Universal Health Care Argument Analysis

There are many governments outside of the United States that rely on a Universal Health Care System. Due to this being a very controversial topic, it is not uncommon to see many articles, papers and editorials written about it. Editorials are often written by authors that have opposing views on the subject, both hoping to argue and convince readers that they are correct. By evaluating two different editorials objectively, it is easy to determine which author made the best argument without taking a side. Writing an editorial argument is an effective way of convincing a reader of a certain viewpoint. However, editorials are only effective if the proper evidentiary support and rhetoric skills are used.

One editorial argues that a Universal Health

The editorial opens by claiming that "Government regulation, job loss, and the ever-present problem of how to pay for Universal Health Care are factors this country is not prepared to surmount." The author did an effective job of presenting ideas that are being discussed in their writing while making their point of view clear. However, it seem the author has let their personal opinion bleed through – not everyone will agree with that statement. The first claim this author makes is that government regulation is unfavorable. The evidence provided relies on the reader’s emotions and empirical evidence, in other words evidence that is based off of experience or observation. "Government management could result in patients having fewer choices about what doctors they can see. It would also mean that patients would receive worse care or have to wait longer to receive care." This evidence provided is found through observation and reasoning by the author. The author does not provide any factual evidence for this claim, which makes the claim harder to believe. Next, the author states that while Universal Health Care is a great idea in theory, there is no smart way to pay for it. "2 trillion dollars are spent on health care each year. That's more than $6,000 per person." This is statistical evidence and the author uses it to effectively make their point. On the surface, the author seems to have strengthened their argument; however, it is unclear if this evidence is true or realistic. Many people would argue that they have not paid $6,000 on health care for themselves in the past year. The author uses this information and Logos, or logic and reason, to reason and observe that a Universal Health Care System would cost too much. The author also uses logic to reason that money would have to be taken from other areas of the government such as Education and Public Defense to fund health care. Again, this evidence