Yes for Universal Health Care in the United States

To have the best health insurance in the United States you must obviously make a lot of money to be able to afford it. Healthcare here seems to be more of a privilege for people, only available to those who can afford it, rather than it being available for everyone. Other countries however have in place a type of healthcare that provides its citizens with medical help whenever and wherever they need it. This is known as Universal Health Care, which according to the World HealthOrganization, is defined as, “Ensuring that all people can use the pro-motive, preventive, curative, rehabilitative and palliative health services they need, of sufficient quality to be effective, while also ensuring that the use of these services does not expose the user to financial hardship.”  The United States should put into effect a Universal Healthcare law so that public health is improved and to decrease mortality rates.

Having Universal Health care in the United States will benefit the nation as a whole because we would be a much healthier country. The United States, as stated in ProCon, is one of the only developed countries of the 34 members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development who does not provide its citizens with this type of health care, which is ironic since we are also the country that spends the most on health insurance, yet our health care is the least efficient. There are many diseases and viruses that could be prevented from spreading or causing too much harm if only health care was provided to everyone. People would be able to seek help whenever they needed to, not fearing having to pay ridiculous amounts of money on medical bills or being turned down. Many deaths would also be prevented, since tens of thousands of people die due to not being able to afford medical help.

According to a 2009 study from Harvard researchers, "Lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year," take note that this was years ago, imagine how much higher the rate has become. There are thousands of people who are left to die due to lack of health insurance because they aren't able to afford it, and even if they go to the hospital for help, they are neglected because they aren't able to pay the medical bills. For example, in a documentary called Sicko, a woman took her daughter to the hospital because she had a high fever but since she didn’t have any health insurance they refused to care for her 3 year old daughter and she passed away. Yet, in France, a woman with a similar problem had her daughter cared for at no cost due to their Universal Health Care law.

It is extremely crazy, how we think our country is so great yet we tend to care more about problems outside of the country instead of helping the people here to be the best nation in all aspects, we can be. We recently had a large expansion of health insurance coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obama Care, which as said in a P.N.H.P article, if it is to work effectively, will insure an additional twenty-six million more Americans by 2024. The United States pay way more money on health care than any other country, yet the health insurance here, people's health and deaths due to our "great" yet poor system, are worse than those countries who pay much less. This type of health care system has proven to be successful in countries who have it and it’s crazy how we, the U.S doesn’t have it, yet other undeveloped countries do. Many people are still hesitant for the U.S to adopt this policy because taxes will rise but I mean come on, it makes sense to pay extra every year knowing that you are able to go to whatever hospital or doctor and not get neglected help. The United States should establish a Universal Health Care policy so that our nation as a whole is much healthier and to decrease mortality rates caused to not being able to afford health insurance.

Cited Sources:

Andrew P. Wilper, Steffie Woolhandler, Karen E. Lasser, and Danny McCormick, et al.,                           "Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults," American Journal of Public Health,                       Dec. 2009

Hanning, Hedda. "We Need Universal Health Care Coverage for All." We Need Universal                Health Care Coverage for All. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

Kliff, Sarah. "8 Facts That Explain What's Wrong with American Health Care." 8 Facts                  That Explain What's Wrong with American Health Care. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

 "What Is Universal Coverage?" WHO. World Health Organization. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

Do Presidential Debates Really Matter?

In an article from Washington Monthly, "Do Presidential Debates Really Matter?" by John Sides, he does a successful job in arguing why Presidential Debates are inconsequential. He brings in evidence from past elections, where polls have stated the same, if not very similar results as to who is more likely to become president, before and after the debates. Even though, these debates are one of the highest viewed televised campaigns and new information is brought to their attention, it is highly unlikely to change the voters mind. He believes that the reason is because the campaigns occur close to the day of election and whomever the voter is set on voting on, just by learning other things they like from another candidate, they will not change their mind. The author states that although there has been some cases where these debates changed the outcome, it wasn't by a lot and it was only a push in the already,most likely to win, candidate. Sides aims his article for everyone who is eligible to vote and/or watches he presidential debates, because it is them whom the information would be more relevant.
The author effectively presents why he believes that the presidential debates rarely, if ever change the outcome of who is elected president. He brings in good evidence from various political scientists and analysis that were done regarding the topic during every election. He also does a great job in providing examples from past presidential debates and elections to add more credibility to his argument. Lastly, ending his article, in a way restating his argument saying, "What history can tell us is that presidential debates, while part of how the game is played, are rarely what decide the game itself."  (¶ 15)

The federal government’s incredibly poor, misleading argument for marijuana prohibition

In the article from the Washington Post, "The federal government’s incredibly poor, misleading argument for marijuana prohibition", by Christopher Ingraham, he argues that the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy created weak arguments for why marijuana should remain to be illegal in their blog. The author tries to make his point by repeatably mentioning how, the effects marijuana has on people are the same as those alcohol and tobacco have, yet these two substances are still legal. He gives us information from the arguments the ONDCP published on their blog, then states why the points they are trying to make are "weak". Credibly, he succeeds in proving why the points given in the blog were inadequate because even though, for the most part, he compares the effects of marijuana to alcohol and tobacco, he brings evidence regarding the argument to prove his point every time. Ingraham aims to everyone for his audience but for the most part, those who support the legalization of marijuana since it would be them whom the article is aimed for because they would be the ones who's attention is grabbed the most.
The author does a great job in proving why he believes the argument made by the ONDCP is feeble. Ingraham brings in sections from the blog, then compares it to how it would have the same effects as other, in some cases, worse substances, yet they are still legal, and also brings in statistical evidence, justifying his points even more. He ends his article using a quote from the blog against them, that says that there should be science and evidence when trying to prove a point, not ideology, yet that is exactly what they are doing.