Three Arguments, Essay Example

Argument 1

I strongly believe that the healthcare system of the United States should be reformed. The United States is the most powerful country in the world and possesses advances in technology, including medical technology, and is envied and imitated by countries throughout the world. It is not surprising that with all the luxuries that this country has at its disposal, a high price tag comes with quality medical care. Healthcare organizations in United States are established and fast growing as part of the U.S. overall economy. Our health system is treated as a market, controlled by its various stakeholders.

The best healthcare services in this country serve only those who are able to pay for them. Human health care should not be treated like a business, it should be treated more like a human need, and unfortunately it does not work that way. With more than forty million Americans uninsured, the problem has turned into a crisis in our society. The governmental leaders have suggested different reforms troughs the years. For example, President Clinton tried to assure quality of care for all Americans. His plan had virtuous intentions but did not prevail in Congress. At present, it is the middle class that suffers the most from a lack of quality care, because it is the middle class that finds it almost impossible to pay for insurance, especially when it is not employer-provided. The middle class makes too much to qualify for governmental healthcare support and does not make enough for the insurance plans that they want and need. The result of this quandary is that a host of Americans do not have medical insurance coverage.

The United States has the best medical facilities and the most impressive research centers in the world, but these do not serve society efficiently when a large percentage of constituents are not in a financial position to support it or benefit from it. Advances in technology now allow us to save lives and preserve a better quality of life for many people who suffer from disease and illness. Surgeries that once were complicated are now routinely administered. A diagnosis of cancer once amounted to a death sentence. Today, most cancers are not only treatable but curable as well due to victories in research. Sadly, these cures are not accessible for everyone in society.

A majority of the rural areas lack modern medical equipment, because non-urban facilities do not have the means to support them. Public hospitals encounter the same kind of problems. The United States government could reshape and customize the health care system, so all public hospitals in either rural or urban areas might enjoy the same quality of service and technology. Then, each population sector would have health insurance coverage and access to reputable, current medical practices. Every person should be insured. The challenge for the United States government is to see to it that this happens without disrupting the current flow of economic formulas that presently operate in and around the ongoing healthcare debate.

It is not incomprehensible that healthcare has become such a political hot potato. After all, billions of dollars and countless jobs are at issue with such a measure of reform as personal and community health. More than 47 million uninsured or under insured Americans reside within the borders of this land. Those who abuse the present system, as some Medicare recipients do, are selfish and cause others to do without. For example, who unnecessary wheelchair multiplied countless times across the nation, results in waste and unnecessary spending. The only solution for the U.S government is to micromanage the present system while saving situation every cent counts, at the same time they will have some money to spare to people who might really need it.

Having millions of Americans insured costs trillions of dollars which is the main reason we have uninsured Americans today. The United States cannot afford to undertake sudden, drastic reforms that would bankrupt us more than we are already. A reasonable tax increase could be applied to alleviate healthcare hoes in the current system. It has been proven that health care reform is complicated to the point of making it impossible to explain, defend, manage, or remedy, given the number of full time lobbyists whose sole vocation is to protect those who become and remain rich through healthcare as it is right now. If real change is ever going to happen, the government must step in, take the reins, and control health care, especially for the working, middle class.

Argument 2

I strongly believe that we should not expend tax money feeding murderers in prison. The United States of America charges honest people for prisoner care when these people are the very ones who kill, rape, steal, and deal against society. Numerous prisoners have it better in jail than they ever did on the outside. They get free food, free utilities, free calisthenics, free clothing, and free education. It is amazing that a person who decided to act against state and federal laws get more benefits than those who live as honorable people. Most citizens have a problem accepting the fact that criminals and delinquents have many facets of daily living easier than those who work hard for their livelihoods on the outside.

Too many working Americans do not have the privileges that prisoners enjoy. The abundance of poverty among law-abiding citizens is depressing when it is fully realized. How can this be in such a developed country as is ours? Again, when prisoner care is better than my care or your care, something is wrong. When people commit crimes just so the government through its penal system can keep them up, something else is wrong. The money that pays for these things comes directly out of your pocket and mine. It is embarrassing that middle class workers who pay taxes are not eligible for certain services, yet that same worker pays into a system that denies benefits.

Talking about prisoners presents a dilemma. Many people think that it is fair and humane to treat them as all other people. Due to our democracy, the government is obligated to facilitate medical care to inmates. People in the opposition to this think that inmates, regardless of their crimes, deserve the same quality of treatment as all of us.

Research suggests that the yearly cost to maintain an inmate is around 30,000 dollars, which is a lot of money, and sufficient to pay a decent education for many students that need the stipend. It is clear that the future of this nation depends on people that study and make progress. The government has proposed giving money to inmates in order to get them educated and rehabilitated.

People believe that everyone deserve a second chance. They think that rehabilitation is the clue to a better community. People and governments are willing to rehabilitate the misfits of society by giving them the second chance through education. Statistics show that this method works only in a 68 percent of the total criminal population. They do not consider this wasted money but investment to a better community.

When it comes to decide what to do with a criminal, is harder than appears. First, you have to measure the crime level, and then proceed with the future of these criminals. For example, if you are a murderer, rapist, terrorist, or had committed a crime of this level, you should automatically receive the penalty. This is going to save our people some money. It sounds cruel, but it is a decision that commands respect and rules out the possibility of recidivism. Milder crimes should be repaid with hard work to our community. For example, penitentiaries usually have work release programs for inmates. I think they should reform and make such programs even stronger. Such programs can be modified to save the government money. Another thing that should be implemented is to obligate inmates to serve our country through the military or in times of war.

There is a fair amount of opposition to the death penalty. The family of the victims can exert major pressure at the time of applying or not the capital punishment. On the one hand, we have the case of the family of the victim who always will appeal to the application of the capital punishment. On the other hand, some defendant families will do everything possible so that this punishment is not carried out. With these two approaches we can appreciate the relative things that come into play as families decide how they are going to react to the crimes that have come their way.

Argument 3                                                            

I strongly believe that the United States should seek to correct internal problems before helping other countries. We live in perhaps the most charitable countries in the world. We help almost any country when they need it. We went to Iraq, supposedly with the intention of liberating them country from tyranny.

The United States is known for helping others countries with drugs problems. For example, when United States helped Colombia to capture the “godfather,” Pablo Escobar, it was stepping way outside of its own boundaries to do so. The United States invested thousands of dollars, if not more, to pay for the death or capture of the so called “capo.” I think that we should leave that help and save it for our own needs. We have too many problems in this country to be helping others.

People who share this opinion say that the United States strategically fights places that infiltrate drugs here. This helps to eliminate or minimize the consumption of controlled substances in this country. A deduction in crime will result once we stop drugs from coming to this country. Many church’s and communities agree with this counter drugs operation against drug cartels.

Reconstructing other countries bring up the humanitarian status of this country. The United States ranks as the most charitable country in the world. The United States is the most powerful and rich country because it has been blessed and serves as a blessing to others. United States gives medical aid to others countries. The United States makes extraordinary efforts to help other countries and this is policy is not all bad. The problem comes when we help other countries before we help our own. Domestic Red Cross relief efforts, for example, need to be poised to help when disaster hits here. What would we say to our own earthquake victims when we have spent all of our resources in Jamaica?       Humanitarian aid has its place as something that should not be denied to anyone, and the United States has the capabilities to share health care with others; however, it is logical that we should, out of obligation and necessity, maintain reserves enough to assist our own citizens when crises arise. It is understandable that we have a moral imperative to behave as a benevolent country to our own and a sensitive neighbor to countries who are sympathetic to our democratic principles. We can sustain ourselves while paying for a kind of aid that ensures the availability of aid to Americans first and foremost. For example, the terrible oil in the Gulf of Mexico that is being fought this week is the kind of disaster that comes along. Things like that cannot be predicted, so we must be on the ready to pay for human-produced accidents as well as natural disasters that wreak havoc from time to time.

This brief assignment has been the product of extensive research, and based on historical and current issues. The study is in depth and takes clues from daily life to diagnose prescriptions for America’s most pressing needs. A person reading my arguments, even if they opposed my views, would respect them, because I have given valid reason for my stances.