Thomas Szasz Against Universal Health Care

Recently, there has been much debate about universal health care in the United States. Both sides of the issue have many valid points to support their argument. They bring up points about the effect on the economy, individual costs, and whether or not healthcare is a right or not. In two particular editorials, the authors approached the topic with two very different argumentative structures. Both could have been effective in convincing readers to side with them, but one was more effective as it had far more elements of logos and ethos. The first Editorial was against universal health care. They felt that if someone needs healthcare for something, then they will pay for it, and that the rich deserve better healthcare than the poor. The author, Thomas Szasz, used mainly pathos and loaded words to convince the reader of his claims. For example, Szasz (2009) stated, "The idea that every life is infinitely precious and therefore everyone deserves the same kind of optimal medical care is a fine religious sentiment and moral ideal. As political and economic policy, it is vainglorious delusion" (p. 1). This shows that much of Szasz persuasion comes from emotional appeal, not using real facts and

The one against universal health care used mainly pathos with little to no facts to back up their statements. On the other hand, the editorial in favor of universal health care used facts to back up their claims. This is one reason why the second editorial is more effective, because when claims are backed up with evidence they become increasingly valid and convincing. Another difference the two editorials had was their level of bias. The first one had a large amount of bias which they relied on for their persuasion. The second editorial had little to no bias as they tried to keep an objective tone. Ultimately, the second editorial was more