Essay 2 and 3 Reflection

The most significant difference I experienced while composing Essay 3 was that in order to craft an argument that I believed would persuade someone who was opposed to Universal Healthcare I had to consider far more in depth how they might think. Constantly I had to imagine myself in their shoes so that I could theorize there most likely rebuttal to points I made, with this information I could then go on to disprove their likely thoughts. In essay 2 I did not have to do this, I only had to analyze what I saw in front of me and display my thoughts in a way that might appeal to my audience. Essay 3 also provided far more room for passion. It is much easier for me to write an essay on a topic that I feel strongly about than it is to give analysis to the colors found in old ads. Credibility of sources was also a problem unique to Essay 3. Even though I found many statistics that supported my view I could not use them due to a lack of credibility, unlike in Essay 2 where very little citation was needed at all. Overall I enjoyed Essay 3 more but found Essay 2 to be easier due to its arguably more objective nature.

Essay 3 Final Draft

“When they favor the access of other people to education and health care, the countries of the North not only demonstrate generosity or solidarity, but also implement the principles of respecting and promoting human rights.” Omar Bongo, former President of Gabon

            At some point in American history it was decided that if a person’s house were to catch fire it was an obligation of the state to douse it regardless of whether or not that person had any money to give in return. Instead it was expected the people of the nation would all pay their share to keep a socialized fire department in place. Similarly, it was also decided that if a crime was committed against someone the police would assist regardless of the individual’s wealth, for how can there be justice in our nation if it only exists for those who can afford it? So why is it still that in America if someone falls ill we allow for it to bankrupt them? Just as various private sectors have already been publicized for the greater benefit of our nation, it is now time for health care to become universal.

            To many this is a radical idea, one that could only be conceivable in a communist dystopia, but that is simply not the case. Many may be surprised to hear, but steps towards universal healthcare have already been taken decades ago and continue to be done. The incredibly effective Medicare and Medicaid programs are in essence socialized healthcare. Roughly 50 million American Citizens currently are enrolled in Medicare (KFF) and roughly 8.7 million are enrolled in Medicaid (Medicaid), although it should be noted there is sizable overlap between enrollees of the two programs. The vast majority of these people are elderly, sick, disabled, and/or impoverished and would be unable to afford health care without these programs. Although these programs are steps in the right direction they are not enough. Even those who implemented many of America’s current health care programs such as Lyndon B Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Barack Obama have shown support for the eventual adoption of universal healthcare and it is with no surprise. The only surprising thing is that the US is one of the only major countries, joined only by China and India, to have not yet instituted universal healthcare.

When it comes to economics many may disagree over which system is the superior one but in terms of morality there is little room to dissent on the statement that Universal Health Care is by far the most moral system. To tie the health of an American citizen to his or her income is inherently immoral, to have the wealthy few favored while the impoverished many scorned is an unjust system that a government which is said to be by the people, for the people should have no business in supporting. A common argument is that collecting taxes to pay for a health care program is by nature immoral since enforced taxation is no different from thievery. There is merit to this claim, but by its logic all taxation by which the government operates on is inherently immoral and should be ceased immediately, resulting in the complete elimination of the American Government. Although this stance on universal health care is a valid one to take it is not one that can be held without also favoring for an entire government shutdown indefinitely, which is sure to do far more damage than benefit. Others may argue that taxation itself is fine but taxation in order to support entitlement programs for those deemed unworthy, or freeloaders, should not be allowed. Once again if this logic is to be continued that would mean other programs such as public schools, the fire department, and the police should all be discontinued. If a 6 year old hasn’t contributed to society then why should we have to pay taxes to send him to first grade?

            Some may argue that universal health care is inherently inferior to privatized health care, without the competition of the free market doctors will provide subpar treatments and raise prices. In theory this makes sense but in practice it is proved wrong. Countries such as Sweden, Denmark, the UK, and many more all have socialized there health care to a high degree and consistently score at the top of every conceivable health care rating. On the contrary the US consistently scores near or at the bottom of health care rankings for major countries. How can this be? As Bill Frist said, “America has the best doctors, the best nurses, the best hospitals, the best medical technology, [and] the best medical breakthrough medicines in the world. There is absolutely no reason we should not have in this country the best health care in the world.” It defies all logic that even despite the US’ clear advantage in nearly all medical resources that we do not have the best health care in the world. So what is the disconnect that occurs between having the best resources yet some of the worst results? It all comes down to our government’s allowance of private companies to seek profit even at the expense of the American citizen. Currently the cost of total health care per capita expenditure in the US is 9,146$, while the cost of many better performing countries ranges from 3,500-5,500$ on average (World Health Organization). Despite our lower health care quality and lower health care enrollment rates we still expend far more money than any other nation. So where does this excess money reside since it is obviously not being committed to the actual provision of health care. Quite simply it goes to company executives, advertisements, and various other unnecessary expenditures. It may seem counterintuitive but allowing for the health care market to be privatized does not drive down costs for the consumer but instead drives them up. Private companies will first and foremost work to secure their own profits, they will charge as much as possible to the consumer to accomplish this. If every health care company decides to charge more than necessary to increase profits for themselves there is little in place to stop them. This is exactly what is happening now in our current system, leading to billions being wasted every year. If not for the Affordable Care Act mandating that 80% of all money held by health insurance companies be committed to the provision of health care even more would be wasted. As is, health insurance companies straddle the 80% line as closely as possible, often passing below it effectively through the use of loopholes and inefficient bureaucracy networks. Even though some restraints have been placed on insurance providers by the government, the same has not been true for other health care industries such as the pharmaceuticals. In pharmaceutical companies only an average of 17.9% (Statista) of all funds is spent towards research and development of drugs, while the remainder goes towards executive pay and self-promotion of the company. In essence this means less than 1/5 of the entire pharmaceutical market goes towards the actual provision of pharmaceutics. In a universal system practically all funds of pharmaceutical industries go towards the provision of pharmaceutics since there is no need to advertise a company when there is no competition nor is there a need to pay or employ executives when they do not exist. This is what the majority of other major countries have done and it has been proven to work.

            Maybe it is just coincidence that the implementation of Universal Healthcare has worked so well in other countries. Perhaps doing the same in America would even end up being more expensive. An analysis by Gerald Friedman, Economics Professor at the University of Massachusetts, determined that implementing a universal health care system would add 15 trillion dollars of expenditure to the government over the course of 10 years, or about 1.5 trillion per year. This is completely true, incorporating Universal Healthcare would raise government expenditure by about 15 trillion over the course of ten years, but what many forget to mention when citing such a statistic is that it will save over 5 trillion net dollars in the same amount of time, to put it in perspective this is enough money to eliminate all government deficit for the next ten years if it continues at the current rate. Even though more money is being spent by the government in order to support a universal system, less money is being spent overall. It is predicted that currently over the course of the next 10 years an average of 20 trillion dollars will be spent in the public sector for programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, while in the private sector another 20 trillion will be spent. This results in a net of 40 trillion net for our current health care system. Now looking back to the Universal system, a total of 15 trillion will be added to the public sector but all private sector expenditures will be eliminated, meaning the net will end up as 35 trillion, 5 trillion less than the privatized system, all while insuring absolutely every American citizen in comparison to the only 88.96% that are insured currently (United States Census Bureau), which equates to roughly 45 million American residents currently being completely uninsured or gravely underinsured (AMSA). There is no doubt that a Universal system is more cost effective than our privatized system.

            To allow for the wealthiest government to have ever existed to not fulfill the role of which democratic governments were created for, to seek to fulfill the common needs shared by the majority of citizens, is a failure of democracy. To allow for 5 trillion dollars to be wasted over the next 10 years to support a corrupt system, one that is found wanting in even its insurance of the general population, is a failure of economic policy. To allow for millions of families to be lacking of the health care they so desperately need, but cannot obtain because of their poverty, is a failure of morality. The decision to implement Universal Healthcare is not one that requires hesitance.

Citations

Chua, Kao-Ping. "The Moral Case for Universal Health Care". American Medical Student Association. American    ………..Medical Student Association. Web Mar. 2015.

           

http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.78?lang=en

“Health Expenditure Per Capita”. Global Health Observatory. World Health Organization. Web 12 May. 2015.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-253.pdf

Smith, Jessica and Medalia, Carla. “Health Insurance Coverage in the United States” United States Census Bureau. ………..United States Census Bureau. Web Sep. 2015.

           

http://www.statista.com/statistics/265100/us-pharmaceutical-industry-spending-on-research-and-development-since-1990/

“Spending of US Pharmaceutical Industry for Research and Development” Statista. Statista. Web. 2015.

http://kff.org/medicare/state-indicator/total-medicare-beneficiaries/

“Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries”. The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation. KFF. Web. 2013.

http://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-population/medicare-medicaid-enrollees-dual-eligibles/seniors-and-medicare-and-medicaid-enrollees.html

“Seniors & Medicare and Medicaid Enrollees”. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid. Medicaid. Web. 2015.

In Class Lab: Analyzing an Argument

Anthony Heaps:

1. The claim is that meditation and other stress mitigation techniques should be incorporated into early education. The thesis is clearly states multiple times.
2. The reasons given are that stress management skills lead to healthier, happier, more productive members of society. Much evidence is provided, a mix of statistics and testimonials. The reasons prove to be sufficient
3. There are mentions of dissenting opinion and the author deals with them fairly in his deconstruction of them. He acknowledges and responds to them reasonably and respectfully. His own arguments are appropriately qualified though sometimes broad.
4. They are used to validate claims he has made beforehand. They are mostly credible although .com sites are mentioned. They are all current
5. The author assumes very little except for some common sense in the reader. His language is very inclusively based. I sense we share the belief that a happier less stressed population is a better one.

Josh Miller (absent):

1.The author is trying to make the point that the legalization of recreational marijuana benefits us through taxation. The thesis is stated explicitly.
2. The primary reason he applies is that the taxation of recreational marijuana can be put towards many great programs that help children, effectively causing more benefit than harm. He provides ample statistics that show just how much money has been put towards programs because of recreational marijuana. They provide sufficient support for his reasons.
3. There are acknowledgements of counter arguments, the author deals with them through fair rebuttal, in a  respectful way. His arguments are appropriately qualified.
4. The sources of authority he provides are statistics and they are used to qualify his own claims. They are credible and unbiased being as they are publicly released numbers by State Governments. They are current.
5. The author makes no assumptions of the readers knowledge on the issue. His language is neutral, neither excluding nor including the reader, although it leans slightly more towards inclusive. I sense that the author and I both share the belief that recreational marijuana should be legalized and taxed and also that funding education programs is very important.

Universal Health Care Argument Rough Draft Version 2

“When they favor the access of other people to education and health care, the countries of the North not only demonstrate generosity or solidarity, but also implement the principles of respecting and promoting human rights.” Omar Bongo, former President of Gabon

At some point in American history it was decided that if a person’s house were to catch fire it was an obligation of the state to douse it regardless of whether or not that person had any money to give in return. Instead it was expected the people of the nation would all pay their share to keep a socialized fire department in place. Similarly, it was also decided that if a crime was committed against someone the police would assist regardless of the individual’s wealth, for how can there be justice in our nation if it only exists for the rich? So why is it still that in America if someone falls ill we allow for it to bankrupt them? Just as various private sectors have already been publicized for the greater benefit of our nation, it is now time for health care to become universal.

To many this is a radical idea, one that could only be conceivable in a communist dystopia, but that is simply not the case. Many may be surprised to hear, but steps towards universal healthcare have already been taken decades ago and continue to be done. The incredibly effective Medicare and Medicaid programs are in essence socialized healthcare. Roughly 50 million American Citizens currently are enrolled in Medicare (KFF) and roughly 8.7 million are enrolled in Medicaid (Medicaid), although it should be noted there is sizable overlap between enrollees of the two programs. The vast majority of these people are elderly, sick, disabled, and/or impoverished and would be unable to afford health care without these programs. Although these programs are steps in the right direction they are not enough. Even those who implemented many of America’s current health care programs such as Lyndon B Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Barack Obama have shown support for the eventual adoption of universal healthcare and it is with no surprise. The only surprising thing is that the US is one of the only major countries, joined only by China and India, to have not yet instituted universal healthcare.

When it comes to economics many may disagree over which system is the superior one but in terms of morality there is little room to dissent on the statement that Universal Health Care is by far the most moral health care system. To tie the health of an American citizen to his or her income is inherently immoral, to have the wealthy few favored while the impoverished many scorned is an unjust system that a government which is said to be by the people, for the people should have no business in supporting. A common argument is that collecting taxes to pay for a health care program is by nature immoral since enforced taxation is no different from thievery. There is merit to this claim but by its logic all taxation by which the government operates on is inherently immoral and should be ceased immediately, resulting in the complete elimination of the American Government. Although this stance on universal health care is a valid one to take it is not one that can be held without also favoring for an entire government shutdown indefinitely, which is sure to do far more damage than benefit. Others may argue that taxation itself is fine but taxation in order to support entitlement programs for those deemed unworthy, or freeloaders, should not be allowed. But once again if this logic is to be continued that would mean other programs such as public schools, the fire department, and the police should all be discontinued. If a 6 year old hasn’t contributed to society then why should we have to pay taxes to send him to first grade?

Some may argue that universal health care is inherently inferior to privatized health care, without the competition of the free market doctors will provide subpar treatments and raise prices. In theory this makes sense but in practice it is proved wrong. Countries such as Sweden, Denmark, the UK, and many more all have socialized there health care to a high degree and consistently score at the top of every conceivable health care rating. On the contrary the US consistently scores near or at the bottom of health care rankings for major countries. How can this be? As Bill Frist said, “America has the best doctors, the best nurses, the best hospitals, the best medical technology, [and] the best medical breakthrough medicines in the world. There is absolutely no reason we should not have in this country the best health care in the world.” It defies all logic that even despite the US’ clear advantage in nearly all medical resources that we do not have the best health care in the world. So what is the disconnect that occurs between having the best resources yet some of the worst results? It all comes down to our government’s allowance of private companies to seek profit even at the expense of the American citizen. Currently the cost of total health care per capita expenditure in the US is 9,146$, while the cost of many better performing countries ranges from 3,500-5,500$ on average (World Health Organization). Despite our lower health care quality and lower health care enrollment rates we still expend far more money than any other nation. So where does this excess money reside since it is obviously not being committed to the actual provision of health care. Quite simply it goes to company executives, advertisements, and various other unnecessary expenditures. It may seem counterintuitive but allowing for the health care market to be privatized does not drive down costs for the consumer but instead drives them up. Private companies will first and foremost work to secure their own profits, they will charge as much as possible to the consumer to accomplish this. If every health care company decides to charge more than necessary to increase profits for themselves there is little in place to stop them. This is exactly what is happening now in our current system, leading to billions being wasted every year. If not for the Affordable Care Act mandating that 80% of all money held by health insurance companies be committed to the provision of health care even more would be wasted. As is, health insurance companies straddle the 80% line as closely as possible, often passing below it effectively through the use of loopholes and inefficient bureaucracy networks. Even though some restraints have been placed on insurance providers by the government, the same has not been true for other health care industries such as the pharmaceuticals. In pharmaceutical companies only an average of 17.9% (Statista) of all funds is spent towards research and development of drugs, while the remainder goes towards executive pay and self-promotion of the company. In essence this means less than 1/5 of the entire pharmaceutical market goes towards the actual provision of pharmaceutics. So much for a free market bringing down costs. In a universal system practically all funds of pharmaceutical industries go towards the provision of pharmaceutics since there is no need to advertise a company when there is no competition nor is there a need to pay or employ executives when they do not exist. This is what the majority of other major countries have done and it has been proven to work.

Maybe it is just coincidence that the implementation of universal health care has worked so well in other countries. Perhaps doing the same in America would even end up being more expensive. An analysis by Gerald Friedman, Economics Professor at the University of Massachusetts, determined that implementing a universal health care system would add 15 trillion dollars of expenditure to the government over the course of 10 years, or about 1.5 trillion per year. This is completely true, incorporating universal health care would raise government expenditure by about 15 trillion over the course of ten years, but what many forget to mention when citing such a statistic is that it will save over 5 trillion net dollars in the same amount of time, to put it in perspective this is enough money to eliminate all government deficit for the next ten years if it continues at the current rate. Even though more money is being spent by the government in order to support a universal system, less money is being spent overall. It is predicted that over the course of the next 10 years an average of 20 trillion dollars will be spent in the public sector for programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, while in the private sector another 20 trillion will be spent. This results in a net of 40 trillion net for our current health care system. Now looking back to the Universal system, a total of 15 trillion will be added to the public sector but all private sector expenditures will be eliminated, meaning the net will end up as 35 trillion, 5 trillion less than the privatized system, all while insuring absolutely every American citizens in comparison to the only 88.96% that are insured currently (United States Census Bureau), which equates to roughly 45 million American residents currently being completely uninsured or gravely underinsured (AMSA). There is no doubt that a Universal system is more cost effective.

Conclusion not finished.

Citations

Chua, Kao-Ping. "The Moral Case for Universal Health Care". American Medical Student Association. American Medical Student Association. Web Mar. 2015.

http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.78?lang=en
“Health Expenditure Per Capita”. Global Health Observatory. World Health Organization. Web 12 May. 2015.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-253.pdf
Smith, Jessica and Carla Medalia, Carla. “Health Insurance Coverage in the United States” United States Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau. Web Sep. 2015.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/265100/us-pharmaceutical-industry-spending-on-research-and-development-since-1990/
“Spending of US Pharmaceutical Industry for Research and Development” Statista. Web. 2015.

http://kff.org/medicare/state-indicator/total-medicare-beneficiaries/
“Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries”. The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation. KFF. Web. 2013.

http://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-population/medicare-medicaid-enrollees-dual-eligibles/seniors-and-medicare-and-medicaid-enrollees.html
“Seniors & Medicare and Medicaid Enrollees”. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid. Medicaid. Web. 2015.