Counter-argument can be defined as the act of going against another person’s argument or an idea by casting out possible claims that support your argument. In short, the author of an essay devotes the whole of his or her article to the work of refuting allegations put forward by someone else. This type of argument is common to the journalists as depicted in the editorials of the newspapers. An example of a counter-argument is as the one discussed in this paper coined from two US newspapers; USA Today and The Seattle Times.
Robert Moffit, an author in the opinion, “Don’t blame Donald Trump for Obamacare’s failures” in the USA Today newspaper refutes the opinion laid in The Seattle Times newspaper with the heading “Affordable Care Act is worth saving.” The subject of the argument is whether health care act-Obamacare should still operate. The rebuttal argument has been made as discussed in this paper.
Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed by the former president of the United States of America in 2010, and its provisions were majorly favoring the U.S. citizens. It was anticipated that this act would tighten the healthcare system. Some of the provisions of that act include; health prevention and promotion, reductions of care cost, fairness in the treatment of patients, expanded coverage, the establishment of new care models, and Medicare preservation. The opinion in The Seattle Times newspaper argues concerning the recent step of the Justice Department to stop supporting the existence of the “Affordable Care Act” in the court. The author claims that Trump Administration wants to suppress Obamacare for no reason by allowing insurance companies to offer less costly plans having little coverage unlike what is required in the Obamacare Act.
The author further argues that an insurance company may, for instance, cease to offer cover to a critically ill patient. Robert Moffit directly attacks the opinion by terming it “Nonsense.” He states that the so-called “Obamacare” is the chief cause of the many problems experienced in healthcare. He points out the problems such as the rising costs, the reducing choices of healthcare insurance and poor plans as evident issues brought about by Obamacare. Moffit claims that this has been evident from the first day where the insurance premiums in the individual market have risen since 2013 by 105 percent.
The point of argument of The Seattle Times newspaper has an appeal to authority. Author has pointed out that the commissioner of the Washington insurance proposed an increase in the personal plans by 19 percent in 2019. As a result of this, premiums are projected to increase by 15 percent a point which the author says that the increases in the premiums were avoidable as was told by D-Olympia, a U.S. Rep. Moffit in The Seattle Times, opposes the point by stating that an increase in the premiums would lead to a decline in the enrollments. He lays pieces of evidence of the subsequent reductions in enrollment since the ObamaCare was incubated.
Moffit highlights that despite an increase in penalties, registration kept decreasing. In 2013, for instance, individual insurers declined from 395 to 181. Moffit uses evidence to counter the argument that an increase in the premium will be less significant and would cause less impact. He acknowledges the point of view put forward in The Seattle Times where Congress has predicted an increase in the number of enrollments before he lays his counter-argument.
The author in The Seattle Times opposes the action of the Trump Administration to put to an end individual insurance plan suggested by the “Affordable Care Act (ACA).” The author supports the claim by explaining the importance of individual mandate in healthcare insurance that it would lead to more stability and lower rates in the future. To offer a solution, the author suggests that the Congress should be at the forefront in defending ACA. The opinion also points out that the lawmakers should oppose the idea to promote low-benefit and low-cost plans and promote the tasks of healthcare insurers.
Moffit in his claim in The USA Today newspaper suggests changes in the opposition of the “low-cost, low-benefit plans.” He states that the Trump administration aims to increase choices. In expanding choices, Moffit explains that the “killing” of Obamacare will promote the payment of taxes by the health insurance accounts. He also states that the choice will bring relief to those in jobs by expanding health plans from three months to a year. Furthermore, he continues to shed light to the opposition that instead of a forced engagement to large healthcare plans, a low-cost with less benefit plan is the best ideal for reducing premium costs as well a free choice to everyone.
The author in The Seattle Times concludes that insurance coverage is vital and thus should be expanded instead of ruining it and as well should be preserved. To accommodate the argument, Moffit expounds that it is the choice of anyone to either support or oppose Obamacare plan, but for those interested in taking better options, he states that he or she should support what is before the Congress.
Our editors will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!Get started
Please check your inbox