up by an average of 42% over 5 years, so that’s a loss. But again, it’s hard to really objectively say the benefits are minuscule to the losses. Cutting the amount of uninsured in almost half is a huge win. That saved lives that otherwise would not have been. I mean, I guess, if you wanted to, you could say poor people’s lives aren’t worth that much. If you did that, you could easily state what you’re saying as fact. But you’re not saying that, are you?