The Affordable
Care Act
With recent controversy about the Affordable Care Act I
thought it would be interesting to take a look at both sides of the discrepancy.
The Affordable Care Act was designed to increase health
insurance quality and affordability, lower the uninsured rate by expanding
insurance coverage and reduce the overall costs of healthcare. This act was put
in place by Barrack Obama in 2010 which is why it is also known as Obamacare.
Under this act physicians and hospitals had to lower their cost and become
better accessible. The act also states that even if you have a preexisting
condition you are still eligible for some type of insurance. It does not based
you off your gender, race, ethnicity , the Affordable Care Act covers you based
on your income giving you a fair price for a handful of different plans.
To someone just quickly googling the topic, this seems
great! So why has there been word about repealing the Affordable care act? The
problems are that the coverage you get from the insurance is not the best; you
have to pick and choose what kind of coverage you want. The cover charges that
come with the insurance can be expensive and add up fast. People would love a
more affordable well rounded system.
Donald Trump has had a lot to say about this. He claims that
he will repeal the act and then after he repeals it he will replace it. Replace
it with better, more affordable coverage for the 30 million people in America without
any type of insurance. The problem is that if the repeal goes through it will leave
many people uninsured. As of now Republicans
say that, “Obamacare will be repealed and replaced rapidly, the same day
the same week” Trump stated, but others
are saying that is not possible and the act repeal could leave many in an uninsured spot for months or years.
Republicans have said many times that they will replace it with something
better but have not actually explained what this “something better” is. To most under Obamacare this clearly is
concerning.
One of the most significant demographics to all of this is the
people with life threatening illnesses. To some people on Obamacare, it is the
only thing saving their lives. They are able to afford their medication at a
much lower monthly cost than they would without insurance. Since the Affordable
Care Act accepts you even with a preexisting condition, these people were not
left to die.
All of the articles I’ve read have either been for one side
or the other. There has been non in-between; you are either for the Affordable
Care Act or against it. One technique used in almost all the articles for the Affordable
Care Act, was a whole lot of pathos. The pathos would always say how without
the Affordable Care Act people would die and that really brings out the sympathy
with people, and questioning as to why this act would ever be removed.
This post does a pretty good job of summarizing the basic talking points as contained in those two articles. Be mindful of how you discuss the issue, as it is a key feature of the competing narratives that each would define the issue in a distinctive way. You suggest that you would, with this post, "take a look at both sides of this discrepancy," but consider the framing that is presented in these articles.
ReplyDeleteSupporters of the ACA would certainly describe it as a law that "covers you based on your income giving you a fair price for a handful of different plans;" but there would be many who would simply reject that description of the law. Further down in your post, you describe the law as "the only thing saving their lives" when discussing people with serious health conditions, and that this law made sure that "these people were not left to die." I would suggest that arguing on this premise is a constructed frame meant to lead the audience into broad agreement with the ACA. Consider the way more right-leaning outlets (Wall Street Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard) or libertarian outlets (Reason) discuss the debate surrounding the ACA and it's proposed replacement. Both of the sources you include here: USNews and HuffPo, are widely considered to be left-leaning outlets, and so articles published on those sites will be selected with that audience in mind.
Remember that the goal of our class is not merely to weigh in on the debate and assess the relative merits of any position based on our own feelings, but rather to become more proficient at recognizing the persuasive strategies and techniques deployed to influence public opinion. Health care, because of its nature, will always become an emotional issue - and how any audience responds to a debate will depend on how they understand the debate. When the question is whether or not the government should "remove" health care, then the answer is clear. Consider all the other ways the question involved here could be understood.
Good start here. Please let me know how I can help.
Since my last blog post were both from left leaning sites, I have decided to also take a look at more right-leaning sites to help balance my opinion.
DeleteWhen looking at the articles posted by Wall Street Journal and the National Review, which are known as more conservative right winged news source, there is an a very clear difference. Both of the articles in my first blog were left-leaning and expressed the opinion that Obamacare should not be repealed and why they believed so.
One article in Wall Street Journal that stuck out to me was, “The Affordable Care Act, a view from a hospital CEO”. This article uses ethos to gain credibility by interviewing a hospital CEO. At first the interview questions seem to go be based off of personal opinion but as the article goes in it changes into questions asking what is wrong with the ACA and how can it be changed to be better. Although Trump really is not mentioned in this article the interview questions being asked start implying that there are problems with the current act and something needs to be done to change them. Especially because a hospital CEO is saying it.
Although National Review is known as a right winged source, one article that stuck out to me was, “Trump Obamacare Ultimatum”. Now everyone knows that ultimatums are usually unfair, so you can tell this is not going to be the most Trump supporting positive article. The author explains that Donald Trump wants to vote no matter what and will abandon the Obamacare repeal if the bill does not pass and calls this then says that if Mr. Trump is being sincere, then this is very reckless. He also states that this will make the relationship between the Republicans and congress “sour”. This is not something you would usually expect to see on a Republican known website about their president. With that being said in other recent news articles they discuss what is wrong with Obamacare and why it should be changed, which would be in favor of President Trump’s plans. In articles such as, “The Latest Problem in the Affordable Care Act”, this title implies that this is just one of many previous problems.
Once I compared all of these articles I realized something I think everyone should realize. Depending on your choice of news outlets you are only getting certain information. When on left-leaning sites you find articles not so fond of Trump and when you are on right-leaning sites you are getting people who voted for Trump and like his ideas. I understood after this analysis that people usually do not realize is that we are all being fed different information based on the preferences. When someone has different view than us we assume they are naive or even just dumb, but that’s not the case. I think if people realized that we look at news based on our beliefs and then are given only certain information then they would be more understanding to other opinions.
I appreciate that you recognize how people can hold various perspectives and still be rational, reasonable people! Sometimes we get so lost in the echo chambers that we only read how the opposition must be either cruel or ignorant or racist for not being in agreement with the preferred position.
ReplyDeleteRemember that the goal of your paper is not merely to refine your understanding of the issue itself, but rather to recognize and analyze the various persuasive strategies used in service of competing narratives. Are left-leaning and right-leaning arguments made with similar language? Do they even describe the problem in the same way? Consider how the National Review article also expresses concern about the future cooperative relationship between the president and Congress. The balance of power between the parties is often the primary concern of many political writers.
You appear to be gaining some excellent perspective on the nature of political debate in our society! Great stuff! Please let me know how I can help as you continue to develop this project.