Universal health care is a topic that plenty of Americans are arguing over. In editorial one, the author uses anecdotal and logical evidence to help provide evidence for his claims about why America should have a universal health care system. In editorial two, the author uses the rhetorical appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos to argue against creating a universal health care system in the United States. According to editorial one, universal health care is a right that every American should be able to obtain. The author provides the scenario that insurance companies reject people with preexisting conditions and that people typically wait to receive health care until it's too much of a problem due to the extreme costs. Both of these scenarios are common among Americans so the author uses those situations to appeal to the readers' emotions. Editorial one also includes logical evidence that America could follow Canada's and Europe's universal health care systems because both of those nations are excelling in it. …show more content…
Editorial two argues that universal health care is a responsibility that America is unprepared to take a hold of.
The author includes that there would be no way to pay for the system and then lists logical reasons as of why paying for the health care system would fail. The author also includes that creating a universal health care system would cause unemployment to those who are employed in the insurance industry, appealing to his readers with pathos. Finally, the author argues that universal health care would dramatically decrease the quality of health care because more patients would be going in to see the small amount of doctors that are in the US, causing the system to get backed
up. While both editorials provide numerous examples of effective argumentation, editorial one is much more effective than editorial two. Editorial one contains anecdotal stories that readers are able to relate to and then agree to the need for universal health care. Editorial one also rebuttals editorial two's claim that there would be no way to pay for the system. The counterargument is reflected because the author of editorial one explains that America can follow the two very successful universal health care systems in Europe and Canada. Both editorials agree that universal health care would be a good thing for America but editorial two states that it would affect the nation much more negatively than positively. People all over the United States are arguing over if the nation should adopt a universal health care system. In the first editorial, the author provides anecdotal and logical evidence as for why American should create the system. The second editorial uses ethos, logos, and pathos to argue against the creation of universal health care. Both editorials agree that universal health care would have many benefits but the second editorial believes it could more of a negative affect than a positive affect.
Daniel Stone, a practicing physician in internal medicine, writes “Our Big Appetite for Healthcare” to argue how California’s healthcare needs to change. In the article, Stone discusses how California’s “more is better” health care is costly, inefficient, and insignificant. The author creates his argument with the methods of appeals; logos, a logical appeal, and ethos, an ethical appeal. Stone establishes his argument by mainly using logos with indicative reasoning to support his argument.
People who are in favor of universal health care in the U.S. use the argument that the U.S. was built upon the basic ideals, the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” and that we all have the right to at least a minimum standard of living. To deny universal health care is to deny these basic ideals and rights to the people and therefore unconstitutional. Not only is it unconstitutional, it is also immoral. It is immoral to deny people health care, allowing them to suffer and even die, just because they cannot afford it and to force people to pay so much money that they go bankrupt for a basic right. In 2007 about 62% of all U.S. bankruptcies were related to medical expenses. If the U.S. had universal health care, medical bankruptcies would no longer be an issue (Top 10 Pros & Cons). Universal health care would also be beneficial to the economy. Businesses and employers would no longer have to pay for health insurance for their employees and the government wouldn’t waste as much per capita on health care as it does now without a universal health care system. It would also allow people to be more willing to take entrepreneurial risks because they won’t fear having to go without health insurance (Why The U.S.
Health care in America tends to be a gray area for citizens without prior experience with medical issues. Michael Moore an American filmmaker discusses in his documentary “Sicko” the unpleasant experience some Americans had to go through because of our health care system. Moore implements humor to his documentary by inserting comical music, images, and narration in spots that help his argument gain attention. He also travels abroad to places like Canada, France, and Cuba, where universal health care is supported. He does this in order to provide reason why universal health care is a good ideas by capturing the different emotions and opinions of individuals in those countries versus what people think in America. In addition, Moore provides evidence on why the United States should adopt a different health care system by providing facts like the life expectancy and cost of health care in America compared to other countries. Michael Moore’s main goal is to inform the audience as well as introduce his argument that our health care system is inadequate and that better solutions are out there like universal health care.
There are so many uninsured citizens and immigrants in USA and many people who delay care in fear of medical bills. It is shameful that americans likes to boast that they have the highest lifestyle in the world, yet in this twenty-first century, we are the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee necessary healthcare to all of its citizens. Therefore, to resolve this crisis in country like USA where everybody believes; Everyone is born equal, should have access to affordable health care system because if we don’t have health insurance many people will not have health insurance and the premiums will increase dramatically for the insured people.
Access to healthcare provides financial stability by assuring people that they will not be financially destroyed by injury or illness. Additionally, when people can afford regular medical care they tend to avoid chronic problems and financial stress. In a study provided by the American Medical Students Association, researchers reviewed the costs and benefits of universal health care. They came to the conclusion, after reviewing other articles and statistics from multiple sources, that, “The annual cost of diminished health and shorter life spans of Americans without insurance is $65-$130 billion.” (Chua 5) This comes from people not having adequate health care and then losing their jobs because they...
The first side to the health care system is the Single Payer system. Many European countries, and our neighboring country Canada, have this type of system. This system has every citizen put his or her money into a fund that would be controlled by a federal agency. That agency would then pay for the treatment. Private insurance companies would basically be die off. The difference from this and our current health care system...
Out of all the industrialized countries in the world, the United States is the only one that doesn’t have a universal health care plan (Yamin 1157). The current health care system in the United States relies on employer-sponsored insurance programs or purchase of individual insurance plans. Employer-sponsored coverage has dropped from roughly 80 percent in 1982 to a little over 60 percent in 2006 (Kinney 809). The government does provide...
In conclusion, there still needs to be a lot of work done to health care in the United States. Other nations provide universal health care to their citizens, but this would cause dilemmas in balancing two often conflicting policy goals: providing the public with equitable access to needed pharmaceuticals while controlling the costs. Universal health care probably would not work in the U.S. because our nation is so diverse and our economy is so complex. The system we have now obviously has its problems, and there is a lot of rom for improvement. HMO’s will still create problems for people and their medical bills, but they definitely should be monitored to see that their patients are receiving just treatment.
The film Sicko (2007), is about the misfortune and distress associated with the American health care system and how it compares to those in several foreign countries where universal health care is the norm. The audience explores Moore’s rhetorical strategies and how he represents the issue of health care, with the goal of gaining support from the rest of society for his cause. Michael Moore made this film that has the purpose to especially inform the American audience about the current health system in America and the terrible system created in America that is sometimes deadly. The filmmaker used emotion, reason, creditable people, counter arguments and humor/irony to develop his argument that the American health system is terrible to citizens.
Universal health care refers to any system of health care managed by the government. The health care system may cover different programs including government run hospitals and health organizations and programs targeted at providing health care. Many developed countries such as Canada and United Kingdom have embraced universal health care with the United States being the only exception. The present U.S health care system has often been considered inefficient in terms of cost control as millions of Americans remain uncovered. This has made it the subject of a heated debate characterized by people who argue that the country requires a kind of socialized system that will permit increased government participation. Others have tended to support privatized health care, or a combined model of private and universal health care that will permit private companies to offer health care for a specific fee. Universal healthcare has numerous advantages that remain hidden from society. First, the federal government can apply economies of scale in managing health facilities which would reduce health care expenses. Second, all unnecessary expenses would be eliminated by requiring all states to bring together all the insurance companies into a single entity whose mandate would be to provide health insurance to all people. Lastly, increased government participation will guarantee quality care, improve access to medical services and address critical problems relating to market failure.
In recent years, the number of Americans who are uninsured has reached over 45 million citizens, with millions more who only have the very basic of insurance, effectively under insured. With the growing budget cuts to medicaid and the decreasing amount of employers cutting back on their health insurance options, more and more americans are put into positions with poor health care or no access to it at all. At the heart of the issue stems two roots, one concerning the morality of universal health care and the other concerning the economic effects. Many believe that health care reform at a national level is impossible or impractical, and so for too long now our citizens have stood by as our flawed health-care system has transformed into an unfixable mess. The good that universal healthcare would bring to our nation far outweighs the bad, however, so, sooner rather than later, it is important for us to strive towards a society where all people have access to healthcare.
These situations have many tough decision and opportunity costs to think about. With universal health care specifically, one must consider the pros and cons of potentially adopting a plan of this magnitude. Looking at the positive side, everyone in the U.S. would be guaranteed healthcare. No matter the amount of wealth or immigration status, everyone is covered by the U.S. government under a single payer system. Americans would be entitled to any medical necessity such as emergencies, check-ups, screenings, treatments, rehabs, and medications (“Bernie Sanders on Healthcare”). Now at what cost one may ask? Surely cost would increase right? Actually, medical cost would become overall cheaper for one to pay according to one proposed plan. Given that more Americans will be paying, less will be required to pay per person to cover the expenses (“Bernie Sanders on Healthcare”). Additionally, with more insured Americans, overall public health will improve and lead to more eligible working Americans. In the long term, this plan will help grow and stimulate the economic growth that the United States has been looking for so desperately. To add on to economic growth, this proposed plan will create jobs in the medical field and lift the financial burden off businesses. This means businesses would no longer be required to pay health benefits to their employees. Instead, businesses can focus on investing into their company’s growth and infrastructure (“Health Care for All”). Lastly, by adopting a universal health care system, Americans would no longer have to deal with medical bankruptcies. All expenses and bills would be covered by the U.S. government ("Right to Health Care ProCon.org”). This would leave the American people to focus on paying for other essential expenses and living costs. Now why hasn’t the U.S. adopted a similar plan already? First, one must consider the potential flaws in a
A health care system that provides free health care services to its entire citizen can be termed as universal health care. This is a situation where all citizens are protected from financial costs in health care. It is recognized around the globe as it provides a specific package of benefits to all citizens in the entire nation. For instance, free health care can result to improved health outcomes. In addition, it provides financial risk protection and an improved access to health services. There is an increasing debate on how citizen should be provided with free medical services. Although United State does not permit free health care services it should have free health care for all citizens. This is due to the fact that healthcare is the largest industry in United State. Due to the fact that United State is a rich country, it should have a healthcare system that provides free services such as treatment for its entire citizen. This will play a significant role, as it will stop medical bankruptcies in...
The implementation of a universal health care system in the United States is an important challenge that needs to be overcome. There are numerous amount of editorial that argue on both sides of the debate. Some people argue that a universal health care system would bring costs down and increase access to care while others argue that a universal health care system would be too expensive and reduce the quality of care. The correct answer requires intensive understanding and economics to overcome, the arguments must be examined for a proper answer.
Universal health care is medical insurance provided to all the residents of a country by their government. Out of all the major industrial countries, The United States is the only country without a universal health care system. In 2010, President Barack Obama signed a health care reform law making it illegal to be uninsured in America, which is a major step towards it. Universal Health Care should be mandatory in America because it gives everyone an opportunity to receive more equal care, the overall health of the population would increase and current insurance plans are unaffordable for many Americans.