A Comparison of The Pro and Against Arguments on The Obamacare Bill

In regards to an event that occurred in 2014 concerning the Obamacare bill, two articles surfaced that placed an emphasis on different arguments both for and against the bill. While Paul Sission argued on behalf of the bill, Andrea Tantaros argued against it. When comparing the two Paul Sission provides the most effective argument by providing a collected tone and calm style of writing, whereas Tantaros’s argument style focuses on anger and opinions. Sission’s article has been more effective at reaching readers because his appreciative yet neutral tone towards the Affordable Care act, and more fact based style of writing appeals to more readers in comparison to the Tantaros article which is more focused on emotional arguments rather than logical arguments.

Andrea Tantaros is a right wing republican woman whose audience consists majorly of other republican viewers. In the article by Tantaros, she introduces the argument that “Democrats [are] declare[ing] war on work” (Tantaros 1). She points out the abundance of job loss as a result of the Obamacare bill, quoting the Congressional Budget Office says that the Obamacare bill generates an incentive for people to stop working. She continues to describe how the Congressional Budget Office has stated that they predict the bill will produce a huge wave of people quitting their jobs in the lower and middle class area, in favor of doing less because they are capable of receiving more financial help. She goes on to describe how Democrats are creating a war on work by allowing people to choose whether or not they want to work. She makes the argument that work isn’t supposed to be fun, and that it is necessary. She points out that the working class will have to carry the burden that Democrats have placed on the economy, just because they want to help non-working citizens. Tantaros goes on to make the statement, President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, and most liberals in office “don’t care about the success of the economy” (Tantaros 3). She continues to describe how Liberals do not care about the staggering unemployment rate, or about creating growth in the economy. “Plainly put, their primary goal is to make people dependent on the government,” Tantaros said, offering the argument that Liberals consider the reduction in work a blessing (Tantaros 3). Tantaros continues to offer a possible result of the lack of working men, men will no longer being inclined to date or marry. Her argument lies on the fact that men who are successful and stable are more inclined to want to get married and start families as a provider. If men no longer want to aim for getting married and starting families, women will be left unhappy. Her final argument discusses Obama’s hesitance to pass the employer mandate which, according to Tantaros, would provide an opportunity for employers to keep more people working. She closes by reminding us that Obamacare, and Liberals are waging a war on work by providing an out for workers to have to stay employed.

Now that a brief summary has been given of Tantaros’s argument, the specific devices she uses in her writing can be analyzed. When we take a look at the style of writing Tantaros uses it becomes evident that a large portion of the style she uses is opinions styled like arguments. A good chunk of the article is just Tantaros giving her own opinion on the topic in an effort to stray her intended audience from releasing their outrage towards the Affordable Care act. Additionally, Tantaros’s tone throughout the article focuses around anger and outrage. She is intentionally only trying to make her readers feel one or both of those emotions. The combination of angry and heavily opinionated writing poses a threat to an effective arguments getting across to readers, because instead of formulating strong arguments based on facts Tantaros focuses on bashing the Democratic Party. For politically educated republican viewers the lack of factual content in her writing might begin to frustrate them. So not only is Tantaros risking readers with her argument style, but has a less effective style of argument because of her poor use of style and tone throughout it.

Paul Sission is a left wing democrat whose readers consist of mainly other democrats. In his article Sission begins by discussing the specifics of the incentives brought out by Obamacare according to the Congressional Budget Office. Sission points out that the Congressional Budget Office predicts that the new bill would “reduce the total number of hours worked” by the average worker, leading to about “800,000 fewer jobs by 2021” (Sission 2). Sission then points out that Republican lawmakers have seized this information as a tactic to gain seats in the November midterm elections. Sission then explains that the White House clearly stated that the reason for the reduction in jobs was not because business had to cut down, but because people voluntarily agreed to leave their jobs. Sission goes on to discuss the White House’s explanation on how the Affordable Care act would allow people to have more freedom to retire sooner than what they thought was possible, as well as allow people the freedom to decide to leave the jobs they are only present for because of the health insurance benefit. Sission then begins to discuss the specifics of the Affordable Care act, starting with the problems and corrections of the website people would go to sign up, then concluding with an estimated amount of people who would sign up as well as estimated budget costs. Sission continues to give information regarding the bill from economists stating, in a general sense, that there is no set way that the bill will affect America’s economy because there are “just too many hypotheticals” (Sission 3). Sission ends the article discussing all of the positive possibilities that the act would have on middle and lower class citizens that will now be able to pursue their dreams without worrying about health care, and for those lower class citizens that will finally be able to afford health care. Sission agrees that the major positive effect lies in the idea that American’s are allowed the freedom to choose the lifestyle they desire because of the flexibility they will have with affordable health insurance.

In his article Paul Sission makes the argument that Affordable Care Act will help increase the amount of Americans that get to pursue their dreams of a career rather than just having another job. Sission’s style of writing consists of eloquent, long sentences packed with factual information. Sission focuses on placing the facts of the situation out there before putting out a clear and logical argument. The tone of his article is calm and collected, a complete opposite to the Tantaros article. Sission is more effective in getting his message across because he lightly throws in his arguments in between factual information he found regarding the Affordable Care act and how it affects Americans. Readers are able to gather all of the information they need to come to their own conclusion about the Affordable Care act, with the help of Sission who subtly places his arguments in a way that makes you wonder if you had thought of that argument first. The subtle placement allows readers to feel that they are casually led to whatever logical assumption Sission places without making reader’s feel that Sission’s view is forced on to them. The combination of smooth and collected thoughts with factual information makes for an easy read for anyone, and helps Sission gain a reputation for being the ‘go to’ writer to find out the truth. This not only positively impacts the amount of readers Sission brings in, but helps him more effectively reach his audience with his arguments in comparison to Tantaros.

Regardless of what our political views are, the stronger argument clearly belongs to Sission. Sission has structured his article to fit the need of not only democratic readers, but other viewers that might just want more facts on the situation at hand. While Tantaros is definitely still a powerful speaker and writer, Sission more effectively communicates his stance because of the style and tone he uses on this topic.