Comparison of Sources Sample Essay

Is health care reform truly needed? This is a question that is being tackled by many groups this very moment. Members of both sides of the debate are working tirelessly to defend their points of view. Among the several high-profile officials involved in this debate are; President Barack Obama, and Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.The President of the United States, Barack Obama, wrote an op-ed article to the New York Times, titled "Why We Need Health Care Reform" on August 16th, 2009. The former Speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, also wrote an op-ed also in The Examiner, titled "We get last word on health care reform" on September 4, 2009. In their articles, they present vastly different views on the same topic, and make robust arguments for their cases. This paper will be an analysis of the arguments that both President Obama, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich make for their side. While both of these qualified men write very compelling arguments, they fall short in areas of using methodical logic in their appeals to the American people.

President Obama starts off his article, "Why We Need Health Care Reform" recognizing the great debate taking place across America over health care reform. After this, he proceeds to recount his experiences of talking with individuals about health care. He mentions several instances where the current health insurance system has led to denial of claims, which have resulted in extremely high costs for the individuals, or even death in some cases. Most of his article makes a strong attempt to relate health care to average Americans. After having made his argument on denial of claims, President Obama switches gears and moves to a description of the type of health reform he wants to see in a bill. He proceeds to argue that we need cuts in "waste and inefficiency" ( Obama par. 6) and that we also need to rein in subsidies to insurance companies. The article continues with an argument supporting an end to the practice of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. President Obama also spends a large part of the article defending the measures of the bill, and arguing that the health care plan will not adversely affect Americans' choice of their doctor, or care provider. In closing, President Obama concludes that Americans will come together, and support the health care reform.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, casts a completely different light in his article, "We get the last word on health care reform." He begins his argument by criticizing President Obama for attempting to control the health care debate, and compares him to two other Presidents who he claims, had great orating skills like President Obama, but recognized that they can't control debate. He then brings up, and criticizes President Obama's "America's Recovery and Re-Investment act" for spending too much and failing to help the economy. He then asserts that President Obama, and Democrats in Congress are losing the debate on health care, and risk damaging their position by keeping their same arguing points. Speaker Gingrich then continues to claim that the health care reform efforts will lead to a "big government plan" (par.9). After making these claims, Former Speaker Gingrich mentions another health reform effort in recent history by then-President Clinton, and compares his response then, to the debate now. That it would be impossible to get a comprehensive health care reform passed in one giant bill. He asserts that the best way to get reform, is to spread the bill out in several smaller bills that would be easier to read and understand, and would also give the minority opposition opportunities to come to the table with their own ideas. He summarizes, and concludes the argument with a call for multiple bills, and a statement that this approach is more democratic than President Obama's "take it or leave it strategy" (par.19)

Now, while Both President Obama, and Former Speaker Newt Gingrich present legitimate arguing points to their side of the debate, they fail to back up their positions with hard evidence. First off, President Obama's op-ed article presents a great opening argument for health care reform by citing individuals that he has met, and stories of people who have talked to him. He makes a strong emotional appeal to the humanity of the issue, and an attempt to relate these stories and scenarios to everyday Americans. There are several instances in his article where he relates the potential consequences of avoiding health care reform, with statements like "If we continue to maintain the status quo, we will see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day." (par. 17), and the benefits of adopting it, such as the statement "... reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses, and our government." (par. 6). Now, while President Obama does as mentioned before, make a compelling argument based on pathos, the emotion of the issue, he lacks an appeal to the logos, or logical side of the argument. In the article he cites support from the American Medical Association, the American nurses association, the AARP, and a national survey done in 2007. However he does not name any of the sources for several of the conclusions in his article, and as a reader, a lack thereof may discourage you from adopting his ideas.

Former Speaker Gingrich also delivers a good argument for his side, but also fails to present any kind of evidence to support his claims, and does not offer a counter-proposal to President Obama's plan. At the onset of his article, Former Speaker Gingrich criticized President Obama for trying to "control the debate" (par. 2) as well as failing to deliver on the stimulus package he proposed and passed in early 2009. While Mr. Gingrich may have some legitimacy to his argument as to the effectiveness of these programs, and the potential of the new health care plan to be costly and ineffective, he does not cite any studies done to prove this. Mr. Gingrich also does not change the tone of his paper from a strictly argument-based approach. Mr. Gingrich makes appeals to pathos, emotion in his paper to the general mistrust of government ability that is widely accepted by his party members and base. He continues this appeal, with statements such as describing the plan as a "liberal health care bill" (par. 7) and "the same old, big government plan in prettier rhetorical paper." (par. 7) After making these points, Mr. Gingrich offers a possible alternative plan to Democrats proposals, with dividing the bill in several parts. This kind of idea still appeals to the emotion of the issue to the party base mostly. It could also be viewed as an appeal to a logical, methodical approach to health care that arguably, would give the reform a better chance at openness and bipartisanship.

So, in closing, do these two articles provide a much-needed discussion on the issue, while covering all the angles, the pathos, the ethos, and the logos of the debate? President Obama makes a strong case for the pathos of the issue, with his references to the hardships that many individuals have experienced from the current health care system. He also makes an appeal at the logical side of the argument, with some references to a national survey done, as well as the support of overhaul by three major organizations. His argument is strong, but it does lack a sufficient amount of factual data and statistics to cause me to support his position. On the other side of the debate, Former Speaker Gingrich made several appeals to pathos, but mostly to members of his own party, and Americans who may be distrusting of government influence. He provides for some possible alternative solutions to the health reforms, but does little to provide any data or evidence to support his claims of government inefficiency and waste in this potential system. As a reader, I was also disappointed with his article for failing to draw on any hard evidence to support his positions.

Without a doubt, health care reform is one of the biggest domestic policy decisions made in several decades, arguably, since the civil rights movement. It will have long lasting, and far-reaching effects to every American, and possibly nations and people outside of the country. With a topic of this magnitude, politicians can't afford to let personal preferences and opinions to get in the way of evidence and facts. Without these in hand with reform, any effort will simply degrade to whoever can argue the best, or who can shout the loudest.