The healthcare issue has become one of the most hard-pressing questions in American politics. Every major US election causes another round of heated discussion around the national healthcare systems. Some experts claim that while the current system has problems, it is correct at its core, while others argue for a transition to a so-called “single-payer” healthcare system funded by the government. While which party is inherently right is up for debate, analyzing the evidence supporting their claims can present interest on its own. For the needs of this paper, the former party will be referred to as “conservative” and their opponents as “liberal.”
The Dangers of Medicare for All
Healthcare was once again a critical aspect of the 2020 electoral campaign, especially in the light of the COVID-19 outbreak. “Conservative” point of view was represented by Scott W. Atlas, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His evidence for keeping the core of the current healthcare system can be divided into two types: emotional and statistical. The emotional side of the evidence was split between the beginning and the end of the article.
For instance, in the front, Atlas claimed that single-payer projects would lead to the destruction of all medicare. At the end of the article, he listed suggestions, which will facilitate access, choice, and quality — the things that Americans expect from the healthcare system (Atlas, 2020). The statistical side of the evidence was backed by the numbers, proving the financial challenges of medicare. For example, Atlas (2020) pointed at the possible depletion of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund by 2026 and the deteriorating health of the American population, which will make the proposed single-payer system unsustainable. Therefore, he advocated for mostly keeping the current state of healthcare.
Medicare For All: The Social Transformation Of US Health Care
Two weeks later, Atlas was opposed by the “liberal” side in the face of Peter S. Arno and Philip Caper. While their views on the condition and perspectives of the American healthcare system were opposite, the structure of their argument and the types of evidence used were similar to Atlas’s article. Arno and Caper started with demonstrative evidence by blaming corporate entities that are more focused on generating wealth than helping their patients (Arno & Caper, 2020).
Then, they listed issues of the American healthcare system, such as inadequate insurance for 88 million US adults or the overall weak position of the USA in terms of various health indicators (Arno & Caper, 2020). Finally, they came to an emotional conclusion that the root of the deadlock which prevents the USA from implementing affordable single-payer healthcare lies within the US political system, which is unable to curb greedy medical foundations. The style and approach to forming the argument were close to the ones used by Atlas.
The Use Of Facts and Sources
It can be argued that while the views on a situation were opposite, the structure of the argument and the logic behind it were shared. Both Atlas and his opponents used several debatable thesis-like statements and reinforced their opinions with statistics suitable for their needs. Even more, they were correct with the application of numbers and duly provided hyperlinks to numerical data behind their evidence.
However, while both articles were written in a proper academic style and referred to credible data to support their evidence, neither of them can be seen as entirely objective. The reason for that is political circumstances, which caused the experts to be selective in their choice of sources. In the end, both articles appeared to be convincing political propaganda rather than an academic take on the American healthcare system.
Atlas, S W. (2020). The dangers of medicare for all. The New York Times. Web.
Arno, P S., Caper, P. (2020). Medicare for all: The social transformation of US health care. Health Affairs. Web.