The Validity Of Opinion: Scalpel, Please
A premise is a hypothesis or a statement of truth upon which one basis his or her conclusion. It thus forms the foundation for deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a mode of reasoning from the general to the particular according to Kline (1997 Para. 1). It is a truth advanced by an author to pave the way for the second truth. The author mainly advances it to set the stage for the final conclusion. It is worth noting that the first truth is universally acceptable by the readers or the audience. The second truth largely depends on the credibility of the first truth. A premise is mainly used to develop the main body of the discussion and thus forms the backbone of any discussion. The conclusion can only be valid if it succeeds in establishing a unique relationship with the premise.
The premise of this article is that health care reforms do not necessary improve the lives of low and moderate income earners income earners. The premise seems top be weak in scope based on the arguments he advances to support it. By opposing the subsidies programs to the low and moderate income earners without further analysis of the potential pros and cons of implementing the program, he tends to give a biased opinion of the scenario. First, he does give the reader the opportunity to analyze both sides of the coin such that he prefers a one sided story. Instead he proceeds with a protracted argument against the program. A much fair approach would have been to compare the democrats plan with the Republicans and then let the readers judge for themselves rather than give a biased opinion. Further more the author fails to back his argument with a strong empirical framework which then renders his hypothesis too abstract to conceive. Throughout his discourse he seems not to offer any alternatives to the program which makes it unconstructive criticism.
This writer clearly seems to be an ardent opponent of democrat’s reform plan. He fails to come to terms with realization that the incumbent health care plan for a long time has worked to the disadvantage of the unemployed and low income earners who have found it prohibitive. For example, Obama felt that by having the taxpayers to subsidize the insurance companies at a rate of 14% which is higher than the rate of the regular Medicare, the plan benefited the insurance companies rather than the tax payers (Fritze, 2009 Para. 7). The current practices make it almost impossible for the low income and moderate earners to afford medical insurance covers hence drawing them into misery. By increasing their subsidies, it will leave them with more disposable income in their pockets which will then offer them an incentive to purchase covers. The author in his argument doesn’t seem to realize or rather choose to ignore on its whole the potential multiplier effect that might come with such an increase in subsidy to the members of this group.
In addition, the author’s opposition of expansion of eligibility to Medicaid seems baseless because he doesn’t advance any counter argument against it rather than saying it will increase cost for anyone else. He fails to prove how the cost will increase which makes his premise fundamentally weak. The weaknesses stems from the fact that he fails to establish the cause-effect relationship between this proposition and the premise. It goes without saying that by extending the coverage to the millions of the uninsured, their welfare will increase making them, more productive which will offset the cost of coverage in the long run. A sick nation is less productive to the economy and indeed the sick only increase the dependency ratio in any nation placing a heavy premium on other income earners.
On the Baucus plan to slash $247 billion in scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, the writer tends to rely heavily on the past administration tendencies to rescind their payment cuts which is only a fallacy based on the fact that we are talking about a new political dispensation with new policies. So unless that hypothesis is tested it is erroneous to imagine that the past failures will be re-enacted by the new system. Further by assuming that the new Medicaid plan covering the next decade will increase the medical cost to the states, the writer seems to assume that the growth in the economy is fixated at a point and is stagnated which further weakens his argument against it. Furthermore the current financial crisis gripping United States has nothing to do with the current medical plan which invalidates his arguments. By covering all Americans with health insurance, the insurance companies will have an advantage of having a wide pool of people paying premiums required to cover those who fall sick (Chicago Tribune, 2009 Para. 12). This statement by itself invalidates his earlier argument against the plan. This is because the increased premiums have the potential of sparking off growth in the insurance industry which eventually offsets the cost. It is wrong to assume that the proposed penalties imposed of those who fail to take up the coverage are inconsequential and that people will prefer to pay the penalties.
Processing your request, Please wait....
