Universal Health Care

In the article “A Near-Universal Health-Care Plan That Wouldn’t Break the Bank” the editorial board of The Washington Post explore a middle ground for government funded health care. The authors describe a proposal released by the Economist at the Urban Institute for a health care plan that would potentially satisfy people who are extremely for or against government health care. The plan would take advantage of the pros of universal health care, such as making health care accessible to a lot more people, but would also limit the cons, such as large government spending. The plan would keep Medicare and employer based health care but create a new system for everyone else. Government would help pay for those buying insurance and the subsidies would be scaled with income (those who make a very small amount of money would get a larger amount of money), and those who could, would still pay premiums.
Those who this article was written for fall in the middle of the road when it comes to universal health care. They are not extremists on either side of the issue, but instead those who are influenceable on this particular topic. Yes, the article is an opinion piece, but it also serves as an information platform for those looking to learn about health care. The authors of this article argue that a middle ground can be found for health care. They believe that a plan can be set in place that uses the good qualities of both sides to this issue.
The authors largely appeal to the audience through logic, carefully going through the effects of this proposal on both the nation and individual groups. They also give numbers when it comes to cost. They claim that because employer health care and premiums would still be in place that the government would spend 98 million in the first year. Which would be “far less than a switch to single payer.” I agree with authors of this article and I believe it is well written and persuasive.