Annotated Bibliography: Single-Player Health Care

Whether the American government should cover Medicare, and to what extent, has been a highly controversial topic for many years. Senator Bernie Sanders, alongside a group of Democratic congressmen, have introduced a new plane called "Single-Player Health Care." What this new bill proposes, is a new way to completely cover the American people with health care within the next decade. The Op-ed "Single-Player Heath Care- a bad idea Democrats Love," written by U.S. Senator John Barrasso of Fox News, argues that Single-Player healthcare is not something that will benefit the American people. On the contrary, "Bernie Sanders: Why we Need Medicare for all”, by Senator Bernie Sanders of The New York Times, argues that the act would prove as extremely

Both parties do seem credible, since they are both members of the Senate, and either created or are voting on the act. Bernie uses much more of a pathos approach, and certainly tries to conquer your emotions, which can be very persuasive in supporting a claim. On the other hand, Bernie's stories and claims do not represent all of America, which actually contradicts his claim that the Single-Payer health care act will help all of America. As opposed to Sanders’ argument, Borrasso's Op-ed is much more ethos oriented while showing ethics, all while proving Sanders’ act does not help America. For example, in Bernie's Op-ed, he make statements such as "all over the country I have heard Americans share heartbreaking stories about our dysfunctional system. Doctors have told me about patients who died because they put off their medical visits until it was too late" (Sanders 1), and "Americans should not hesitate to go to the doctor because they do not have enough money" (Sanders 2). Examples like these go on and on. While all these statements make you feel that we need the Single-Payer act, it does not portray the majority of our country. While in Barrosso's Op-ed he repeatedly gives great evidence on how the act is not good for America. He shows this in examples like "The left-leaning Urban Institute said it would raise Washington's total health expenditures 233 percent" (Barrosso 2) and he says how the Senate already took a vote on an act similar to this and it failed 0 to 57 with all Republican votes against along with 43 Democrats present (Barrosso 3). These examples show that not only the bill is unethical due to it hurting America, but also that people do not want to have it. This is a much more valid augment than just trying to get people to like your argument by triggering emotion. Along with it supporting his claim in full rather than just giving examples from small