In the meantime, Americans will die needless deaths from not receiving basic healthcare, but the market will win, so their sacrifice will be worth it.
First off everyone dies. Who's not receiving healthcare right now that would be ultimately saved by the government?
Secondly let's cut the hyperbole and have a rational conversation about this.
People not receiving basic preventative care with problems that are only going to snowball until emergency services can try to treat a much more complex situation in the future?
> Secondly let's cut the hyperbole and have a rational conversation about this.
You could have maybe had a point by quoting "but the market will win", but "Americans will die needless deaths from not receiving basic healthcare" is literally what's at stake. What exactly do you think the downsides of people not being able to afford healthcare are?
when they're on long wait lists for procedures because of a glut on resources
when they no longer have access to the high quality care they once had
when there's a greater shortage of quality nurses and doctors because of diminished pay
when innovation is stifled because R&D is funded by the government
Yes it will be complicated, and yes, even if healthcare is guaranteed to all, profit motive is still an important driver for efficiency and innovation.
All of that, but it's still irrelevant to your dismissal of actual deaths due to our healthcare system as "appeal to emotion nonsense".
because of a glut on resources
It is not irrational to point out the cost of ongoing debate.
No, it's the typical appeal to emotion nonsense that got the ACA passed to begin with. Now that's going to fail before it's even completely applied.