We the People Healthcare Act: Why Smart People Believe Bad Policies: The Psychology Behind Political Manipulation.
- Jeremy Black
- Jan 22
- 9 min read
John Gruber (MIT architect of ACA) said that “the stupidity of the American voter” made it important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare's true costs from the public. “That was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” said Gruber. -From ACA Architect: ‘The Stupidity Of The American Voter’ Led Us To Hide ACA Costs (Forbes 2014).
I don't think most citizens are stupid. Smart people fall for bad policies because emotion, authority, and complexity overwhelm incentive analysis, and intent replaces outcomes. Modern policies (healthcare, immigration, finance) are too complex for intuitive reasoning; smart people judge intent instead of incentives. Lobbyists and politicians are smart, and policy debates are framed emotionally, which narrows thinking, even for highly educated people. People who see themselves as “good” feel less need to scrutinize outcomes; good intentions become a substitute for results. Smart people are especially vulnerable to Authority & Credential Bias, Credential density ≠ incentive alignment. Humans overweight vivid stories: Bad policies survive by highlighting visible beneficiaries while diffusing costs.
With the ACA, this could have all been avoided if people had simply used Rare Sense principles. The first one is follow the money. The healthcare lobby paid a record amount ($1.3B) to pass the ACA. Do you think they did that to lower prices or raise prices? Keeping the pay for procedure model and prohibiting lowering drug prices, who did that benefit? It wasn't a shock instead of seeing $2,500 in savings that Obama promised we instead saw record premium increases and healthcare industry profits.
In the heated arena of American politics, few issues ignite passions like healthcare. For years, we’ve been bombarded with the same binary choice: Stick with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its incremental tweaks or embrace Medicare for All (M4A) as the path to true equity. Politicians, pundits, and ads repeat the mantra, ACA is “practical compassion,” M4A is “moral necessity.” Yet beneath the surface, both options perpetuate skyrocketing costs, ballooning national debt, and record-high industry profits. Why do intelligent, well-informed people continue to rally behind these flawed policies? Why do they dismiss alternatives like a Singapore-style system, proven to deliver universal coverage at a fraction of the cost, with better outcomes and no fiscal black holes?
The answer isn’t ignorance or stupidity. It’s psychology. Smart people fall for bad policies because they’re human: overloaded with information, targeted by emotional appeals, and pressured by social dynamics. In an age of 24/7 news cycles, social media echo chambers, and sophisticated campaigning, political manipulation exploits cognitive biases, mental shortcuts that evolved to help us survive but now lead us astray. These biases make us susceptible to narratives that feel right, even when the data screams otherwise.
This post dives into the psychology of political manipulation, focusing on five key biases: authority bias, moral framing, fear conditioning, the repetition illusion (or illusory truth effect), and social conformity. We’ll explore how they operate in general, then apply them to the healthcare debate, showing why so many believe ACA or M4A are the only viable paths, while ignoring sustainable models like Singapore’s. The core message? People aren’t dumb; they’re overloaded, emotionally targeted, and socially pressured. Understanding these mechanisms empowers us to think critically, resist manipulation, and demand better policies.
By the end, you’ll see that the most radical act in modern politics isn’t protest, it’s thinking independently. Let’s unpack how manipulation works, one bias at a time.
Authority Bias: Trusting “Experts” Without Scrutiny
We start with one of the most pervasive biases in human decision-making: authority bias, the tendency to accept claims from perceived experts without critical examination. This shortcut makes evolutionary sense; in ancestral times, deferring to tribal elders or shamans could mean survival. But in modern politics, it becomes a tool for manipulation, especially when “experts” are cherry-picked, funded, or amplified to push agendas.
Psychologists have long studied this. Stanley Milgram’s infamous 1961 obedience experiments showed that ordinary people would administer what they believed were lethal electric shocks simply because an authority figure in a lab coat instructed them to do so (Milgram, 1963). While Milgram’s work focused on obedience, it underscores authority bias: We override our moral compass when “experts” sanction it. In politics, this manifests as blindly trusting policymakers, doctors, or economists who align with our preconceptions.
A classic example is the Iraq War buildup in 2003. The Bush administration repeatedly cited “intelligence experts” claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Media echoed these claims, and public support surged, despite later revelations of flawed intelligence. Authority bias made skepticism seem unpatriotic. Studies confirm this: people rate statements as truer when they are attributed to high-status sources, even when they are factually incorrect (Pornpitakpan, 2004). Just think of Biden stating Intelligent experts (including former heads of CIA) claiming the laptop from hell was Russian disinformation, even when the FBI had the laptop in their possession. Many fell for this simply because it came from "experts".
In healthcare debates, authority bias is rampant. When President Obama touted the ACA as a “cost-saver” backed by economists, millions accepted it without digging into projections. Leading figures like Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist and ACA architect, later admitted to exploiting public “stupidity” to pass the law, saying the lack of transparency was a “huge political advantage” (Gruber, 2014). Media reinforced this by featuring “expert” panels from think tanks funded by insurers or pharma, who downplayed risks like premium hikes.
Fast-forward to M4A: Proponents like Bernie Sanders cite “experts” from Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), repeating that single-payer saves trillions. Yet independent analyses by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show that costs could exceed $30 trillion over a decade, with potential rationing (CBO, 2019). Authority bias kicks in when we trust charismatic leaders or credentialed voices without cross-checking, especially in complex fields like economics, where most lack the expertise to verify.
Why does this persist? Cognitive load. In an information-overloaded world, we outsource thinking to authorities. Politicians exploit this by framing dissent as “anti-science” or “heartless.” In healthcare, this silences questions about alternatives, such as Singapore’s model, which uses mandatory HSAs and transparency to deliver better outcomes. “Experts” dismiss it as “not scalable,” and we nod along, without scrutinizing their biases or funding sources.
The impact? Policies like ACA pass despite flaws, leading to real harm: Premiums doubled, deductibles soared to $5,000+, and industry profits ballooned to $500 billion annually for pharma alone. Smart people supported it because trusted authorities said it was “the right thing.” To counter, question credentials: Who funds this expert? What incentives do they have? In politics, authority often masks manipulation.
Authority bias isn’t just passive; it’s amplified by “halo effects,” where an expert’s prestige in one area spills over. A Nobel economist endorsing M4A lends undue weight, even if their expertise is in macroeconomics rather than health policy. Research from The Decision Lab shows this leads to overconfidence in decisions, reducing critical thinking (The Decision Lab, n.d.).
In healthcare, think of Dr. Anthony Fauci during COVID: His authority shaped policy, but debates over mandates showed how bias can polarize. Similarly, in the ACA rollout, CDC and HHS “experts” minimized glitches, delaying fixes. The lesson? Authority is a starting point, not the end; always verify.
Moral Framing: Compassion as a Shield Against Analysis
Next, moral framing: The art of casting political issues in ethical terms to short-circuit rational debate. By tying policies to “good vs. evil” or “compassion vs. cruelty,” manipulators evoke strong emotions, making opposition feel immoral. This bias exploits our innate moral intuitions, as psychologist Jonathan Haidt describes in “The Righteous Mind” (2012): We reason post-hoc to justify gut feelings.
In politics, moral framing is a powerhouse. Climate change is framed as “saving the planet for our children,” making skeptics seem selfish. Gun control becomes “protecting innocents,” branding opponents as indifferent to lives. Studies show moral language increases message virality by 20% on social media (Brady et al., 2017). It’s effective because it activates the brain’s limbic system, bypassing the prefrontal cortex’s analytical functions.
Healthcare is prime territory. ACA was framed as a moral crusade: “No one should go bankrupt from illness.” Obama invoked stories of dying patients denied coverage, making resistance seem heartless. M4A amps this: “Healthcare is a human right,” with Sander's decrying “corporate greed killing Americans.” This framing shields policies from scrutiny, questions M4A’s $30 trillion price tag, and you’re “against the poor.”
Research from Health Affairs shows how moral framing intersects politics: Debates on reform often pit “equity” against “efficiency,” with compassion narratives dominating (Barabas & Carter, 2020). In the ACA push, media like The New York Times ran op-eds framing it as “justice,” while opponents were “obstructionists.” This emotional shield deflects analysis: Who wants to argue math when lives are at stake?
But moral framing is manipulated by omission. It ignores trade-offs, such as M4A’s potential wait times (as in Canada) or ACA’s subsidy cliffs that hurt middle-class families. In Singapore’s model, framing focuses on empowerment: “Build your own health security.” No emotional guilt, just practical results, universal coverage without debt.
The danger? Moral framing polarizes, as per PMC studies on bioethics and politics (PMC, 2025). It turns debate into tribal warfare, where questioning is heresy. Smart people buy in because compassion feels good (feel goodism Rare Sense to Save America). Evolution wired us for empathy. But unchecked, it leads to bad policy: ACA’s moral appeal hid cost overruns, adding trillions to the debt.
To resist, separate morality from mechanics. Ask: Does this policy truly help, or just feel virtuous? In healthcare, true compassion includes fiscal sustainability; otherwise, it bankrupts the system meant to help.
Moral framing often uses “deserving vs. undeserving” narratives. In welfare debates, it’s “hard-working families” vs. “freeloaders.” In healthcare, M4A frames opponents as siding with “greedy insurers,” shutting down nuance. Studies on political rhetoric show this boosts support by 15-20% (Lakoff, 2004).
In 2024 elections, Biden’s ACA expansions were morally framed as “building back better for families,” masking $200 billion in added costs. Media amplified, with little on long-term debt.
Fear Conditioning: Healthcare Tied to Survival
Fear is politics’ oldest weapon. Fear conditioning, pairing issues with threats to trigger anxiety, creates Pavlovian responses, making us support policies out of dread. In campaigns, it’s “vote for me or lose everything.”
Psychologists trace this to amygdala responses: Repeated fear stimuli condition avoidance behaviors. In public health, fear campaigns like anti-smoking ads use graphic images to deter, but efficacy varies (Witte & Allen, 2000). In politics, it’s subtler: Tie opponents to catastrophe.
Healthcare excels here; it’s literally life-or-death. ACA opponents warned of “death panels”; M4A critics evoke “socialized medicine queues.” Proponents counter with “without this, you’ll die bankrupt.” This conditioning makes alternatives scary: “Singapore? That’s authoritarian mandates!”
APA notes fear motivates in elections, with 2020 campaigns using COVID dread to sway votes (APA, 2020). In healthcare, ads show suffering families, conditioning support for expansive policies without cost discussion.
The impact? Overreaction: People back debt-heavy plans, fearing loss of care. Singapore avoids this by framing it as empowerment rather than a threat.
Fear backfires when too intense, leading to denial (PMC, 2018). Smart people fall because fear bypasses logic, as in Milgram-like obedience to “save lives.”
Repetition Illusion: Familiar = True
The illusory truth effect: Repeated claims feel true, even if false. Discovered in 1977 (Hasher et al.), it’s weaponized in politics via ads and soundbites.
Studies show repetition boosts perceived truth by 20-30%, even for known falsehoods (Fazio et al., 2015). In elections, “big lie” tactics work through echo.
In healthcare, “ACA saves lives” was repeated endlessly post-passage, despite mixed evidence. M4A’s “healthcare for all” mantra makes alternatives seem fringe.
PMC research links this to conspiracy spread, repetition normalizes (PMC, 2023). Social media amplifies: Algorithms favor familiar content.
Smart people succumb because fluency feels factual. Counter: Seek diverse sources.
Social Conformity: Dissent Framed as Cruelty
Finally, social conformity: We align with groups to avoid ostracism, as in Solomon Asch’s 1951-line experiments, where 75% conformed to wrong answers (Asch, 1951).
In politics, it’s “if everyone’s for M4A, it must be right.” Dissent is labeled “cruel” or “greedy,” pressuring silence.
Healthcare: Supporting ACA tweaks makes you “compassionate”; opposing M4A “heartless.” Social media enforces this, and cancel culture silences critics.
Studies show conformity in policy views, with 38% yielding on political opinions (PLOS One, 2023). In groups, we prioritize belonging over truth.
This bias keeps the binary alive, questions Singapore, and you’re “against universal care.”
To break: Embrace independent thinking; as Asch found, lone dissenters reduce conformity by 80%.
Amathia, A greek word that roughly translates to Intelligent Stupidity or willful ignorance. It is not that people lack the ability to understand (normal stupidity) but are unwilling to learn (thus intelligent stupidity). Socrates considered Amathia the root of evil acts in people. Epictetus described Amathia as anti-wisdom. A spiritual malady that afflicts those who could know and should know better. Worse than ignorance, Amathia is choosing not to know, the worst type of stupidity.
Amathia never meant stupidity. It meant a "confident blindness" and the ability to sound intelligent while missing what truly matters. It's a moral or cognitive slip, subtle enough to pass unnoticed and troubling because it often feels like clarity or even wisdom.
Conclusion- Support the We the People Healthcare Act instead of another bad policy.
These biases explain why smart people back bad policies: Authority lends credibility, moral framing tugs hearts, fear drives urgency, repetition embeds “truth,” and conformity enforces silence. In healthcare, they prop up ACA/M4A while sidelining Singapore’s model.
But awareness is power. People aren’t dumb, they’re manipulated. By recognizing overload, emotions, and pressure, we can demand better.
The most radical act in modern politics is not protest. It is thinking independently.
Read the We the People Healthcare Act and supporting blogs