This story is unavailable.

Yeah — I have a feeling that wasn’t something that was supposed to be spoken out loud. But I also have a feeling that many Republicans truly believe this — that insurance will actually be more manageable if fewer people participate (preferably people who aren’t going to require subsidies or other help, and can pay whatever insane premiums that insurance companies want to charge).

We can look at this using all three argument appeals, logos, ethos, and pathos.

Logos — from a practicality standpoint, it’s more cost-effective to keep someone healthy than it is to provide expensive ER treatment for an emergent situation caused by not managing a manageable condition. We wind up paying for people’s healthcare in these situations anyway. Wouldn’t it be better to keep people healthy that to try to patch them up at great expense later?

Ethos — the argument that fewer people with health insurance (or some affordable access to healthcare) is a good thing is on a par with arguing that fewer people with jobs is a good thing. Fewer people with enough food to eat is a good thing. Fewer people with a roof over their head is a good thing. Fewer people with access to clean water is a good thing. Etc. There are certain basic rock-bottom standards that every American should have (we ARE the richest country in the world, after all), and meeting the basics for every citizen’s survival should be a moral imperative.

Pathos — healthcare costs have skyrocketed to the point where healthcare is only affordable if one has insurance or if one is independently wealthy. To deny someone affordable access to surgery or chemo if they get cancer, or to deny someone treatment if they get hurt, just because they can’t afford either insurance or paying out of pocket for healthcare? That’s just cruel. We’re better than that.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Victoria Lamb Hatch’s story.