Greg Olear Argument Analysis

In this essay I will be comparing to sides of an argument pertaining to the expenses of universal healthcare in the United States. One written by a man named Greg Olear, and the other by an anonymous author.

The first batch of arguments are for a universal healthcare system written by Greg Olear. His first argument says that this is in the Constitution, stating it is the job of the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court to, above all, uphold the charges set forth in the Constitution. His second point is that its pro-business, stating that our current healthcare system is bad for businesses large and small. It’s bad for doctors, it’s bad for patients. The only business it’s good for is the health insurance business. His final argument, titled "For-profit health insurers operate at cross purposes", states that Monthly premiums, co-payments, and deductibles are skyrocketing, which is bad for both individuals and their employers, who in some combination pay the bills. High student loans, ever higher malpractice insurance premiums, and the monopolistic “reasonable and customary” rules imposed by insurance companies mean that providers, too, are suffering.

The second listing of arguments are against a universal healthcare system, the authors name is ungiven. His first argument …show more content…
The argument against a universal system is partially biased and stereotyped in my opinion, I quite like the argument for the system. It gives many good points and has a very clean presentation. It also sounds more like an argument rather than a rant like the second argument. Greg Olear, the man whom argued for the universal system gave many clear visuals and editorials on the matter, even sourcing his information, unlike the unnamed author of the second argument against this system. All in all I think the argument for a universal healthcare system is much better and