Oped revision
The author is advocating for the importance of adopting a public healthcare system in the
United States. The opening paragraph begins the discussion of the importance of public
healthcare in America, but is too vague. It doesn’t mention a policy, but rather the general
opinions of the author. The writing may be stronger if opinions such as “Most private healthcare
systems are less concerned with the health of the community...” were made later in the article,
directly next to evidence that supports this claim.The author writes “The government should thus
consider putting together…policies...” however such it is better to make a definitive statement,
so the word “consider” should be eliminated. The last sentence is unnecessary, as the purpose of
the Op-Ed is to prove a point, or justify the importance of a policy.
There are many compelling ideas introduced, but the article lacks sufficient evidence to
support these ideas. The author mentions the “vast number” of uninsured Americans, but gives
no concrete numbers or evidence to back this claim. Similarly, the author mentions “the rate [of
uninsured Americans] has decreased,” but gives no evidence of this decline. The author is
advocating for universal healthcare, so if this statement is true, it would refute their argument.
The author mentions Medicare and Medicaid, which are a part of the “status-quo” as they
have been a part of the American healthcare system for decades. Based on the writing, it can be
assumed that the author wants to model the public healthcare system off of these existing
policies, but this is never said. The author explains the importance of these systems well, but the
distinction between them could be made clearer. The author says that Medicaid “covers families
that have low incomes and individuals in society with disabilities” and that Medicare “...is a
federal government health insurance program that subsidizes the cost of healthcare.” However,
Medicaid provides insurance for low-income individuals, while Medicare provides assistance for
those who are 65+ and those under 65 with disabilities. The author mentions a study by Guth,
Farfield, and Rudowitz and says that it “shows that the effects of Medicaid expansion in the
United States are positive.” However, the author never explains the study or what the positive
effects are.
The author then proceeds to explain part of the private healthcare industry. It is not
necessary to say that “ private healthcare systems do not make efforts to support public
healthcare...” as that is the nature of the relationship between the two. However, it would be
useful to expand on the information that the author then lays out concerning the “high
administrative costs” of private healthcare. This is good evidence, but could be made stronger by
comparing the costs of the U.S. healthcare versus countries that have a universal healthcare
system.
In the closing paragraph, the author says that “Creating public healthcare systems is a
way that the government can help revive the healthcare industry...” The use of the word industry
seems to be a misuse, as public healthcare seeks to replace the current healthcare industry. The
article closes with the author saying that the government “has to ensure constant monitoring” of
the public healthcare system, as it is the only way to “benefit from pros” of it. This should be
mentioned earlier in the article. The closing point should only reinforce the necessity of the
suggested policy.
Overall, the author has set up some strong arguments, but does not include evidence to
support these claims. The article does not give any specifics of how the public healthcare system
will be set up or how it will be funded. There is no substantial social science evidence given for
the claims the author makes. Lastly, the author does not pay sufficient attention to how this
system will differentiate from the private health care system, or the “status-quo.”