The article I chose for blog four was “The Argument Against Universal Healthcare,” by S. Porter. Porter believes “the problems with universal healthcare far outweigh the benefits.” The author lays out three main points for his argument against having a nationalized healthcare system; competition, cost, and government.
Porter believes that the natural competition to become the best will die away with government deciding the charges and structure for medical care and in doing this “medical advancement” will be hindered and everyone will receive the “same sub-standard healthcare.” By his claims of sub-standard health care for all, Porter establishes social significance. No one wants mediocre health care to become the norm.
Cost is an issue that all Americans are interested in. According to Porter, universal healthcare will cost the United States “somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 trillion per year.”
Porter’s final argument against universal healthcare is the government and their inability to run any social program efficiently. He claims that government involvement in social security and welfare has “ruined retirement” and “forced more people into welfare.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's funny... I chose the same topic for my blog, but the polar opposite in terms of stance. I read the case in favor of universal healthcare, which addresses the same points your article brings up.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a topic where establishing social significance is almost a given, since health is something that concerns us all, and subsequently so are the ways by which we can maintain it.
Ironically, I did find that most articles on the topic get people's attention and interests by playing up the financial dimension of the debate. Isn't it the very issue with the current system? That it is primarily concerned with its own economic patterns and run as a business?