Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio (2014) challenged the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1998 and the Child Status Protection Act, which allowed the automatic conversion provision of visa petition dates in cases that qualified. Cuellar de Osorio, a United States permanent resident, had petitioned for her son to receive a visa as a permanent resident of the U.S. in 1998. The date in which a petition is filed, the date is known as the “priority date” which serves as a ‘ticket’ in our immigration visa process. However, the Cuellar de Osorio’s visa petition did not appear in front of the ‘visa line’ until 2005; at which point, Cuellar de Osorio’s son had already turned 21 making him ineligible for the visa which was categorically filed as a derivative
The debate over how to handle healthcare is divided between those who believe it should be made universal and those who believe it should be privatized. The two articles provided each support a side on this argument and have a different method of supporting their claim. While both editorials are effective at supporting their claim, the editorial supporting universal healthcare provides stronger support for its claim through logic and reason. The editorial supporting universal healthcare focuses on statistical argumentation and logos, while still using some emotion.
It utilizes both logos and pathos in order to convince the audience of their standpoint. They list many statistics including how much health care costs per person. With all these statistics, the audience can conclude that America does not have enough money to give every individual health care. The author also runs through the fact that America's government does not have the managerial capabilities to keep this system functioning. When the audience comprehends this fact, they can logically conclude that a universal health care plan will not be effectively instituted if it is set into law.
but it also greatly reduces the administrative and non-medical waste that has no benefits to patients. Pursuit of profit and wealth should not be in a field that is meant to care for others; companies and corporations are maximizing on patients’ misfortunes and are therefore shortchanging the quality of care in order to get the most money. This was warned by Maimonides in 1190 AD when he said “Do not allow thirst for profit, ambition for renown, and admiration to interfere with my profession for these are the enemies of truth and can lead me astray in the great task of attending to the welfare of your creatures” (Nelson, Alan). Despite the fact that a single payer universal healthcare system is not advocated by any current presidential candidate, it is both morally and economically the most sound system.
The nature of the current debate surrounding the implementation of universal healthcare in America is troubling because it is comprised almost entirely of pragmatic arguments void of concern for the principles behind the project. Before one asks how much a thing will cost, how it will be organized, or whether “the uninsured” will benefit, one should ask whether enacting universal healthcare is in keeping with the values and principles of the American experiment. In other words, is universal healthcare good for America? Universal healthcare is not good for America.
Citizens will receive free healthcare, which in turn will allow everyone to get treated when they are feeling unwell; so, the poor that cannot afford healthcare can receive it. Also for those that already have healthcare, they can then use the money for other things, whether it be for personal use, or for higher-grade healthcare with more benefits. Both arguments have their own standpoints and reasons. The ones that oppose Universal Healthcare state that the government does not have the funds, and therefore will impose a higher tax in general. The ones that support the Universal Healthcare state that the benefits are worth what will be imposed to make it happen.
The second editorial states that a universal healthcare system would be too expensive and decrease the quality of care the citizens would get. This author uses logic to support their argument. The author begins to talk about the Constitution to persuade people that the universal system is "unconstitutional. " Although this editorial does include facts and logic, a lot of it is based on strong emotion.
While the arguments for universal healthcare contain a solid foundation in logic and emotion, they have few facts, the arguments against universal healthcare, however, are much more persuasive because they maintain a core basis in facts which outweigh the logic and emotion of the arguments supporting universal health care. The arguments for universal healthcare contain some facts; most have a stronger basis in logic and emotion, and some cases contain no facts. This is shown by highlighting the question of whether universal healthcare is a benefit or detriment to the economy, whether universal health care provides better quality health care or whether saving money is more important than having the freedom to choose your healthcare. Not only
Healthcare in the United States is in desperate need of reform. There are several rationales to further explain this proposition. As an illustration, the Declaration of Independence states our unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, every individual should be entitled to healthcare as it preserves life and promotes the general welfare. The federal government should, therefore, enact a program of universal health to better protect and serve all of its citizens.
In the presence of a free health service helps to boost the economy nation which is a lots of people will raise the standard of living by increase the economic productivity. People will contribute in the economy sector very well if they are healthy. From the source that I get, according to House research Department Universal Health Coverage an Economist Perspective 2007 the author says, health care costs may prevent some individuals from working or seeking higher earnings. Working harder to increase earnings may result in losing their subsidized coverage or having to pay more in premiums. So, the free healthcare for everyone will raise the standard which is can lead more to economic
As Bernie Sanders once said, “Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege.” Most developed countries choose to live by this quote while the United States of America chooses to go against it. Universal health care has benefits on multiple levels, whether it’s a single individual or the people in a whole. The U.S is one of the few developed countries that doesn’t offer universal health care to their people, yet the U.S spends more than seventeen percent of their GDP on health insurance. Many people believe that universal health care is a simple one solution problem, but the truth is that there are multiple forms of universal health care that provide all citizens with the health insurance they need.
Health care should not be considered a political argument in America; it is a matter of basic human rights. Something that many people seem to forget is that the US is the only industrialized western nation that lacks a universal health care system. The National Health Care Disparities Report, as well as author and health care worker Nicholas Conley and Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), strongly suggest that the US needs a universal health care system. The most secure solution for many problems in America, such as wasted spending on a flawed non-universal health care system and 46.8 million Americans being uninsured, is to organize a national health care program in the US that covers all citizens for medical necessities.
Universal health care is a valuable service and should be available in all countries. In many countries millions of people suffer from not having access to healthcare they deserve or not being able to pay for the healthcare they need. In the states alone, an estimated 50 million people do not have insurance because of the inability to pay for it. Universal health care would be beneficial to all countries because it would not exclude anyone from getting the necessary help, it would prevent the insurance companies from denying care, and it would contribute to preventative care to take place.
Health care for everyone is able to give people time out of the financial debt if they have no insurance. When you have no insurance you have to pay out of pocket for all doctor visits and also you might be rejected medical help. So when there is everyone on one page with health care you are able to have your finances in tack a little more also if it becomes more inexpensive for the people. Don 't you think that your body is worth the try?The government makes millions dollars of the medical industry weather prescription drugs,insurance companies,and doctor visits. When everyone is the same that means the government would have to set one set prices for everyone to be able to survive financially in it and not everyone is able to go into
This is so because, universal access to health will really do good to the world and it is a Necessity in order to reduce the level of discrimination experienced in terms of finances . Universal access to health will ensure that there will be access to equitable quality health care and will also give security to those who are financially incapable at the present to afford quality health care die to their financial status. Although this may be the case in the future, there will face challenges especially in implementing the regulations that would be set up in order to enable equal distribution of medical resource and
