You are on page 1of 5

Ben Britton Steffen Guenzel 10/13/2013

Britton 1

Identical Purpose, Opposite Opinions

Republicans speaks of all the negative effects and everything that can physically go wrong when they speak of Obamacare. Democrats highlight all the positives that could come of Obamacare and speak of all the negatives that people are incurring with the government shut down. Each side has a separate view and look at Obamacare through a different perspective, this creates controversy and room for opinion because there is no clear cut answer. Statistically there is only one true answer that can come out of Obamacare and its effects. So why is there such a large difference in the predictions of what may occur? Disasters continue to be the talk of most republican pages which range from doctors quitting their jobs because they cannot continue to support themselves, Obamacare costing you more money than your previous insurance, delays that will be created, or even students are becoming uninterested in the medical field because of the lack of upside with Obama care. Whereas democrats speak of upside, how money shall be saved, and how people without insurance will now be able to have insurance at an affordable rate or even free. So how is it possible that there are two entirely different outcomes to the same healthcare plan? That is a rhetorical question. It is impossible because there is only one possible solution. Thus shows that these articles include opinions or influences rather than only statistical data. .

Britton 2 After all is said and done republicans believe that Obamacare will cost the average American 7450 dollars more than before compared to the 2500 dollar saving that Obama stated. This is a difference of near 10,000 dollars, not because of math but due to the predictions that opinions create. These articles show more of a crafted opinion due to the views of the opposing parties, republican’s look at all the negative concepts or the worst situations and democrats look at the positive. Lack of validity allows for open interpretation because the numbers are irrelevant with just an explanation of what could happen rather than what is destine. Each side also includes one sided information that makes you fear or joyful without realizing if it is actually plausible. Topics of this sort are not so simple and short cut such as algorithm but are an open ended like a heuristic which allows these arguments to forgo. Misconception continues to be the biggest factor when looking at political articles because it tells you information, but it may be more or less severe than processed at first glimpse. For example when first looking at the article you can be confused or daunted by the 7450 dollars in extra spending that may occur. Unaware that the numbers are being misled because the saving of 2500 dollars is really per year where as the extra spending of 7450 dollars are over a period of 8 years. When being compared in reality the republicans are stating that it is an extra 1000 dollars a year but since 7450 is such a larger number it is of more value in this scenario to increase its size. Similar to keep the 2500 dollars it may save you to a smaller number rather than saying it has the possibility to save you 20000 dollars in eight years. This ability to use number size as an advantage is effective to those who just see numbers as numbers rather than looking in depth at the text itself. Information like this passes by some readers and all they can

Britton 3 see is the number as a whole rather than what it actually is. Below is the graph that can be seen by clicking the link in the article.

Perception is key when comparing two elements and therefore is preyed upon rather than the facts themselves because if someone can trick you into believe without lying. Why would someone give you stone hard facts if they may not have the same effect? Neither side knows what the future holds but contort information according to what they believe is beneficiary to their personal cause. Such as when a party speaks of job opportunity progression or deterioration because the information being given is all situational rather than factual. Republicans state that doctors will quit because of their inability to make a living and keep up with regulations. Surely a doctor over an eight year time span will quit and it may be due to their lack of keeping up with regulations, but who’s to say it would not be that way even if health care were the same. Once

Britton 4 again misleading evidence creates an idea that doctors will be lost like it is a common occurring event when they display no information to back this reasoning up. Democrats also leave key sections out when stating how much money can be saved for those in need. Money just does not come from anywhere, so where is all this money coming from that is going to help those that are desperate save money? They lack to explain the essentiality of young people with good health to be a part of the system to make up for all the sick people in need of care to create an equilibrium. So democrats could create countless numbers on the ability to save you money or possibility that you are one of the lucky that health care is now affordable but in reality they leave out the other important steps that it involves. No matter what side you believe there is legitimacy to the opposing beliefs and although they most likely are not facts but are based on the outcomes or possibility of facts. Only one answer can be true when this comes to a conclusion and since there is no definite way of telling what is to come then you just have to wait to see. Facts are what eventually comes to reality and although both of these articles are logical they are also enamored by their bias of the subject, because they do not have facts showing each subject and the reasoning behind the statement. They both have research and information on the same topic but come up with totally opposite outcomes due to the focus on the information they believe is more useful when proving their point. Until there is only one clear cut answer there will always be argument, thus allowing these misconceptions and continue abuse of people’s perceptions to prove that their opinion is the more appealing of the two.

Work cited Thomas, Cal. N.d. 13 October 2013.