Single-Payer System: Article Analysis

Part A-The authors’ thesis is that a single-payer healthcare system would remedy most of the problems that the Affordable Care Act has caused in America.
Part B-The authors craft their claims around the main idea that: the single-payer system of healthcare would be better than the current system that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has installed. The author supports these claims by juxtaposing the policies of the ACA with those of a single-payer system in terms of coverage, cost, payment, and choice. The authors support their thesis by claiming that a single-payer system would: be more universal and comprehensive than the ACA, save costs by consolidating bureaucracy created under the ACA, provide flexible payment opportunities that are not present

under the ACA, and allow a more stable relationship between doctors and patients that is unavailable under the ACA. The author links these ideas by connecting the shortcomings of the ACA with the benefits of a single payer system in each aspect of healthcare (coverage, cost, payment, and choice). The claims made by the authors seem very individual, as they are divided by subtitles; however, they are synthesized in the “Conclusions” section at the end.
Part C-The evidence that the authors’ utilize in the article is highly effective in terms of both credibility and relevance.

The authors make the claim that a single-payer system would: be more universal and comprehensive than the ACA; save costs by consolidating bureaucracy created under the ACA, provide flexible payment opportunities that are not present under the ACA, and allow a more stable relationship between doctors and patients that is unavailable under the ACA. To support these claims the authors’ cite data that conveys: employers who are looking to save on health benefits raise deductibles for their employees, many elderly citizens have avoided care due to high prices, and the US could save up to 500 billion dollars in administrative costs by cutting bureaucracy. The payment of the single-payer system is supported by the authors’ analogy to “lump-sum” budgets like a neighborhood fire station. Furthermore, the authors’ postulate that the stability of the patient-doctor relationship would be strengthened by the creation of a nationwide network of healthcare rather than the narrow networks patients must shift to with each enrollment cycle. Not only is the evidence relevant to each respective claim, but all evidence utilized by the author’s was found in 2015, making the evidence current. The credibility of the evidence used by the authors’ is rooted in their use of scholarly research and extended by their citations in the “references”

section.