The current healthcare system of the United States of America is a contentious topic for discussion among both the political elites and the general public. The majority of individuals are unable to afford medication and treatment costs, having to choose between financial security and their own health. A shift to a universal healthcare system would be more advantageous to the working class and the population of the United States as a whole. The currently existing private health insurance system puts a heavy toll on the general public, creating a significant disparity between the wellbeing of the population.
To begin, the reasoning of those advocating against the use of universal healthcare should be examined. One of the most prominent arguments, as presented by Paul Roderick Gregory, is that the introduction of Universal Healthcare programs would increase taxes on majority of people, including the working class. Statistics show that payroll taxes paid in the US are currently considerably smaller than in countries where such as a system is implemented. Averaging in Europe, the payroll tax amounts to about 37%, while the US only requires 15.3 percent of a person’s income (Gregory). This data is one of the few instances where statistics are compared in this article, and the particular intricacies of tax coverage are not discussed, making the point appear more shallow. Many conservative sources additionally worry that the change from a private to a fully public system will increase national debt and put the government under heavy pressure. The information provided by Paul Gregory is further used to suggest that the use of a more comprehensive healthcare system is unsustainable, unneeded and anti-American.
The man uses persuasive emotional arguments to support his case, and also utilizes some statistics to make the information appear more credible. The majority of the claims provided by the author are unsubstantiated by data or research, instead using jokes or strawman arguments to prove his points. As a closing statement, he uses the threat of socialism and restrictions of freedom as another tool of pushing the audience towards his conclusion. The emotional influence of this article far exceeds its informational capacity, which relies mostly on anecdotes or other personal beliefs of the author.
Alternatively, a view presented by Diane Archer, working for JustCareUSA, contends for an opposite conclusion. The woman discusses some of the evidence for the introduction of a universal healthcare model, including scientific research and studies. As shown by Archer’s data, a universal healthcare plan has the potential to reduce long-term government spending, and has been shown to be more sustainable (Archer). Savings on medical administrative work and drug costs are expected to be immense as well (Archer). The use of real-world data instead of simple claims helps the author’s argument be stronger. Archer states that the governments of other countries have been shown to be capable of managing costs of universal healthcare and regulating the strain it puts on the regular person, including the personal costs (Archer). Additionally, the currently existing government support programs serve as a good example of an already working state-managed health delivery. Overall, Diane Archer uses research data and statistics to support her claims, as well as examples of other countries where similar initiatives were proven successful.
The data shown by the author primarily comes as a direct result of research and analysis made by professionals, with much less emphasis put on the views held by the author herself. The work manages to support most of its claims with the direct citations to other sources and provide a more informed overview of the issue that appears professional.
Overall, it can be said that the topic of healthcare remains one of the most complicated points for discussion in American politics. To save the lives of people and protect the most vulnerable demographics, it increasingly becomes necessary to adopt a more comprehensive structure of healthcare delivery. Unsustainability of privatized healthcare has been demonstrated time and time again, signaling the need for major nation-wide improvements.
Works Cited
Archer, Diane. “22 Studies Agree: ‘Medicare for All’ Saves Money.”TheHill, The Hill, 2020, Web.
Gregory, Paul Roderick. “Obamacare a Mess? Liberals Say Go Single Payer.”Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 2013, Web.