Thesis statement : While both of these qualified men write very compelling arguments, they fall short in areas of using methodical logic in their appeals to the American people.
Opening sentences of paragraphs.
1. President Obama starts off his article, "Why We Need Health Care Reform" recognizing the great debate taking place across America over health care reform.
2. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, casts a completely different light in his article, "We get the last word on health care reform."
3. Now, while Both President Obama, and Former Speaker Newt Gingrich present legitimate arguing points to their side of the debate, they fail to back up their positions with hard evidence.
4. Former Speaker Gingrich also delivers a good argument for his side, but also fails to present any kind of evidence to support his claims, and does not offer a counter-proposal to President Obama's plan.
5. So, in closing, do these two articles provide a much-needed discussion on the issue, while covering all the angles, the pathos, the ethos, and the logos of the debate?
6. Without a doubt, health care reform is one of the biggest domestic policy decisions made in several decades, arguably, since the civil rights movement.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Journal 5
In this journal we went over various aspects of how different papers persuade audiences, and how we as writers can use our writing to influence an audience's perception of a subject. There are several ways to do this. An author can choose a controversial subject to write on, and make an argument for either side. Sometimes a writer will write an article with a specific audience in mind, and make a case for an issue. As audience members though, we should also realize that writer's themselves will usually have a bias on a subject, or may simply not know all the facts at hand. This is an angle of vision. When a reader analyzes an article by a writer, they need to realize that the writer is only human, and that they can never possibly know all of the facts to a subject, facts that might change how a subject can be perceived. When a reader looks at any kind of text, they should try to analyze the worldview that that text is conveying. Some types of writing material will try to make readers identify with certain worldviews, or to simply convey expressions or feelings. A reader should keep all of these possibilities in mind when reading a text.
Another aspect of study that we went over was the ability of writers to make proposals to society about current issues. Writers can make proposals to solutions of difficult issues from several approaches. They can argue an issue from principle, which is similar to appealing to the ethos of an issue. They can write as an argument about the consequences of certain actions, desirable or otherwise. They can also make arguments or proposals for solutions based upon solutions from similar historical problems. The challenge of proposal arguments, is that you can find yourself at times arguing against the grain of society on an issue. Societies are naturally resistant to change, and tackling any of these kind of issue will always be challenging. Even if it is an issue that is not necessarily controversial, writers trying to propose solutions to problems will have to come up with these solutions.
There are many different ways to create arguments, such as making posters, web pages, writing articles to newspapers, or other means. Individuals can also take opportunities to contact members of Congress or lawmaking authorities to propose solutions to problems. When you do send a letter, or write an article, you should give a good background of the issue. Describing the problem in detail will help readers understand why it should be a good idea to change an issue, or accept your solution to a problem. After this, you can then make a proposal for a solution, and show how it would work and why. After you make a proposal, then you need to justify why people should adopt this plan, and what benefits it would bring. These are several methods writers can use to give possible solutions to problems facing a society.
Another aspect of study that we went over was the ability of writers to make proposals to society about current issues. Writers can make proposals to solutions of difficult issues from several approaches. They can argue an issue from principle, which is similar to appealing to the ethos of an issue. They can write as an argument about the consequences of certain actions, desirable or otherwise. They can also make arguments or proposals for solutions based upon solutions from similar historical problems. The challenge of proposal arguments, is that you can find yourself at times arguing against the grain of society on an issue. Societies are naturally resistant to change, and tackling any of these kind of issue will always be challenging. Even if it is an issue that is not necessarily controversial, writers trying to propose solutions to problems will have to come up with these solutions.
There are many different ways to create arguments, such as making posters, web pages, writing articles to newspapers, or other means. Individuals can also take opportunities to contact members of Congress or lawmaking authorities to propose solutions to problems. When you do send a letter, or write an article, you should give a good background of the issue. Describing the problem in detail will help readers understand why it should be a good idea to change an issue, or accept your solution to a problem. After this, you can then make a proposal for a solution, and show how it would work and why. After you make a proposal, then you need to justify why people should adopt this plan, and what benefits it would bring. These are several methods writers can use to give possible solutions to problems facing a society.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Final Draft of Comparison of sources
Is health care reform truly needed? This is a question that is being tackled by many groups this very moment. Members of both sides of the debate are working tirelessly to defend their points of view. Among the several high-profile officials involved in this debate are; President Barack Obama, and Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.The President of the United States, Barack Obama, wrote an op-ed article to the New York Times, titled "Why We Need Health Care Reform" on August 16th, 2009. The former Speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, also wrote an op-ed also in The Examiner, titled "We get last word on health care reform" on September 4, 2009. In their articles, they present vastly different views on the same topic, and make robust arguments for their cases. This paper will be an analysis of the arguments that both President Obama, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich make for their side. While both of these qualified men write very compelling arguments, they fall short in areas of using methodical logic in their appeals to the American people.
President Obama starts off his article, "Why We Need Health Care Reform" recognizing the great debate taking place across America over health care reform. After this, he proceeds to recount his experiences of talking with individuals about health care. He mentions several instances where the current health insurance system has led to denial of claims, which have resulted in extremely high costs for the individuals, or even death in some cases. Most of his article makes a strong attempt to relate health care to average Americans. After having made his argument on denial of claims, President Obama switches gears and moves to a description of the type of health reform he wants to see in a bill. He proceeds to argue that we need cuts in "waste and inefficiency" ( Obama par. 6) and that we also need to rein in subsidies to insurance companies. The article continues with an argument supporting an end to the practice of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. President Obama also spends a large part of the article defending the measures of the bill, and arguing that the health care plan will not adversely affect Americans' choice of their doctor, or care provider. In closing, President Obama concludes that Americans will come together, and support the health care reform.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, casts a completely different light in his article, "We get the last word on health care reform." He begins his argument by criticizing President Obama for attempting to control the health care debate, and compares him to two other Presidents who he claims, had great orating skills like President Obama, but recognized that they can't control debate. He then brings up, and criticizes President Obama's "America's Recovery and Re-Investment act" for spending too much and failing to help the economy. He then asserts that President Obama, and Democrats in Congress are losing the debate on health care, and risk damaging their position by keeping their same arguing points. Speaker Gingrich then continues to claim that the health care reform efforts will lead to a "big government plan" (par.9). After making these claims, Former Speaker Gingrich mentions another health reform effort in recent history by then-President Clinton, and compares his response then, to the debate now. That it would be impossible to get a comprehensive health care reform passed in one giant bill. He asserts that the best way to get reform, is to spread the bill out in several smaller bills that would be easier to read and understand, and would also give the minority opposition opportunities to come to the table with their own ideas. He summarizes, and concludes the argument with a call for multiple bills, and a statement that this approach is more democratic than President Obama's "take it or leave it strategy" (par.19)
Now, while Both President Obama, and Former Speaker Newt Gingrich present legitimate arguing points to their side of the debate, they fail to back up their positions with hard evidence. First off, President Obama's op-ed article presents a great opening argument for health care reform by citing individuals that he has met, and stories of people who have talked to him. He makes a strong emotional appeal to the humanity of the issue, and an attempt to relate these stories and scenarios to everyday Americans. There are several instances in his article where he relates the potential consequences of avoiding health care reform, with statements like "If we continue to maintain the status quo, we will see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day." (par. 17), and the benefits of adopting it, such as the statement "... reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses, and our government." (par. 6). Now, while President Obama does as mentioned before, make a compelling argument based on pathos, the emotion of the issue, he lacks an appeal to the logos, or logical side of the argument. In the article he cites support from the American Medical Association, the American nurses association, the AARP, and a national survey done in 2007. However he does not name any of the sources for several of the conclusions in his article, and as a reader, a lack thereof may discourage you from adopting his ideas.
Former Speaker Gingrich also delivers a good argument for his side, but also fails to present any kind of evidence to support his claims, and does not offer a counter-proposal to President Obama's plan. At the onset of his article, Former Speaker Gingrich criticized President Obama for trying to "control the debate" (par. 2) as well as failing to deliver on the stimulus package he proposed and passed in early 2009. While Mr. Gingrich may have some legitimacy to his argument as to the effectiveness of these programs, and the potential of the new health care plan to be costly and ineffective, he does not cite any studies done to prove this. Mr. Gingrich also does not change the tone of his paper from a strictly argument-based approach. Mr. Gingrich makes appeals to pathos, emotion in his paper to the general mistrust of government ability that is widely accepted by his party members and base. He continues this appeal, with statements such as describing the plan as a "liberal health care bill" (par. 7) and "the same old, big government plan in prettier rhetorical paper." (par. 7) After making these points, Mr. Gingrich offers a possible alternative plan to Democrats proposals, with dividing the bill in several parts. This kind of idea still appeals to the emotion of the issue to the party base mostly. It could also be viewed as an appeal to a logical, methodical approach to health care that arguably, would give the reform a better chance at openness and bipartisanship.
So, in closing, do these two articles provide a much-needed discussion on the issue, while covering all the angles, the pathos, the ethos, and the logos of the debate? President Obama makes a strong case for the pathos of the issue, with his references to the hardships that many individuals have experienced from the current health care system. He also makes an appeal at the logical side of the argument, with some references to a national survey done, as well as the support of overhaul by three major organizations. His argument is strong, but it does lack a sufficient amount of factual data and statistics to cause me to support his position. On the other side of the debate, Former Speaker Gingrich made several appeals to pathos, but mostly to members of his own party, and Americans who may be distrusting of government influence. He provides for some possible alternative solutions to the health reforms, but does little to provide any data or evidence to support his claims of government inefficiency and waste in this potential system. As a reader, I was also disappointed with his article for failing to draw on any hard evidence to support his positions.
Without a doubt, health care reform is one of the biggest domestic policy decisions made in several decades, arguably, since the civil rights movement. It will have long lasting, and far-reaching effects to every American, and possibly nations and people outside of the country. With a topic of this magnitude, politicians can't afford to let personal preferences and opinions to get in the way of evidence and facts. Without these in hand with reform, any effort will simply degrade to whoever can argue the best, or who can shout the loudest.
Works Cited
Obama, Barack. "Why We Need Health Care Reform." New York Times. Web.
16, August 2009. Copyright 2009. The New York Times Company.
Gingrich, Newt. "We Get Last Word On Health Care Reform." The Washington Examiner. Web.
4 September 2009.
care-reform-8194219-57010122.html>
President Obama starts off his article, "Why We Need Health Care Reform" recognizing the great debate taking place across America over health care reform. After this, he proceeds to recount his experiences of talking with individuals about health care. He mentions several instances where the current health insurance system has led to denial of claims, which have resulted in extremely high costs for the individuals, or even death in some cases. Most of his article makes a strong attempt to relate health care to average Americans. After having made his argument on denial of claims, President Obama switches gears and moves to a description of the type of health reform he wants to see in a bill. He proceeds to argue that we need cuts in "waste and inefficiency" ( Obama par. 6) and that we also need to rein in subsidies to insurance companies. The article continues with an argument supporting an end to the practice of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. President Obama also spends a large part of the article defending the measures of the bill, and arguing that the health care plan will not adversely affect Americans' choice of their doctor, or care provider. In closing, President Obama concludes that Americans will come together, and support the health care reform.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, casts a completely different light in his article, "We get the last word on health care reform." He begins his argument by criticizing President Obama for attempting to control the health care debate, and compares him to two other Presidents who he claims, had great orating skills like President Obama, but recognized that they can't control debate. He then brings up, and criticizes President Obama's "America's Recovery and Re-Investment act" for spending too much and failing to help the economy. He then asserts that President Obama, and Democrats in Congress are losing the debate on health care, and risk damaging their position by keeping their same arguing points. Speaker Gingrich then continues to claim that the health care reform efforts will lead to a "big government plan" (par.9). After making these claims, Former Speaker Gingrich mentions another health reform effort in recent history by then-President Clinton, and compares his response then, to the debate now. That it would be impossible to get a comprehensive health care reform passed in one giant bill. He asserts that the best way to get reform, is to spread the bill out in several smaller bills that would be easier to read and understand, and would also give the minority opposition opportunities to come to the table with their own ideas. He summarizes, and concludes the argument with a call for multiple bills, and a statement that this approach is more democratic than President Obama's "take it or leave it strategy" (par.19)
Now, while Both President Obama, and Former Speaker Newt Gingrich present legitimate arguing points to their side of the debate, they fail to back up their positions with hard evidence. First off, President Obama's op-ed article presents a great opening argument for health care reform by citing individuals that he has met, and stories of people who have talked to him. He makes a strong emotional appeal to the humanity of the issue, and an attempt to relate these stories and scenarios to everyday Americans. There are several instances in his article where he relates the potential consequences of avoiding health care reform, with statements like "If we continue to maintain the status quo, we will see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day." (par. 17), and the benefits of adopting it, such as the statement "... reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses, and our government." (par. 6). Now, while President Obama does as mentioned before, make a compelling argument based on pathos, the emotion of the issue, he lacks an appeal to the logos, or logical side of the argument. In the article he cites support from the American Medical Association, the American nurses association, the AARP, and a national survey done in 2007. However he does not name any of the sources for several of the conclusions in his article, and as a reader, a lack thereof may discourage you from adopting his ideas.
Former Speaker Gingrich also delivers a good argument for his side, but also fails to present any kind of evidence to support his claims, and does not offer a counter-proposal to President Obama's plan. At the onset of his article, Former Speaker Gingrich criticized President Obama for trying to "control the debate" (par. 2) as well as failing to deliver on the stimulus package he proposed and passed in early 2009. While Mr. Gingrich may have some legitimacy to his argument as to the effectiveness of these programs, and the potential of the new health care plan to be costly and ineffective, he does not cite any studies done to prove this. Mr. Gingrich also does not change the tone of his paper from a strictly argument-based approach. Mr. Gingrich makes appeals to pathos, emotion in his paper to the general mistrust of government ability that is widely accepted by his party members and base. He continues this appeal, with statements such as describing the plan as a "liberal health care bill" (par. 7) and "the same old, big government plan in prettier rhetorical paper." (par. 7) After making these points, Mr. Gingrich offers a possible alternative plan to Democrats proposals, with dividing the bill in several parts. This kind of idea still appeals to the emotion of the issue to the party base mostly. It could also be viewed as an appeal to a logical, methodical approach to health care that arguably, would give the reform a better chance at openness and bipartisanship.
So, in closing, do these two articles provide a much-needed discussion on the issue, while covering all the angles, the pathos, the ethos, and the logos of the debate? President Obama makes a strong case for the pathos of the issue, with his references to the hardships that many individuals have experienced from the current health care system. He also makes an appeal at the logical side of the argument, with some references to a national survey done, as well as the support of overhaul by three major organizations. His argument is strong, but it does lack a sufficient amount of factual data and statistics to cause me to support his position. On the other side of the debate, Former Speaker Gingrich made several appeals to pathos, but mostly to members of his own party, and Americans who may be distrusting of government influence. He provides for some possible alternative solutions to the health reforms, but does little to provide any data or evidence to support his claims of government inefficiency and waste in this potential system. As a reader, I was also disappointed with his article for failing to draw on any hard evidence to support his positions.
Without a doubt, health care reform is one of the biggest domestic policy decisions made in several decades, arguably, since the civil rights movement. It will have long lasting, and far-reaching effects to every American, and possibly nations and people outside of the country. With a topic of this magnitude, politicians can't afford to let personal preferences and opinions to get in the way of evidence and facts. Without these in hand with reform, any effort will simply degrade to whoever can argue the best, or who can shout the loudest.
Works Cited
Obama, Barack. "Why We Need Health Care Reform." New York Times. Web.
16, August 2009. Copyright 2009. The New York Times Company.
Gingrich, Newt. "We Get Last Word On Health Care Reform." The Washington Examiner. Web.
4 September 2009.
care-reform-8194219-57010122.html>
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
New Essay Exam
The Subject of my study is the current health care debate in Congress. My research has taken me to many sources, from both sides for, and against the health care proposals in Congress. There are many opinions on the subject, and much material to choose from, all with many different methods of appealing to an audience. There are also various methods of communicating this to an audience. For right or wrong, these methods are effective, and sometimes destructive. My conclusion of the research that I have done so far, is that this topic is extremely broad-based, and is one that a logical approach is the best to solve.
I have looked at this issue, and done my best to keep an open mind. I have found along the way, that both sides do have legitimate arguments for their favor. I believe that we need medical malpractice reform, but I also believe we need a public option on the table. Americans are clearly divided on the subject. Most polls show the public split right down the middle on support of these reform plans. The greatest risk that we have as average citizens, it to remain uneducated about a reform plan that will affect all of Americans for generations to come.
In this debate on health care, there is a good deal of emotion involved. Throughout the summer of this year, there have been many crowded, raucous town hall meetings filled with people who are upset over the health care system, whether for or against. Also, many people have become fearful that they could lose the insurance that they have with health reform. Without a doubt, the emotional part of this debate has taken hold of the issue at hand, and Americans all around the country are nervous, or angry about the current system.
There have also been several arguments made on behalf of reform, or against it, on the topic of ethics. Critics of the overhaul claim it will lead to rationing of care, while advocates of it state that millions will remain uninsured. In my analysis of these arguments, I think that while you can use the ethical portion for either side, it is an extension of the emotional appeal to the humanity of the situation. While it is definitely effective in rallying opposition, or support of reform, it is my belief that it does not address the issues in the best possible way.
Other types of arguments have been done based on facts, and statistics. Such as costs of reform plans, projected costs of the health care system in the future, as well as a whole host of other studies done by everything from fact check groups, to Universities. When an individual makes a decision about this health care reform, they should do it with the facts in hand, and the ethical considerations as well. The largest problem facing the debate, is the inability for the individual to look beyond their own beliefs, or the beliefs of others to even consider an opposing view to their own. However, I believe that Americans will look for the truth, whatever that may be on an issue such as this, and they will be interested, and concerned with knowing how reform will affect them.
If health care reform is to truly be passed, then the most important thing for Americans to do is to be educated on the issues. We can't afford to take anyone's opinion and make it our own, we have to be willing to do the research, and make the final decision ourselves. Thomas Jefferson had once stated that "the most important component of any democracy, is an educated populace". Americans must take these words to heart.
I have looked at this issue, and done my best to keep an open mind. I have found along the way, that both sides do have legitimate arguments for their favor. I believe that we need medical malpractice reform, but I also believe we need a public option on the table. Americans are clearly divided on the subject. Most polls show the public split right down the middle on support of these reform plans. The greatest risk that we have as average citizens, it to remain uneducated about a reform plan that will affect all of Americans for generations to come.
In this debate on health care, there is a good deal of emotion involved. Throughout the summer of this year, there have been many crowded, raucous town hall meetings filled with people who are upset over the health care system, whether for or against. Also, many people have become fearful that they could lose the insurance that they have with health reform. Without a doubt, the emotional part of this debate has taken hold of the issue at hand, and Americans all around the country are nervous, or angry about the current system.
There have also been several arguments made on behalf of reform, or against it, on the topic of ethics. Critics of the overhaul claim it will lead to rationing of care, while advocates of it state that millions will remain uninsured. In my analysis of these arguments, I think that while you can use the ethical portion for either side, it is an extension of the emotional appeal to the humanity of the situation. While it is definitely effective in rallying opposition, or support of reform, it is my belief that it does not address the issues in the best possible way.
Other types of arguments have been done based on facts, and statistics. Such as costs of reform plans, projected costs of the health care system in the future, as well as a whole host of other studies done by everything from fact check groups, to Universities. When an individual makes a decision about this health care reform, they should do it with the facts in hand, and the ethical considerations as well. The largest problem facing the debate, is the inability for the individual to look beyond their own beliefs, or the beliefs of others to even consider an opposing view to their own. However, I believe that Americans will look for the truth, whatever that may be on an issue such as this, and they will be interested, and concerned with knowing how reform will affect them.
If health care reform is to truly be passed, then the most important thing for Americans to do is to be educated on the issues. We can't afford to take anyone's opinion and make it our own, we have to be willing to do the research, and make the final decision ourselves. Thomas Jefferson had once stated that "the most important component of any democracy, is an educated populace". Americans must take these words to heart.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Essay Exam for October 14, 2009
The health care debate is a furious one raging in our country today. There are many voices, many opinions and conflicting points of view. No solution will present a perfect answer to such a large problem. Millions of Americans are without health insurance. Millions more, cannot gain access to health care due to health insurance company practices. America spends more on its health care system than any nation in the world, yet ranks thirty-seventh overall in care by the World health organization, just ahead of Serbia. There can be no debate, that overhaul is needed.
However, after a good deal of research on the issue, and considerable soul-searching, I believe that we need the current proposals by congress. To not act, would cause irreparable harm to the financial health of our nation, and continue a vicious cycle that leaves millions without access to the care they need.
There are several issues that will be discussed. The impact of the current system on our economy, the lack of effectiveness of the opposition's plans for health care, and finally, the benefits and provisions of the health proposals by Democrats in Congress.
First, there should be no debate that we desperately need reform now. Our health system is the most expensive in the world at 2.5 trillion dollars a year. The budget for health care, Medicaid, Medicare, and related programs is the single, largest expense in the federal budget. According to the Congressional budget office, Health care costs will only continue to skyrocket in time. America pays too much for what we get out of the health care system. Under current practices, Insurance companies can deny coverage at any time to anyone, under the guise of as pre-existing condition. This can leave Millions of Americans who are paying extraordinary amounts of money in health premiums, without care or coverage at any given time. A Study done by Harvard medical and published in the New york times concluded that roughly 44,000 people a year in the U.S. die from lack of coverage. There can be no question in the minds of Americans that reform is needed.
There are several proposals in Congress for health reform. Some offer a public option, essentially an insurance company run by the Federal Government to offer competition to the private insurance companies. Critics of this idea argue that such a plan would put the private sector out of business and pave the way for complete socialized medicine. There are also statements that this sort of system would lead to a "rationing of health care" and "death panels" that would determine what care you can and cannot receive. The fallacy of these arguments, is that they fail to recognize the rationing that already exists by the private insurance companies under the loophole of discrimination based upon a pre-existing condition. Aside from these matters, there have been very few counter-proposals to Democratic plans in Congress. The few plans that have been proposed, would grant tax credits to average Americans to purchase their own health insurance on the private market. The average plan for a family of four is estimated by several agencies to cost $13,000 a year. Americans can't afford that, especially in a time of economic crises.
Now, the current proposal favored by many Democrats in Congress involves the aforementioned public option. This would create a Government-run insurance company that would offer subsidized coverage for American families and businesses to purchase. Opponents of it say it would put the private sector out of business. Without it however, the private sector would not have any incentive to cut costs, and lower premiums for Americans. This government insurance company would be just like the medicare system, except Americans would pay into it at rates lower then their current premiums. The Federal Government, unlike the private sector, would be running this program at cost only, and not for profit. The end result of such a policy, is lower premiums for Americans and their families, lower costs for businesses, and more money back into the hands of average Americans, instead of insurance companies. Contrary to claims by critics, individuals would still be able to go to the doctor of their choice, the hospital of their choice, the only difference between the government plan, and the current options, are lower costs. This plan would also not be allowed to add to the federal deficit, because under a renewed act by congress, it must be paid for in full. Critics of this plan also assert that individuals will be forced immediately into the public plan. This plan does not do away with insurance companies. President Obama and leading democrats in Congress have stated that it will not be subsidized at impossible-to-compete-with rates.
In closing, there have always been opponents of progress. There have been, and always will be special interest groups that work tirelessly to defeat any kind of reform that threatens their standing at the top of the social and economic order. There will always be skeptics who say that it cannot be done. Yet we must push forward, to create a lasting future for our children and our country. Failure to act will leave Americans with a mounting of costs that will cripple us for years to come. The health insurance reform in Congress is the best option for lowering health insurance costs, creating reasonable competition to encourage the private sector to lower their premiums, and ensuring that Americans can once again enter into a new era of lasting economic growth and prosperity. This is the dream and promise of America, that it can, and always should be, "That shining city on the hill"
However, after a good deal of research on the issue, and considerable soul-searching, I believe that we need the current proposals by congress. To not act, would cause irreparable harm to the financial health of our nation, and continue a vicious cycle that leaves millions without access to the care they need.
There are several issues that will be discussed. The impact of the current system on our economy, the lack of effectiveness of the opposition's plans for health care, and finally, the benefits and provisions of the health proposals by Democrats in Congress.
First, there should be no debate that we desperately need reform now. Our health system is the most expensive in the world at 2.5 trillion dollars a year. The budget for health care, Medicaid, Medicare, and related programs is the single, largest expense in the federal budget. According to the Congressional budget office, Health care costs will only continue to skyrocket in time. America pays too much for what we get out of the health care system. Under current practices, Insurance companies can deny coverage at any time to anyone, under the guise of as pre-existing condition. This can leave Millions of Americans who are paying extraordinary amounts of money in health premiums, without care or coverage at any given time. A Study done by Harvard medical and published in the New york times concluded that roughly 44,000 people a year in the U.S. die from lack of coverage. There can be no question in the minds of Americans that reform is needed.
There are several proposals in Congress for health reform. Some offer a public option, essentially an insurance company run by the Federal Government to offer competition to the private insurance companies. Critics of this idea argue that such a plan would put the private sector out of business and pave the way for complete socialized medicine. There are also statements that this sort of system would lead to a "rationing of health care" and "death panels" that would determine what care you can and cannot receive. The fallacy of these arguments, is that they fail to recognize the rationing that already exists by the private insurance companies under the loophole of discrimination based upon a pre-existing condition. Aside from these matters, there have been very few counter-proposals to Democratic plans in Congress. The few plans that have been proposed, would grant tax credits to average Americans to purchase their own health insurance on the private market. The average plan for a family of four is estimated by several agencies to cost $13,000 a year. Americans can't afford that, especially in a time of economic crises.
Now, the current proposal favored by many Democrats in Congress involves the aforementioned public option. This would create a Government-run insurance company that would offer subsidized coverage for American families and businesses to purchase. Opponents of it say it would put the private sector out of business. Without it however, the private sector would not have any incentive to cut costs, and lower premiums for Americans. This government insurance company would be just like the medicare system, except Americans would pay into it at rates lower then their current premiums. The Federal Government, unlike the private sector, would be running this program at cost only, and not for profit. The end result of such a policy, is lower premiums for Americans and their families, lower costs for businesses, and more money back into the hands of average Americans, instead of insurance companies. Contrary to claims by critics, individuals would still be able to go to the doctor of their choice, the hospital of their choice, the only difference between the government plan, and the current options, are lower costs. This plan would also not be allowed to add to the federal deficit, because under a renewed act by congress, it must be paid for in full. Critics of this plan also assert that individuals will be forced immediately into the public plan. This plan does not do away with insurance companies. President Obama and leading democrats in Congress have stated that it will not be subsidized at impossible-to-compete-with rates.
In closing, there have always been opponents of progress. There have been, and always will be special interest groups that work tirelessly to defeat any kind of reform that threatens their standing at the top of the social and economic order. There will always be skeptics who say that it cannot be done. Yet we must push forward, to create a lasting future for our children and our country. Failure to act will leave Americans with a mounting of costs that will cripple us for years to come. The health insurance reform in Congress is the best option for lowering health insurance costs, creating reasonable competition to encourage the private sector to lower their premiums, and ensuring that Americans can once again enter into a new era of lasting economic growth and prosperity. This is the dream and promise of America, that it can, and always should be, "That shining city on the hill"
Monday, October 12, 2009
Questions for students to answer individually
1. What aspects of this course best support your learning? "The in-class time that provides opportunity to discuss the previous week's course and what was learned so I can put together all the pieces in easier to understand language"
2. What is one thing you would change about this course to further support your learning? "Bi-monthly or monthly tests on what was learned, to show progress and to help prepare for final exams"
3. What is one thing you can do to improve your learning performance in this course? " Spend more time on studying other sections of the book besides required reading"
2. What is one thing you would change about this course to further support your learning? "Bi-monthly or monthly tests on what was learned, to show progress and to help prepare for final exams"
3. What is one thing you can do to improve your learning performance in this course? " Spend more time on studying other sections of the book besides required reading"
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Conrad Keezer's Journal number four,
In Chapter fourteen, we are introduced to a new way of writing; A classical argument. This style of writing focuses on persuading your audience, who may initially be opposed, or supportive of your position before reading your paper. There Are two main aspects of this. First, the ability to seek out the truth. A writer must be committed to this at all times, to be able to let go of one's own certainties, in favor of finding the truth of an issue. However, the next critical function is the ability to be certain of our position and claims, and to get others to change their views on the subject.
When making an argument, a writer will most probably make unstated assumptions about the values and beliefs of the audience. When the writer makes this assumption, which could be spelled out in the thesis of the argument, the writer also may need to more accurately define their claim in the thesis. The audience may disagree with this unstated assumption, and unless the writer states it, and defends it, then the whole argument could collapse.
In using evidence for an argument, there are several methods that a writer can use. The first example could be something from personal experience. Having an emotional connection to an event may offer the writer an advantage on an issue, and an added ability to appeal to an audience.
Another method would be to summarize a research paper that someone else did, and to include it in your paper. This could also be very effective because having a research paper, especially if it is from a prestigious source, could go a long way to backing up your claim in the argument.
The Writer could also use statistics that have been done by other independent agencies to support or verify their claims. Statistics could be quite helpful in this manner.
When using these various methods, a writer must ensure several points. That the articles are Recent, the articles cited should be the most up to date information available on a subject. Relevant; the sources should be relevant to the point you are making, and should not deter the course of the argument. Impartial; While it may be difficult to obtain completely impartial evidence, evidence that is obtained from scholarly journals is more impartial then perhaps a newspaper article, that may carry a bias in the issue. Sufficient; the Writer should have several different sources to make a justification of a point, this will help prevent hasty generalizations.
In Writing a classical argument, appeals to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are key as well. Using vivid language for pathos and providing powerful examples are two elements that can help an argument. However, something important to remember is that when a writer is making an appeal to Pathos, it is most effective as an appeal to the audience's values and beliefs.
There are also several types of argument methods. There are Definitional issues, particular cases or events that fit into a certain category. Causal issues, issues that ask a question about a policy or idea, and try and figure out what the results of that idea or policy are.
Overall, a review of chapter fourteen shows that the focus of the chapter, is to help an individual develop skills to understand, and write a classical argument.
When making an argument, a writer will most probably make unstated assumptions about the values and beliefs of the audience. When the writer makes this assumption, which could be spelled out in the thesis of the argument, the writer also may need to more accurately define their claim in the thesis. The audience may disagree with this unstated assumption, and unless the writer states it, and defends it, then the whole argument could collapse.
In using evidence for an argument, there are several methods that a writer can use. The first example could be something from personal experience. Having an emotional connection to an event may offer the writer an advantage on an issue, and an added ability to appeal to an audience.
Another method would be to summarize a research paper that someone else did, and to include it in your paper. This could also be very effective because having a research paper, especially if it is from a prestigious source, could go a long way to backing up your claim in the argument.
The Writer could also use statistics that have been done by other independent agencies to support or verify their claims. Statistics could be quite helpful in this manner.
When using these various methods, a writer must ensure several points. That the articles are Recent, the articles cited should be the most up to date information available on a subject. Relevant; the sources should be relevant to the point you are making, and should not deter the course of the argument. Impartial; While it may be difficult to obtain completely impartial evidence, evidence that is obtained from scholarly journals is more impartial then perhaps a newspaper article, that may carry a bias in the issue. Sufficient; the Writer should have several different sources to make a justification of a point, this will help prevent hasty generalizations.
In Writing a classical argument, appeals to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are key as well. Using vivid language for pathos and providing powerful examples are two elements that can help an argument. However, something important to remember is that when a writer is making an appeal to Pathos, it is most effective as an appeal to the audience's values and beliefs.
There are also several types of argument methods. There are Definitional issues, particular cases or events that fit into a certain category. Causal issues, issues that ask a question about a policy or idea, and try and figure out what the results of that idea or policy are.
Overall, a review of chapter fourteen shows that the focus of the chapter, is to help an individual develop skills to understand, and write a classical argument.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Rough draft of Sum/Response
Rough Draft of Sum/Response for Conrad Keezer's Composition class, fall 2009
Bureaucracy? Or Opinion? "Obama and the Bureaucratization of health care" Posted on September 8, 2009, In a Wall street journal opinion section, Former Republican vice presidential candidate, and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin asserts that President Obama's proposals at health care reform will create an enormous, inefficient, and ethically questionable bureaucracy. Does her opinion have evidence? Or is it strictly argument?
First off, Sarah Palin, in her op-ed article, appeals to the conservative base of her party by stating the President's proposals for health care reform as "Bureaucratic" in nature. This fits in with the much-opposed health care reform attempts by Democrats in Congress, and the near unanimous opposition from major Republican Senators and Representatives.
Ms. Palin then proceeds to appeal to populist support, and show a sense of compassion regarding the un-insured. She refers to a statement made by former President Ronald Reagan that People should not be denied medical care because of lacking the finances to cover them. She also states that we as a people have an obligation to care for the old, and the sick who cannot care for themselves.
She then proceeds to make a case for the business community, by acknowledging the "crippling expenses of health care". She also states that allowing government health care spending to continue unabated will add to the federal budget deficit. She argues that the current medicare and medicaid programs are wrought with waste and inefficiency. Ms. Palin then cites an article from the Congressional budget office that indicates that the current legislation in congress will do little to deter federal health spending. She also states that the legislation creates an independent advisory council that is "unelected, and largely unaccountable" that is given the task of reducing costs. She refers to such a council as a "death Panel" in her op-ed article.
After making these points, she summarizes her thoughts in the last few paragraphs. She states that the health care reform will lead to lower wages for American workers, unwanted influence of government power in ordinary citizen's lives, uncontrollable deficits, and take the individual power of medical choice out of the hands of Americans.
Now, that having been said, Sarah Palin does have credibility to her argument, and the Wall street journal is a prestigious news source used by millions of Americans, and businessmen and women. However, She does intermingle a good deal of fact, with opinion.
For example, the Medicare advisory council, that Ms. Palin asserts is a completely new entity that would bring about "rationing of care" and "death panels" is not a new entity at all. In a published letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer on page 3, the director of the congressional budget office states that the individuals, who would have to be physicians, or specialists in health care, would be appointed by the president, and only approved of if the Senate passes them. Furthermore, any actions proposed by the Medicare advisory council, would have to be approved by the secretary of health and human services, and the President. Furthermore, on page four of the letter, the CBO also states that the council would not have a set target of budget cuts, and there would not be a requirement to deny care due to budget circumstances.
The next fact that Sarah Palin asserts is a quote from the congressional budget office that the current health care proposals will not generate much savings. This is correct. According to director Elmendorf in a letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer, the current proposal would not bring about much in the way of cost savings.
Ms. Palin also takes information provided by the Cato institute to make her argument that such health care reform would result in lower wages. This is a debatable subject, and given the nature of the Cato institute, that it is a pro-conservative organization that is opposed to the current health reform proposals, one should take into account this bias when reading their information.
In all, Ms. Palin's article does contain some fact, and some strict argument and opinion. Throughout her article, she uses various methods of connecting with the audience. Some of these methods include appealing to emotion, logic and reasoning, and ethical arguments.
At the onset of her article, Ms. Palin quotes former President Reagan on the need to ensure that everyone can get medical care. She then proceeds to make the argument for the responsibility of society to care for the sick and the elderly, and those who cannot care for themselves. This kind of argument will appeal to those people who feel that there is a moral duty of society to care for these groups of people. This is a strong appeal to the Evangelical base of her party, and is a recurring theme with many of the Evangelical-Christians in the party base.
Ms. Palin also makes an appeal to logos here, by citing examples from the Congressional budget office, and the Cato institute studies done on health care. She could be trying to appeal to moderates and independents that are on the sidelines of the health care debate by using independent sources that aren't directly affiliated with either party.
Perhaps her most potent argument now, comes from the emotional side of the issue. Many members of her party base have a distrust of the government. If not a distrust, then at least a deep skepticism on the ability, and competency of the government to operate. She appeals to this base again with the statements that while insurance companies can be unaccountable, the federal government is perhaps even more so. Now, this part of her article involves much opinion, and contention. However, it is most probably very effective for the base of her party that questions the efficiency, and even honesty of the federal government. She continues to claim in the article that many of the proposals from the democrats will increase the deficit, decrease the earnings of everyday Americans through inflation, and "increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats". Again, all of this is more opinion then fact. Independent agencies and fact check organizations have not verified these claims with any certainty, so they should be taken at best with a grain of salt.
At the end of her article, Ms. Palin states that despite President Obama's promise to the contrary, the current health reforms will not provide more stability to American families and individuals. Again, this could be a very debatable subject here, depending on the audience receiving it. There are legitimate points to her article, she uses some credible evidence to support her argument, and makes a strong emotional and ethical appeal. However, all of these facts may become clouded by the simple reality that her description of the "death panels" does little to appeal to logic, due to it being untrue, and does not broaden her appeal to audiences beyond the base.
As an audience member, I appreciate the appeal to logic by using findings from independent groups, however they were too few and far between to be an effective argument on the subject for me. Also, due to the fact that her claims about the Medicare advisory panels were inaccurate, I have not been swayed by this article to her position.
So then, in closing, was Sarah Palin's article an effective one? Did it make me challenge my beliefs or ideas about health care? Are her statements accurate and unbiased? And did she adequately use fact to support her position? It is my belief that she did not have an effective combination of these elements. As a writer, she does use good research with some of her arguments, however, there is a possibility that not all of what she states is entirely accurate.
Bureaucracy? Or opinion? Let the reader decide.
Bureaucracy? Or Opinion? "Obama and the Bureaucratization of health care" Posted on September 8, 2009, In a Wall street journal opinion section, Former Republican vice presidential candidate, and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin asserts that President Obama's proposals at health care reform will create an enormous, inefficient, and ethically questionable bureaucracy. Does her opinion have evidence? Or is it strictly argument?
First off, Sarah Palin, in her op-ed article, appeals to the conservative base of her party by stating the President's proposals for health care reform as "Bureaucratic" in nature. This fits in with the much-opposed health care reform attempts by Democrats in Congress, and the near unanimous opposition from major Republican Senators and Representatives.
Ms. Palin then proceeds to appeal to populist support, and show a sense of compassion regarding the un-insured. She refers to a statement made by former President Ronald Reagan that People should not be denied medical care because of lacking the finances to cover them. She also states that we as a people have an obligation to care for the old, and the sick who cannot care for themselves.
She then proceeds to make a case for the business community, by acknowledging the "crippling expenses of health care". She also states that allowing government health care spending to continue unabated will add to the federal budget deficit. She argues that the current medicare and medicaid programs are wrought with waste and inefficiency. Ms. Palin then cites an article from the Congressional budget office that indicates that the current legislation in congress will do little to deter federal health spending. She also states that the legislation creates an independent advisory council that is "unelected, and largely unaccountable" that is given the task of reducing costs. She refers to such a council as a "death Panel" in her op-ed article.
After making these points, she summarizes her thoughts in the last few paragraphs. She states that the health care reform will lead to lower wages for American workers, unwanted influence of government power in ordinary citizen's lives, uncontrollable deficits, and take the individual power of medical choice out of the hands of Americans.
Now, that having been said, Sarah Palin does have credibility to her argument, and the Wall street journal is a prestigious news source used by millions of Americans, and businessmen and women. However, She does intermingle a good deal of fact, with opinion.
For example, the Medicare advisory council, that Ms. Palin asserts is a completely new entity that would bring about "rationing of care" and "death panels" is not a new entity at all. In a published letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer on page 3, the director of the congressional budget office states that the individuals, who would have to be physicians, or specialists in health care, would be appointed by the president, and only approved of if the Senate passes them. Furthermore, any actions proposed by the Medicare advisory council, would have to be approved by the secretary of health and human services, and the President. Furthermore, on page four of the letter, the CBO also states that the council would not have a set target of budget cuts, and there would not be a requirement to deny care due to budget circumstances.
The next fact that Sarah Palin asserts is a quote from the congressional budget office that the current health care proposals will not generate much savings. This is correct. According to director Elmendorf in a letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer, the current proposal would not bring about much in the way of cost savings.
Ms. Palin also takes information provided by the Cato institute to make her argument that such health care reform would result in lower wages. This is a debatable subject, and given the nature of the Cato institute, that it is a pro-conservative organization that is opposed to the current health reform proposals, one should take into account this bias when reading their information.
In all, Ms. Palin's article does contain some fact, and some strict argument and opinion. Throughout her article, she uses various methods of connecting with the audience. Some of these methods include appealing to emotion, logic and reasoning, and ethical arguments.
At the onset of her article, Ms. Palin quotes former President Reagan on the need to ensure that everyone can get medical care. She then proceeds to make the argument for the responsibility of society to care for the sick and the elderly, and those who cannot care for themselves. This kind of argument will appeal to those people who feel that there is a moral duty of society to care for these groups of people. This is a strong appeal to the Evangelical base of her party, and is a recurring theme with many of the Evangelical-Christians in the party base.
Ms. Palin also makes an appeal to logos here, by citing examples from the Congressional budget office, and the Cato institute studies done on health care. She could be trying to appeal to moderates and independents that are on the sidelines of the health care debate by using independent sources that aren't directly affiliated with either party.
Perhaps her most potent argument now, comes from the emotional side of the issue. Many members of her party base have a distrust of the government. If not a distrust, then at least a deep skepticism on the ability, and competency of the government to operate. She appeals to this base again with the statements that while insurance companies can be unaccountable, the federal government is perhaps even more so. Now, this part of her article involves much opinion, and contention. However, it is most probably very effective for the base of her party that questions the efficiency, and even honesty of the federal government. She continues to claim in the article that many of the proposals from the democrats will increase the deficit, decrease the earnings of everyday Americans through inflation, and "increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats". Again, all of this is more opinion then fact. Independent agencies and fact check organizations have not verified these claims with any certainty, so they should be taken at best with a grain of salt.
At the end of her article, Ms. Palin states that despite President Obama's promise to the contrary, the current health reforms will not provide more stability to American families and individuals. Again, this could be a very debatable subject here, depending on the audience receiving it. There are legitimate points to her article, she uses some credible evidence to support her argument, and makes a strong emotional and ethical appeal. However, all of these facts may become clouded by the simple reality that her description of the "death panels" does little to appeal to logic, due to it being untrue, and does not broaden her appeal to audiences beyond the base.
As an audience member, I appreciate the appeal to logic by using findings from independent groups, however they were too few and far between to be an effective argument on the subject for me. Also, due to the fact that her claims about the Medicare advisory panels were inaccurate, I have not been swayed by this article to her position.
So then, in closing, was Sarah Palin's article an effective one? Did it make me challenge my beliefs or ideas about health care? Are her statements accurate and unbiased? And did she adequately use fact to support her position? It is my belief that she did not have an effective combination of these elements. As a writer, she does use good research with some of her arguments, however, there is a possibility that not all of what she states is entirely accurate.
Bureaucracy? Or opinion? Let the reader decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
