The topic of Government Health Care expenses relates to my article in the same was that the topic of Health Care in general did. The money used up by health care expenses could lead to less of a money flow food companies, thus creating a greater interest in Genetically Modified Foods, as a means to speed up production and create a more desirable product.
As for the topic at hand, I think that I feel the side of Public Health Care to be the more reasonable. Both anti-Government Health Care articles throw around a lot of numbers, some seeming unreasonable, but don't tell where their information is coming from. How are they supposed to have credibility if they don't cite their sources? For example, Kudlow's article states that "the existing Medicare system is roughly $80 trillion in the hole," even though we revealed in class that the total national government debt is somewhere around 13 trillion. In addition, George Will says in his article that "...over the next two decades, the average American household's health-care spending... will go from 23 percent to 41 percent of average household income," without stating where this data came from.
On the other hand, pro-public health care author Joel A. Harrison gives supporting information and tells where he got it from, such as in his quote : "more than 60% of the $2 trillion annual U.S. health care bill is paid through taxes, according to a 2002 analysis published in Health Affairs." He doesn't just leave you guessing. Similarly, Randall Hoven tells where he got his facts throughout the article, such as in "...according to the U.S. Statistical Abstract, government spending on health care in the U.S was $2,168 per person in 2001..." So, I think that simply by making their information credible, they would have seemed correct, but the information itself that they provide make me agree with their stance.
No comments:
Post a Comment