When people nowadays hear the words “Republicans and Democrats” and “Healthcare reform” in a conversation they tend to only think of the major differences between the two parties. Major differences do exist between the two parties, no one can disagree on that, however there is plenty of common ground that exists between the two parties and common principles, if understood, would help bridge the ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats. The main common ground between the two parties is the common hope to improve care amongst the American people; the only difference is each party look at a different side of the same coin. Both parties are working toward reducing the cost of health insurance, eliminating preexisting condition, and to make it more accessible. The Democrat’s Healthcare reform is more effective in the current time because it will reduce the budget deficit, and provide a cheap, obtainable health insurance to Americans with various incomes, and decrease the number of uninsured 94-96% of Americans will have coverage.
           On the other hand, Republicans don’t believe that the government should interfere in people’s life and the healthcare insurance company shouldn’t be increasingly regulated. Free market works great when there is economic prosperity and surpluses in the national income, because companies compete against each other to provide the costumers with the best products. When countries depend on free markets during recession it takes a long time to fix the economy because every company will be working only for its own benefits only, and if a country is in an economical crisis then people will save their money instead of spending it. When people save their money the companies’ profits decreases and in attempt to cut the companies’ loses they raise the prices on the products. This scenario is very likely to happen if the government doesn’t interfere. The reason for that is people are losing their jobs therefore they can’t afford to pay for health insurance, the number of insured people will decrease and with it the health insurance companies’ profits so the health insurance companies’ will raise the prices. The Democrat’s healthcare reform will provide cheap, profitable health insurance coverage to help poor and middle class to get on their feet again, and if others are satisfied with the coverage they have, they can keep it. The current bill would force insurance companies to spend 80 cents of every dollar on your healthcare, as opposed to the seventy-some odd cents they currently spend. It's only fair that you get what you paid for. The Healthcare reform plan is a win-win deal, it will help poor people and middle class people and it will reduce the budget deficit.
           Now there is an example of what could happen if the government doesn’t react fast and effectively, which is my family. My family is a lower middle class family, my family consists of 4 people: my father, my mother, my sister, and myself. My dad work 60 hours a week and my mother works about the same, every year collectively my parents make between 25,000 and 30,000 dollars a year. At the same time my sister and I are attending to college, I was fortunate to get a full ride scholarship but my sister wasn’t. My parents are doing their best to help her with the cost of college, but they have to pay for rent, cloths, food, and all other life necessities. The cost to have modest health care for a family of three people is approximately 6,000 dollars a year in Colorado according to America’s Health Insurance Plan (AHIP 2009), the estimated cost for my family of four is around $9,000 (2009) and by 2015 without the Senate Healthcare bill it would be $15,000, which is more than half my family's income (with the bill it would be about $7,000). The prices will increase in the future if no change happens. It’s impossible for my family to have a descent and humane health insurance coverage and my family is just one example of millions of hard working families across America who are facing the same pain and worry of getting sick and not being able to get proper treatment. There are currently 45,000 people who die every year in America due to the lack of health insurance according to the latest Harvard Medical Study.
           Both parties Republicans and Democrats agree that the healthcare status quo is weak and flawed and both parties should agree that walking away from the millions of Americans people is not an option. The change that both parties should agree on for the common good for Americans must provide American people with the security of not losing their insurance coverage if they lost their jobs, providing health insurance to people with preexisting condition, reducing the prices of health insurance coverage and built a non-profitable health insurance company. Republicans were in control of the whole government, Executive, Judicial, Legislative, for six whole years and did nothing about it. It's only fair that Democrats have a chance to do what Republicans failed to acknowledge, through a moderate bill that has no government option, refrains from taking away the power of the free market, and provides subsidies for families like mine.
3 Comments:
-
- Anonymous said...
March 3, 2010 at 5:09 PMOverall, this is a persuasive article. I personally found the appeals to ethos and pathos most convincing. Beginning the essay by identifying common ground between Democrats and Republicans was a very smart move, especially when introducing a polarized topic such as public health care. Not only does it make the author seem more objective, it also softens very critical readers to be open to differing ideas. In addition to bolstering invented ethos, I believe the personal anecdotes effectively tugged on heartstrings, winning over the audience through emotion. I believe the article could be more persuasive by exploring the common topic of conjecture or existence. As a reader who is weary of a public health care option, I would appreciate an investigation as to if there is a need for public health care, or rather, is there a problem with current private health care. From your writing, I believe you would assert that, yes, there is a need for public health care because, yes, there is a problem with current private health care, but I think you would benefit from explaining why there is need or why there is a problem. How would you try and persuade an audience that feels that health care is not a right, or an audience that doesn’t find a problem with the current health care situation? In addition to addressing the issue of ‘why,’ simply citing sources or including in-text hyperlinks would further legitimize the author and support any appeals to logos. They would prove that the author did research and is knowledgeable on the topic.- Ben.Ghebrial said...
March 10, 2010 at 11:38 PMThe project was very educational, useful for revising other rhetorical papers because the use of the persuasive tools in an article enabled me to see how other writers use their set of persuasive materials skillfully and affectively. The project trained me personally as a writer to use certain rhetorical appeals in certain times and certain situations. Logos and ethos were by far the most used persuasive appeals I used in my article because they build credibility and trust between me and the audience who are reading my argument or rhetorical situation. Since my topic was Healthcare reform, and discussing the role of Republicans and Democrats in solving the issue, being neutral was another tool to attract the readers and to proof my ethical values to the audience. In order to make the audience who disagree with read my article I started the article with common grounds and commonalties between the two opposite side of the congress. To persuade my audience more I placed my family financial situation and how expensive healthcare is affecting my family, this is a pathos approach to move the audience emotions and to persuade them more to my side of the argument, I also provide many facts on Healthcare reform to insinuate that I am aware of the topic. I planning on reading my article few times and try to fix any mistakes and I might add more to my argument and add more facts about the topics.- Geoffrey Bateman said...
March 11, 2010 at 12:55 PMThanks, Ben, for your post. I like what you've added to this--and I would agree with Ryan that you're opening is a very effective way to try and bridge the two opposing parties. I also like Ryan's suggestions in terms how you might strengthen your appeal to those people who are wary of a public option or who aren't fully on board. You might also consider identifying more precisely what parts of the current reform you endorse and want Congress to pass. In your final paragraph, you might also back away from placing the blame on the Republicans (in a way so that you preserve the ethos you've constructed earlier in the post) and continue to emphasize the common good as you urge them to support and vote for the legislation.