Herrick, Devon. "The Medical Device Tax Will Devastate the Medical Technology Industry." Medical Technology. Ed. Carol Ullmann and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Job-Killing Medical Device Tax." National Center for Policy Analysis Issue Briefs, Health. 2012. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
This source is talking about what will happen to the economy when the Affordable Care Act is passed. Basically there is a provision that increases tax on medical tools by about 2.3%. This article is saying how companies will have to layoff employees and cut hours and pay to muster up the money for that 2.3% tax increase. Most medical supply companies are small and private, is what the article claims, and a tax increase by this much could be the downfall of there whole company, or at least an extreme setback.
This is opposing view point is a very useful source. It provides a possibility of something that no one has really been talking about and gives numbers and statistics to back up the articles theory. While responding to the points in this article when I write my own rhetoric, I plan on pointing out the merits of this argument and how I do believe that this might be an a consequence of the ACA.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Source 6
Hollander, Catherine. "Obamacare Is Creating Jobs--Yes, Really." National Journal(2013).
Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
One of the main arguments against the Affordable Care Act is that the bill is simply
unconstitutional. But this source addresses another concern about the bill, that once
it does go into effect it will be a great source of job loss in the Nation. This source says
how it will also create jobs, more than will "crush."
This is yet another article that supports my vantage point and will be useful in backing
up my argument. My only complaint is that the article provides more with examples and
narratives rather than with statistics and facts. But that doesn't mean the source isn't a
convincing article and will be of great use to me.
Source 5
"Health Care Act Reminds Young Adults They're Not Invincible." Tell Me More 2 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
This source is very interesting is that it is not a conventional source like editorial or articles. This is a transcript of a discussion from the National Public Radio. Two individual Sit down and discuss the pros of the Affordable Care Act. They give specific examples of one young man who benefited from it and they give more broad and general examples of who this bill is helping the most.
This is a great source because it helps give me some evidence in which to back up my point of view. The two who are talking also clearly know there stuff on this bill, and how it is affecting the nation. It gives examples and statistics that help provide support for why ACA does more good than bad.
This source is very interesting is that it is not a conventional source like editorial or articles. This is a transcript of a discussion from the National Public Radio. Two individual Sit down and discuss the pros of the Affordable Care Act. They give specific examples of one young man who benefited from it and they give more broad and general examples of who this bill is helping the most.
This is a great source because it helps give me some evidence in which to back up my point of view. The two who are talking also clearly know there stuff on this bill, and how it is affecting the nation. It gives examples and statistics that help provide support for why ACA does more good than bad.
Source 4
"ObamaCare Repeal Efforts." Congressional Digest. May 2013. Points of View Reference Center. Web. October 17.2013.
This source talks about the what the people opposed to the ACA are saying. They discuss why they oppose that act, other possible options, and how it might lead to a government shutdown. This source also offers Obama's response to his naysayers and numerous attempts to have the bill shutdown.
This is a valuable source because it is unbiased and packed with information regarding the debate around my topic. This article is also fairly recent and therefore relevant to the debate today. It also references a possible government shutdown, which we know did take place, so it has a good amount of credibility.
This source talks about the what the people opposed to the ACA are saying. They discuss why they oppose that act, other possible options, and how it might lead to a government shutdown. This source also offers Obama's response to his naysayers and numerous attempts to have the bill shutdown.
This is a valuable source because it is unbiased and packed with information regarding the debate around my topic. This article is also fairly recent and therefore relevant to the debate today. It also references a possible government shutdown, which we know did take place, so it has a good amount of credibility.
Source 3
"Is the Insurance Mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Constitutional? CONS." supreme Court Debates. May 2012. Points of View Reference Center. Web. October 17. 2013.
This text talks about the unconstitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. But this source examines a different part of the act then source 1 did. Clement discusses the issue of mandating the consumer to buy health insurance. It is within congressional power to control most economic decisions, but it is not within congressional power to force an act upon an individual. Clement is basically saying in this source that buying health care is a choice given to the individual and not an economic decision.
This is yet again a great source for my opposing view points. I also prefer this source much more to source 1 because this source is discussing the stronger point of controversy circulating around this bill. I also believe there is more truth behind this argument, even though I plan on completely refuting it in my response to prove my point.
This text talks about the unconstitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. But this source examines a different part of the act then source 1 did. Clement discusses the issue of mandating the consumer to buy health insurance. It is within congressional power to control most economic decisions, but it is not within congressional power to force an act upon an individual. Clement is basically saying in this source that buying health care is a choice given to the individual and not an economic decision.
This is yet again a great source for my opposing view points. I also prefer this source much more to source 1 because this source is discussing the stronger point of controversy circulating around this bill. I also believe there is more truth behind this argument, even though I plan on completely refuting it in my response to prove my point.
Source 2
Auebach, Michael P. "Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act: An Overview." Points of View: Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, 2013. Points of View Reference Center. Web. October 17.2013.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a piece of legislation with many different part and amendment and such. This overview explains the bill in depth, and what it actually is doing for the health care system. This overview explains the discussion about the bill, the history, the what is going on today.
This is a great source because it is not partisan or bias in anyway. It clearly states what the bill is trying to accomplish without any spin on it. It is great for me to use as a point of reference to either back up another source, or discredit one that has put too much spin.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a piece of legislation with many different part and amendment and such. This overview explains the bill in depth, and what it actually is doing for the health care system. This overview explains the discussion about the bill, the history, the what is going on today.
This is a great source because it is not partisan or bias in anyway. It clearly states what the bill is trying to accomplish without any spin on it. It is great for me to use as a point of reference to either back up another source, or discredit one that has put too much spin.
Source 1
Hatch, Orrin. "Does the Obama Administration's Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Protect the Constitutional Rights of Religiously Affiliated Employers?" Congressional Digest. April 2012. Points of View Reference Center. Web. October 17.2013.
The Honorable Orrin Hatch discusses the unconstitutionality of the ACA. He does this by pointing out how the act has an amendment in it that allows for female employees to be given birth control. The ACA also mandates that organizations with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance for their workers. So he goes on to say that forcing churches to provide health care that allows them the use of contraceptives is against their freedom of religion under the first amendment. He is basically condemning the bill for this one provision and asking for a call of action from his anyone who will support him.
This is a great editorial source. Hatch is introducing a topic and arguing for his point of view through the use of appeal and persuasion. This works very well for me to present what opposing view point I want to address and pretty much disagree with.
The Honorable Orrin Hatch discusses the unconstitutionality of the ACA. He does this by pointing out how the act has an amendment in it that allows for female employees to be given birth control. The ACA also mandates that organizations with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance for their workers. So he goes on to say that forcing churches to provide health care that allows them the use of contraceptives is against their freedom of religion under the first amendment. He is basically condemning the bill for this one provision and asking for a call of action from his anyone who will support him.
This is a great editorial source. Hatch is introducing a topic and arguing for his point of view through the use of appeal and persuasion. This works very well for me to present what opposing view point I want to address and pretty much disagree with.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Rogerian Rhetoric
Summary/Response
Rogerian Rhetoric is a type of argument that is based off the idea's of a therapist named Carl Rogers. When Rogers discovered that he couldn't rationalize with his patients when he told them what was best he decided to take the approach of allowing them to heal themselves. Rogers would try and reiterate the patients frustrations and problems in his own words, and when the patient felt understood Rogers would steer them into a new way of thinking. The rhetoric works the same way; you propose a topic, usually an emotional one, and present first with the oppositions point of view. Then you summarize and empathize to gain support from the opposition. Then you turn around and steer towards the point of view you were trying to get across all along.
I think this is a very good idea in theory. If you assume to understand what the opposition is thinking though, and completely miss the mark you may come off as foolish. I also think that empathizing when you don't really agree with the point of view can come off as condescending. I think the Rogerian way of therapy is condescending and leads you to assume too much about others problems and frustrations. So over all, the Rogerian rhetoric may be useful, but I do not prefer it.
Rogerian Rhetoric is a type of argument that is based off the idea's of a therapist named Carl Rogers. When Rogers discovered that he couldn't rationalize with his patients when he told them what was best he decided to take the approach of allowing them to heal themselves. Rogers would try and reiterate the patients frustrations and problems in his own words, and when the patient felt understood Rogers would steer them into a new way of thinking. The rhetoric works the same way; you propose a topic, usually an emotional one, and present first with the oppositions point of view. Then you summarize and empathize to gain support from the opposition. Then you turn around and steer towards the point of view you were trying to get across all along.
I think this is a very good idea in theory. If you assume to understand what the opposition is thinking though, and completely miss the mark you may come off as foolish. I also think that empathizing when you don't really agree with the point of view can come off as condescending. I think the Rogerian way of therapy is condescending and leads you to assume too much about others problems and frustrations. So over all, the Rogerian rhetoric may be useful, but I do not prefer it.
Affordable Care Act: Right or Wrong?
Topic Proposal
In recent discussion of the Affordable Care Act, a controversial issue has been whether or not it is useful to the nation and constitutional at the same time. On one hand some argue it will have more negative effects than good on the workforce and economy and that it impedes on individual freedoms. From this perspective, it is easy to see how one might not be supportive of this legislation. On the other hand, however, others argue that the ACA does in fact boost the economy and create jobs and does not impede on any individual freedoms. In the words of Honorable Orrin Hatch the act limits our first amendment right, one of this views main proponents is that "The media, polite society, and the Administration are picking on religious freedom and on religious people." According to this view, the act allows for the rights of religious people to be picked on while it is in effect because it allows women access to birth control. In sum, then, the issue is whether or not the act is constitutional in every way possible.
My own view is that the act does more good than harm and should be given more support by Congress and influential political leaders. Though I concede that there may be negative effects, I still maintain that this bill is for the better. For example, if we went back to the old system of healthcare we would still lose the jobs that the act created. Although some might object that the ACA is a detriment, I would reply that it shows our country is moving forward. The issue is important because it impacts most American lives.
In recent discussion of the Affordable Care Act, a controversial issue has been whether or not it is useful to the nation and constitutional at the same time. On one hand some argue it will have more negative effects than good on the workforce and economy and that it impedes on individual freedoms. From this perspective, it is easy to see how one might not be supportive of this legislation. On the other hand, however, others argue that the ACA does in fact boost the economy and create jobs and does not impede on any individual freedoms. In the words of Honorable Orrin Hatch the act limits our first amendment right, one of this views main proponents is that "The media, polite society, and the Administration are picking on religious freedom and on religious people." According to this view, the act allows for the rights of religious people to be picked on while it is in effect because it allows women access to birth control. In sum, then, the issue is whether or not the act is constitutional in every way possible.
My own view is that the act does more good than harm and should be given more support by Congress and influential political leaders. Though I concede that there may be negative effects, I still maintain that this bill is for the better. For example, if we went back to the old system of healthcare we would still lose the jobs that the act created. Although some might object that the ACA is a detriment, I would reply that it shows our country is moving forward. The issue is important because it impacts most American lives.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Analyzing Editorial and Opinion Pieces
In this reading we learned about Editorials and Opinion Pieces. These things have changed over time and are slightly different things from when they were first constructed. But nonetheless they still exist and serve an important purpose in our society, and the purpose is masterfully getting a point across.
The writer of this piece talks about first how the internet is the main source of editorials and op-eds and even then goes on to only use examples from online sources. He talks about the importance of pathos, logos, and ethos and gives multiple examples of how they are well used or not. By analyzing in such depth I now have a better understanding of how powerful the argument should be in my own opinion pieces.
The writer of this piece talks about first how the internet is the main source of editorials and op-eds and even then goes on to only use examples from online sources. He talks about the importance of pathos, logos, and ethos and gives multiple examples of how they are well used or not. By analyzing in such depth I now have a better understanding of how powerful the argument should be in my own opinion pieces.
Easy Writer
Research
I like how the easy writer introduces the concept of research. It uses a paragraph with multiple scenarios in which you might need to do some research. I had a summer job at City Hall in Manhattan and I wish I had read this before then, its a very valuable piece of writing.
While everything the easy writer covers about research should be looked at and memorized, some stuff was quite notable. One thing I found extremely useful was the page on how to search for certain things on the internet. As a college student of the 21st century I will be using the internet and the more I know about how to use it, the better. I also found the section on how to properly quote useful and practical.
I like how the easy writer introduces the concept of research. It uses a paragraph with multiple scenarios in which you might need to do some research. I had a summer job at City Hall in Manhattan and I wish I had read this before then, its a very valuable piece of writing.
While everything the easy writer covers about research should be looked at and memorized, some stuff was quite notable. One thing I found extremely useful was the page on how to search for certain things on the internet. As a college student of the 21st century I will be using the internet and the more I know about how to use it, the better. I also found the section on how to properly quote useful and practical.
Monday, October 14, 2013
They Say I Say
Chapters 1-3
In this section of the book, the author begins to explore how to set up an argument and make it convincing. One way of doing that the author explains is to focus on what "they say." "They" are the people who you are responding to when you make a point about a specific topic, when you want to prove something. The ways of doing this that the author covers in the first few chapters in through the use of summarizing, knowing your opposition, and quoting.
In this section of the book, the author begins to explore how to set up an argument and make it convincing. One way of doing that the author explains is to focus on what "they say." "They" are the people who you are responding to when you make a point about a specific topic, when you want to prove something. The ways of doing this that the author covers in the first few chapters in through the use of summarizing, knowing your opposition, and quoting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)