Critical analysis

An editorial written by Mike Leavitt, the secretary of Health and Human services, in the USA Today shows the conflicting views on how to handle the problems associated with health insurance especially uninsured children in America. He offers his advice and personal opinion on the subject matter and makes his support of the President’s proposal very clear. A brief summary of the contrasting arguments in this argument are: Congress’ proposal of expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Bush’s $15,000 tax break offered to families for purchasing Health insurance.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/opposing-view-7.html#more

Now in the article itself, the author, Mr. Leavitt is specifically attacking Congress’ alternate view by saying that under Congress’ plan SCHIP would be “extended to families earning $83,000 a year.” This implies that Congress’ plan is being created for the middle class and not for low income families who need healthcare the most. So, overall the article itself would be directed towards impoverished citizens. This statement is tactically written to persuade certain individuals to accept his point of view right away. Interesting enough, Mr. Leavitt initially says it is Congress’ proposal that has bad intentions, but later in the article he reveals that it’s the Democrats who are the ones with the seemingly wasteful and inefficient plan. By explicitly bringing up the Democrats into his argument, the secretary of Health and Human Services becomes partisan and “blinded” to only those supporting his views. This does not make Mike Leavitt open-minded about the issue at all. He is not willing enough to be responsible and cooperative with others on the best solution to this growing problem.

With all the support the author directs toward the President’s proposal, he does not go into much detail about the plan itself. The editorial basically shows it as a one-dimensional plan. Describing the plan in the author’s own words, “every American family receives a $15,000 tax break for purchasing healthcare.” This statement appears to be beneficial on the outside, but it doesn’t solve the problem of the sky-rocketing cost of healthcare .The author goes on by saying, “nearly 20 million more Americans would have heath insurance [under this plan].” This also seems like a helpful effect, but isn’t the primary goal for all Americans to be insured? By just being a percentage of the whole population, the President’s proposal would not be universal for every citizen.

Who is this Mike Leavitt guy anyways, the secretary of Health and Human services right? So how does someone get selected to that position? Well, the secretary of Human services is nominated by the president then voted in through the Senate. So basically that means Mike Leavitt was brought into power and position from President Bush selecting him instead of other prospects. This is a definite sign of how Mr. Leavitt’s views are already influenced and obscured. In addition to this recent nomination, Mike Leavitt was previously nominated as the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 2003 again by President Bush. These facts make Mike Leavitt’s views predictable, and he no doubt feels obligated to complete the exchange of receiving power to supporting his ally’s public policy.

In conclusion, this article dramatically loses its appeal to the reader because of a critical flaw contained in the title. “The President’s Plan is better.” That statement in and of itself is a very bold one indeed, and it’s just asking to be antagonized. Right off the bat the title successfully makes the article ineffective.