He's intentionally missing the social contract that its in direct exchange for health care, which all people need.
(edited to add: There's already a social contract that refusal to provide emergency room care to everyone means criminal prosecution of the hospital/docs involved... its unfair they're not allowed to collect money at gunpoint, but it would be much fairer if they were allowed to do so.)
I oppose mcdonalds because at the point of a gun a policeman will demand I pay them. Sounds awful, especially if I omit the fact I already ate the burger and I'm gonna need to eat another in the near future and the analogy breaks down even further in that McD would need a local geographic licensed monopoly on all food sales such that everyone living in the area must buy burgers from them.
missing the social contract that its in direct exchange for health care, which all people need
You're stating a moral imperative without indicating any boundaries. What are the limits of healthcare that are required to fulfill this supposed "social contract"?
Throwing out fallacy names doesn't address the problem with your statement.
You mentioned a Social Contract requiring healthcare. I'm asking you what the limits are of that supposed contract. If there aren't any in your view of morality, then be honest and say it. If there are, then throw us a bone and let us know where you think they lie.
Aaand that would be a false dilemma fallacy, demanding that we as a nation should not change the system until a dude on the internet explains in full detail his theory of everything. Or the alternative that a dude on the internet should not speak an opinion on "X" until he accomplishes unrelated task "Y".
The meta-point is it is a strong indication of consensus tipping point approaching for a culture when the opposition on a topic has nothing left but sophistry and fallacies to stand in the way of progress, morality, and civilization. There are certain analogies to creationism, AGW denial, opposition to gay marriage. I don't say that (solely, LOL) to tarnish the reputation of the opposition, but to focus on the similarity of technique in superficially unrelated topics, to draw attention to possibly unnoticed similarity of technique.
Try to provide a logical argument for existing barbarism which I can't pick apart as a mere fallacy. I theorize there is no such argument, although proof of a negative is such a bummer. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong and switch my position given a good enough argument, although I predict no argument exists at all, much less a good argument.
All I've seen you do so far is to invent Straw Men without just answering a simple question regarding the moralistic statement you made.
No one is curing cancer here or achieving world peace. We're just discussing topics of the day on HN. My hope is that people can do so in an honest straight-forward manner without warping facts or throwing up weak smoke screens like you've done here in this thread... but ah well.
