I challenge anyone to read this and not feel awful. Basically it's the story of how someone became sick, and his insurance wouldn't cover treatment without his challenging the CEO publicly.
I think anyone's first reaction is to feel miserable that anyone has to go through this. This is the emotional response.
Liberals are always, however, saying that they only look at facts/data. This clearly is not true. Sometimes they use examples like these to evoke a sympathetic response for their point of view. We must be cognizant of this strategy.
As far as data, one question I would have is whether this student had the option of another health insurance plan, and did he choose the cheaper plan. This is critical. If he chose the cheaper plan knowing of the limits and risks, then as tragic as this is, he made a choice.
I believe many liberals want to argue that this is not a choice people should be able to make (and they actually can't make it anymore under the ACA), but they must acknowledge that by restricting that choice, they're raising the costs of healthcare for everyone. If they announce that, and most people still desire this policy, great. But instead, they present this regulation as something that benefits everyone and has no costs.
Market-oriented people, if they want to argue for the ability to choose options that could possibly have tragic consequences, have to be ready to defend their stance against these emotional appeals, which is very challenging.