A Brief Note On The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) have raised controversy on whether the law supports or damages the health insurance for all Americans. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) or commonly known as Obamacare is a federal law signed by President Barack Obama on 2010. According to the website ‘Obama Care Facts’ this law “creates a mandate for large employers to provide insurance, the expansion of Medicaid, and the opening of Health Insurance Marketplaces to help subsidize private insurance.” Its main goal is to provide and improve affordable health care insurance for all Americans but due to the divide opinions about the ACA, congress has judged over 50 repeal attempts. As a last attempt to overthrow the law; the Republican Party from

This last ruling decision established that subsequent presidents cannot just undo the federal exchanges from the ACA, however, this event will maintain challengers to oppose the law and their arguments should be subject of examination. The best way to critique the credibility and reliability of an argument it is by identifying the fallacies on it. Fallacies are common reasoning tricks use to persuade individuals believe an argument that lacks from evidence and logic. There are many types of fallacies which objective is to distract, delay or deflect arguments. The intentional fallacy is presented with arguments because they seem appropriate in debates when an individual find themselves out of a logical road and uses fallacies to back up his/her argument. On the article “the supreme court saves the Obama care again”, the author 's use loaded language, and fallacies such as ad hominem attacks and Ad populum to support his argument affecting the New York Times integrity about the facts of the

A distortion of reality is created by the editorial when they intend to persuade the readers believe to fake popular opinions by using the Ad populum fallacy. According to the book “Asking the right questions” ad populum or appeal to popularity is “an attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiment that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything favored by a large group is desirable” (Brownie & M. Keeley, 76). This assumption is made by the ‘Editorial Board’ when they claim that nobody in congress, supreme court or health care journalists express disdain to the law, the author claims “not a single person involved in passing or interpreting the law- ever expressed a belief that subsidies would not be available on federally-operated exchanges” (Editorial Board, 1). The words “Not a single person” is an overgeneralization that persuades the reader believe that no one question the ACA’s effectiveness and intents to set the idea that whoever is against the law is wrong and outsider from what most people consider right. This attempt to persuade the New York Times readers on the popularity of ACA lacks of enough evidence when the intentional logical fallacy argument does not have enough evidence to support it. The Editorial Board’s claim contradicts itself when the editorial mentions the name of three justices “whose disdain to the law has always been clear” (Editorial Board, 2). The contradictory claim overlaps making it clear the failure in