One of the longest standing debates in the U.S. has been a universal health care system for the nation. Supporters for such a system have argued that it would bring down costs and increase access to care, while opponents said it would be too expensive and would reduce the quality of care. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 is one key controversial attempt to bring a form of health care to America. Proponents from both sides of the argument have presented editorials of their opinions with varying degrees of objectivity with several types of evidence.
Supporters of the system have often quoted a need for fair and equal coverage for all. One editorial written by Hedda Haning on pnhp.org says that "An all-inclusive national health program ... would be excellent for the economy". She argues that under a universal Medicare system, small business people would "pay a national tax appropriate to their income" as well as a "payroll tax". Additionally, "all bills for necessary medical care would be paid for them". Haning presents several logical points in her article about why a universal healthcare system is a necessity.
…show more content…
In an editorial on USA Today, Avik Roy wrote an opposing view of the Affordable Care Act. He quotes more statistical evidence such as "ObamaCare will increase premiums in the individual market by an average of 24%" and "In most states, the cost of individually purchased insurance will increase significantly, as much as 160%". Roy uses an approach that utilizes statistical evidence to argue what they refer to as the misnamed "Affordable Care