ObamaCare supporters delight in using the rhetorical tactic of focusing on the supposed good outcomes when responding to critics.
“I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when a law is passed that actually benefits the citizens of this country…”
There’s a lot going on there. The statement begins with confusion, suggesting that the speaker is encountering something that goes against either the normal assumptions, which implies that the opposing view is not a natural way of looking at things. Note also that it focuses on the (supposed) positive outcomes only, implying that there is nothing negative about it that might justify someone’s bent shape on the matter.
Statements like these make me groan in frustration. The persuasion tactic is glaringly obvious and it almost comes across as deliberate flamebait. It also forces the other side into the defensive as well as into a very critical mode. Consider the automatic response:
“Yes, it probably benefits people, but at what cost? How are we supposed to pay for it? With Monopoly money? You can’t squeeze blood from a rock. We all want to have nice cars, too, but you can’t just pass a law that says ‘everyone gets a Toyota’ without also saying how exactly you’re going to afford to pay Toyota for all those cars. Or is Toyota just supposed to do it anyway, fuck ‘em, they’re evil corporate bastards anyway just sitting on cash, they can afford to help us little guys out once in a while!”