Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Heated battle of the systems
Socialized medicine moving to the United States has become a heated topic in recent year political debates. Some people are all for the government paying for the healthcare of its citizens, because they claim that this system would be cheaper than the private healthcare system the US has now. While other people are strongly against the government funding healthcare systems. The article that supports a socialized medicine plan has some strong and compelling arguments with a lot of other sources to back up their arguments and ideas. However, some of the data is not backed up by any evidence. For instance, US citizens dying on the emergency table because they could not afford healthcare doesn’t have any articles or proof to back up his theory. If he could retain this evidence his argument could be even stronger. The article that is against socialized medicine doesn’t have any articles or data to back up the philosophies mentioned making his arguments weaker than the pro-socialized medicine article look stronger. Although some of the ideas behind the arguments are good, the ideas can’t be trusted because there is no supporting evidence to back them up. So while both articles state what the counter-arguments are and then continue by refuting these arguments, only the pro article has evidence to stand behind its ideas. If I were to rely just on the articles alone, I would lean pro-socialized medicine, but I would never make a decision that big based on two articles that I have read. I also have more background knowledge about the topic working in the healthcare field. The majority of the healthcare industry is against socialized medicine, because the industry would be losing millions of dollars if the system were changed to a socialized system. My mind hasn’t moved one way or the other after reading and considering both sides of the story on this issue.