Universal Health Care Argument Analysis

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

Furthermore, this idea is supported by an estimate from Fred Lampropoulos, the CEO of medical device maker, Merit Medical Systems, and he estimated that the taxes produced by the ACA would “cost his company as much as 7 million a year”(Tennant). This argument that universal health care is a detriment to the economy is supported heavily by facts as mentioned by Tennant. On the other hand, the arguments against universal healthcare contain little facts and are presented in a logical and emotional basis. One article by Jeff Gelles includes both logical and emotional arguments. Gelles proposes the question of what would happen if potential business owners are scared of starting a business because of factors unrelated to business (Gelles). He then answers the question by saying that “the economy as a whole must be hurt”(Gelles). Gelles uses logic to further along the argument that universal health care would benefit the economy by saying that without universal health care the economy would be hurt because entrepreneurs would be “scared off” by the lack of a healthcare plan (Gelles). Gelles presents the same argument again, but with an emotional basis, he presents this argument by giving an anecdote about

This argument for universal healthcare argues that the Affordable Care Act is saving citizens money. This is backed up with a firm basis in facts. This speech from former U.S. President Barack Obama says that people are saving money because many can buy a health care plan for “less than 75” dollars per month (Remarks on the). Another way people are saving money is through cheaper prescription medicine, Obama says that 90,000 senior citizens in Wisconsin, because of the ACA have saved over a thousand dollars (Remarks on the). A different argument, this one against universal healthcare, because it reduces the liberty of the people, does not have a basis in facts but instead emotion and logic. Chris Conover’s article uses logic and emotion to appeal to the reader making his argument weaker as opposed to Obama’s argument containing a basis in facts. Conover puts an idea in the reader’s mind, a question. Conover says that most people can survive much longer without health care than food, but he says that lawmakers do not impose any restrictions on the freedom of choice while healthcare does (Conover). This is an appeal to the reader’s emotion side, a use of pathos to have the reader empathize with his view that