Last Week Tonight: Obamacare

[DEAD7]

So I'm appealing to emotion because I'm pointing out that a policy position will result in more deaths? Since when is people dying not a valid concern?

And if you agree that the policy you prefer (for ideological reasons) would result in more people dying and you're fine with it anyway, then...by definition you'd prefer people die.

I'm just calling it what it is, an appeal to emotion... why is that so bothersome? Not once did i say you were wrong.

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.”

― Confucius

 

[DEAD7]

Actual debate in Higher Learning with few ad hominems and next to no trolling... I appreciate you brehs.

 

[acri1]

I'm just calling it what it is, an appeal to emotion... why is that so bothersome? Not once did i say you were wrong.

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.”

― Confucius

Because it's not an appeal to emotion.

If it's an objective fact that Policy A will result in 50,000 more deaths than Policy B and you support Policy B anyway (for whatever reasons) then it's a statement of fact to say you'd prefer 50k deaths over supporting Policy A. All this stuff about "emotion" is just a deflection to avoid dealing with the implications of what you support.

I mean if you honestly think Policy B is better anyway for moral reasons, fine, but own it.

 

[DEAD7]

But I mean, you don't really have a leg to stand on breh. Other countries provide better outcomes, more efficiently, with the government being the dominant option

Explain why do other countries matter at all...

 

[DEAD7]

Because it's not an appeal to emotion.

If it's an objective fact that Policy A will result in 50,000 more deaths than Policy B and you support Policy B anyway (for whatever reasons) then it's a statement of fact to say you'd prefer 50k deaths over supporting Policy A. All this stuff about "emotion" is just a deflection to avoid dealing with the implications of what you support.

I mean if you honestly think Policy B is better anyway for moral reasons, fine, but own it.

Alright breh...

Spoiler

There is a lot of unspoken assumptions in your post...
1. The market cannot produce a better unforseen option
2. The ACA saves more lives in the long run
3. Saving these lives should be paramount

But its not a right/wrong issue in my opinion... we can agree to disagree

 

[acri1]

Alright breh...

Spoiler

There is a lot of unspoken assumptions in your post...
1. The market cannot produce a better unforseen option
2. The ACA saves more lives in the long run
3. Saving these lives should be paramount

But its not a right/wrong issue in my opinion... we can agree to disagree

Spoiler

1. If there's evidence of a better market option, I'm all ears, but "better unforseen options" sounds like to me
2. All evidence I've ever seen indicates that this is true.
3. Absolutely. What's the point of a healthcare policy if not to provide the best possible outcomes to the most people?

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

Explain why do other countries matter at all...

Because it provides evidence to a point

 

[DEAD7]

Because it provides evidence to a point

How so, and which point?...

 

[DEAD7]

Spoiler

1. If there's evidence of a better market option, I'm all ears, but "better unforseen options" sounds like to me
2. All evidence I've ever seen indicates that this is true.
3. Absolutely. What's the point of a healthcare policy if not to provide the best possible outcomes to the most people?

Innovation doesnt work like that... you gotta throw the demand to the market and see what comes back.









I respect your position though

 

[jerniebert]

They don't need to repeal shyt. They need to fix the flaws in the bill, but they won't cause then these shytty politicians won't get paid. fukk who else dies long as redneck congressman gets a few bucks in his pocket. Then idiots fall in line with this backward way of thinking.

 

[Scholar]

I dont want them to have anything... I dont think govt. is the solution.
Repealing Obamacare and replacing it with nothing is fine with me...
I don't believe in positive rights. In my opinion, no member of society has a right to demand a minimal share of basic goods from society. People have the right not to be interfered with, but they don't have the right to actually get anything.
I am and have always been willing to agree to disagree on this cause liberals believe the exact opposite.











and @ both of ya'll pretending not to see the appeal to emotion implicit in stating the loss of life over and over. You even used the words empathy/sociopath then claimed it wasnt emotional

So basically you're just a troll.

If that's your actual opinion I respect it and agree to disagree

 

[MalikX]

I dont want them to have anything... I dont think govt. is the solution.
Repealing Obamacare and replacing it with nothing is fine with me...
I don't believe in positive rights. In my opinion, no member of society has a right to demand a minimal share of basic goods from society. People have the right not to be interfered with, but they don't have the right to actually get anything.
I am and have always been willing to agree to disagree on this cause liberals believe the exact opposite.











and @ both of ya'll pretending not to see the appeal to emotion implicit in stating the loss of life over and over. You even used the words empathy/sociopath then claimed it wasnt emotional

You're a shytty human being

 

[MalikX]

Support 20 million people losing insurance brehs

 

[DEAD7]

You're a shytty human being

 

[Reality]

The essence of your argument really is simple, @DEAD7 . Not sure why you're dancing around it.

You think a mandate is so onerous that it should be repealed outright, without a replacement, even if it means 50,000 individuals will die due to a lack of coverage.

You do a waltz around that point by suggesting that the mandate leads to worse mortality on the whole than the previous status quo or a private solution (and provide no evidence of that point nor do you propose a private solution).

You then two step to claim mentions of loss of life are emotional appeals rather than moral or rational ones. Implicit in the discussion, however, is your own moral assertion regarding the mandate (see above) or a rational argument that 50,000 lives aren't "worth" any level of premium increases.

Do tell us, what are we missing?