2. I believe that health care is a 'right', just like food and clothing and education. Some people argue that health care isn't a right, and they include that food, clothing, and education is not a right. The arguments that fall flat include:
---OPPOSING---In an article opposing health care, “Health Care is not a right,” by Iain Murray and Roger Abbott,
"As Alexis de Tocqueville put it so well: “It’s not an endlessly expanding list of rights—the ‘right’ to education, the ‘right’ to health care, the ’right’ to food and housing. That’s not freedom, that’s dependency. Those aren’t rights, those are rations of slavery—hay and a barn for human cattle.”" So eating food and getting a good education means that we are cattle? Where would this man be if he wasn't guaranteed a good education?!
In an article opposing health care, “Health Care Is Not a Right,” by Jacob G. Hornberger.
"This is especially true when these types of “rights” expand to such areas as education, food, clothing, and housing... The true nature of rights — the type of rights the Founding Fathers believed in — involved the right of people to pursue such things as health care, education, clothing, and food and that government cannot legitimately interfere with their ability to do so." Does this man know exactly what the founding fathers intended? Only by the constitution, and it doesn't say that food, education, and health care 'aren't' rights. His statement here even disproves itself, he says that the government is not allowed to interfere the pursuit of health care, but won't government supplied health care bring that pursuit to reality?
In an article opposing health care, “There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lumpectomy: The folly of a "right to health care," by Jacob Sullum, it doesn't really include that food, clothing, and education isn't rights, but one good point that it included in the argument was that "A right to health care thus requires the government to infringe on people’s liberty rights by commandeering their talents, labor, and earnings. And since new subsidies will only exacerbate the disconnect between payment and consumption that drives health care inflation, such interference is bound to increase as the government struggles to control ever-escalating spending. Rising costs will also encourage the government to repeatedly redefine the right to health care, deciding exactly which treatments it includes."
This helps the argument by giving the reader a different view of the people who have to work with government run health care.
---SUPPORTING---
In an article supporting health care, "A Good Case for Universal Health Care," by Bryan Young,
the allusion to the Sermon of the Mount hints to the idea of everyone having a right to healthcare, "In the novel Jailbird, Kurt Vonnegut provided me with the perfect answer to these questions and it's very simple: "Why? The Sermon on the Mount, sir."" Even thought he article provided good situations, and stated that health care was a right like food or clothing, or education, was that this article had mainly emotional facts rather than actual statistics.
In an article supporting health care, “Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege,” by Sen. Bernie Sanders,
the words are backed up with statistics, "46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.", but is there anyway to supply statistics to this? Even though the statistics aren't sited, it still makes me ponder on all the people who really need government run Health care.
In an article supporting health care, “We Are Not Free: Health Care as a Human Right,” by Helen Redmond, "When she considered changing jobs, the critical factor was the prescription drug coverage that a new employer would offer. She wondered, "In what other country would that be the deciding factor?" Only in America; a nation of health care hostages.
We are not free."
This quotation has a good argument, and is an example of the whole article's argument. That argument is that private healthcare could be impossible to pay depending on a person's situation. The use of "______ are not free" is a good use of the emotional part of the argument. Even though it has emotional aspects to it, this article also includes examples.
Over all, the articles aren't perfect. Some articles opposing healthcare having different segments in the articles that oppose each other, and it seems like they ignore the person not being able to pay for the private healthcare. The supporting articles for healthcare include emotional stories, some not supported by facts, others that are supported and bring a conflict in the reader by putting them in the situations described.
No comments:
Post a Comment