Thank you very much for your previous posts! It seems that many of us do agree that our health system needs some type of change.
For this post, please analyze Michael Moore's argument. How does he use ethos, pathos, and logos? Does he use any fallacies of argument? Which ones?
Do you think his argument might've been more effective? How so? If you feel it was already effective, explain why.
Lastly, what do you learn about argument from watching this film?
Good work!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Michael Moore uses logos a lot. He talks to lots of doctors and residents that live in these countries that he goes to. He uses pathos by the words he chooses to use. Such as if you want good and free treatment then move to Great Britian. People live longer in other countries than in the Unites States. It seems to be a dream come true. He is saying that United States health care is so poor that we have no choice but to go to other countries for help. Michael does a realy good job letting us know what the problem is and what we are not doing to fix it. He makes other countries look so good that we must move. The Unites States has a lot of things that other countries don't such as cheap mailing, get our books for free at libraries, cheaper gas for our cars. What we don't have it good health care. We like the other stuff but in my mind I think our health care is way above the material things in life. You only have one life to live so let's take care of this so we can live a long and happy life like they do in Great Britian, Cananda, and other countries. We have a right to fight so let's get to it.
Michael Moore's argument for universal health care was pretty strong in my opinion. It is something everyone deserves, but that so many are denied. He uses a lot of logos it seems in the film. He appeals to logic by showing so many successful, western, democratic countries that can help there people free of cost. The way we do health care truly disgusts me. He also uses a lot of ethos, trying to get people to appeal to these people that are having such a hard time not receiving health care. Moore used many fallacies of argument, many hasty generalizations. You can't just snap your fingers, and have health care switched to other countries systems. We have been doing it this way for a long time, and it would take a lot of re-structuring to revamp the health care system into a universalized system. I don't think Moore being obese takes away from his argument at all, people in other countries are obese too. I really don't think I learned too much about argument from watching this film.
Charlie Krabbe
I believe Mike did a good job using ethos,pathos and logos. for the record, just because he is over weight doesn't mean he is unhealthy, it could be the way he expresses himself. The argument was very effective to me because he used facts and real people. Also he went to different countries to let his viewers hear the other side for themselves. Another reason he was effective is because he showed real statements and press releases on this subject.
Cy Wynn
I found it interesting about this documentary by Michael Moore. He uses his ethos by asking a lot of American (those who have insurance and don't) about their health issues to support his argument. He also shows us a lot of health issues from other country, such as England, Canada, France and Cuba. By using these ethos, we can clearly see where he's going with his argument.
Not forgetting to mention about his pathos. He uses a lot fo examples from the American people, who have lost their loved ones because of the health problem in the country.
It seems to me that his argument uses some of the Non-sequitur fallacy.
He gives examples from the Canadian, the French and the English people, who seem to live longer because of their better health system.
He has strong pathos arguments. It is hard to look at these people not receiving good healthcare. I’m just not sure how accurate some of his arguments are. Many of the people shown are disabled. When a person is disabled they receive Medicare. If you are low income, you can also receive Medicaid. Medicaid will pay all your medical costs and expenses. We do try to take care of the poor, but we expect them to apply for the benefits.
He uses the fallacy of hasty generalizations. An example would be just speaking to a small amount of people. I’m sure not all people in Canada or France are happy with their systems. There are problems with all systems. If Cuba is such a great place to live, why do people risk their lives on rafts trying to get to the US?
His argument was effective in the way you feel bad for these people. He would have been more effective if he would have shown more than both sides of the story. Maybe if a medical situation is hopeless, sometimes there is nothing that can be done. We have amazing medical treatments in this country.
Amy Hampton
I think Micheal Moore has very good arguement. He uses pathos the most by telling stories of hard working Americans that risked their lives in 9/11. He tells how many were volunteers and now suffer from many different things caused by them rumaging through the 9/11 destruction trying to save lives. Now that they are sick, the government doesn't want to help pay for any medical bills because they were not actually government employees. he then takes them to Cubas where they are immediately cared for for almost nothing at all. Moore also a lot of hasty genralizations. He points out all the negatives of the American medical system and points out all of the positives of all the other countries medical systems. I don't think he could have done anything better to anger an American who knows how much medical costs are. He pointed out many different areas where the US is obviously screwing people for money which is wrong because many people don't have the money neccessary to pay for the tratmnets in the first place. I learned that our health system really is based on money more than actually helping people.
Blake Vorrath
Micheal Moore does a good job using logos. By talking to different doctors, nurses,and civilians he is letting us know that this really does happen in these countries.He uses pathos by showing us the diffences in health care between the U.S. and othere countries. By showing that the 9-11 rescue workers couldnt get medical help in the U.S.even tho they had help during 9-11 they still had to go out of the country to recieve medical care. I think his arguement was very affective. If I were a government worker in charge of health care I would be very embarrassed by this arguement. It says that the U.S. doesnt seem to care as much about its people recieving health care as they do about saving the almighty dollar.
I learned that giving examples in an arguement helps to get your point across. Why one way is better than the other. Micheal Moore showed how the 9-11 workers had to go out of the country to recieve medical care. Which means if other countries can give universal health care than why can't the U.s. LeeAnn
In the movie "Sicko", Micheal Moore uses a lot of emotion. Pretty much the whole movie was meant to be emotional. The way he talked about America and how we have to pay so much for care and how other countries pay little or nothing for their care. He also talked about the people who couldn't pay for their care and got dumped off at some other place. The footage that he showed could make anyone think. The ethos that he used were good. He used interviews from real people without health care and doctors that provide the health care. There were a lot of names of places such as Humana that he used. His arguement is logical, very logical, but he didn't talk to the people that have good health insurance. Most of the people from the U.S. that he talked to looked like they already kind of lived in poverty or close to it. What about the people who have good health insurance? Also, he's not greatest to look at for health, he could practice some better, healtier ways. I'm sure he's got great health insurance, so why is he complaining? Where were the interviews with them? He almost uses false authority because he's famous and expects people to do something about it and want to because he tells you to. The movie could've been better if he would've had the point of view from everyone, not just the one's with terrible healthcare. I learned that the government is even crappier than I thought. If I don't get good heathcare, I'll move to France.
Moore uses some well-chosen examples of ethos. It was particularly clever of him to appeal to American patriotism by interviewing 911 rescue workers- they certainly have credibility and social standing! He does not limit his pathos at all, choosing to show stories of little children dying because they lacked coverage. He also employs a lot of sarcasm, aimed continually at America. His logos, like his ethos, is carefully screened. While the facts he presents do seem quite credible (perhaps with the exception of the boat ride into Guantanomo Bay), I am left wondering how many things he neglected to tell us. His biggest fallacy of argument was ad hominem- attacking the opposition. I found myself growing weary of his anti-American sentiment. He uses ad populum (appealing to the people) when he tells about the "family-friendly" nations like France. I am not questioning his facts here, but I did notice that he plays heavily on people's emotions. Finally, Moore makes hasty generalizations about life in places like Cuba. Cuba's health care may be superb, but he fails to mention other aspects of life there.
I think Moore's argument would have been more effective if he had offered some insight as to a solution. Instead, all he does is suggest that we should have universal health care like all these other nations. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. If universal health care is the best option (honestly, I have no idea if it is or not), we still can't implement it overnight. What will happen to all the "little people" who have office jobs in mega-insurance companies? They could very well end up working three jobs like the people he talked about in the documentary. If we do implement a universal health care program, we will have to do it gradually so that people aren't hurt.
Moore's documentary shows that you can easily pick and choose your facts while using pathos to present your view in a favorable light. This method seems somewhat deceitful, but Moore uses it very effectively to make his points "hit home."
All in all, this was a very thought-provoking, emotion-stimulating movie! I'm glad we watched it.
-Adrian
In Sicko Michael Moore uses alot of pathos to get the audience emotionally involved. Moore finds people who have been mistreated by the gov't and interviewed them on the movie and their stories were usually sad because they were denied health care. Pathos was used to most in the movie but there were also examples logos as well. He uses logos when talking about how other countries like Canada, France, Great Brittian, and even Cuba have universal health care that is free to the people and everyone is covered. Moore uses ethos or establishes credibility when talking to the doctors of the countries that have universal health care. This movie really opens your eyes seeing how poor our healthcare system is even compared to Cubas. The U.S. health care system is terrible and changes need to be made.
Tyler Wendell
In the movie "Sicko", Micheal Moore uses a lot of emotion. Pretty much the whole movie was meant to be emotional. The way he talked about America and how we have to pay so much for care and how other countries pay little or nothing for their care. He also talked about the people who couldn't pay for their care and got dumped off at some other place. The footage that he showed could make anyone think. The ethos that he used were good. He used interviews from real people without health care and doctors that provide the health care. There were a lot of names of places such as Humana that he used. His arguement is logical, very logical, but he didn't talk to the people that have good health insurance. Most of the people from the U.S. that he talked to looked like they already kind of lived in poverty or close to it. What about the people who have good health insurance? Also, he's not greatest to look at for health, he could practice some better, healtier ways. I'm sure he's got great health insurance, so why is he complaining? Where were the interviews with them? He almost uses false authority because he's famous and expects people to do something about it and want to because he tells you to. The movie could've been better if he would've had the point of view from everyone, not just the one's with terrible healthcare. I learned that the government is even crappier than I thought. If I don't get good heathcare, I'll move to France.
-abshafer
Michael Moore makes some ver important points in this movie, and I agree with him that something needs to be done with our Health Care System.He uses logos alot to get his audiences to feel sorry for all of these other people who have had insurance nightmares? The view of America, I believe is, "Why Should we care?"
It is not me. Right? Why should I have to pay higher taxes, when no one n my family is sick? Right? The truth is, anything could happen to us at any time. Michael Moore trys to make us see that. In his use of Pathos, he tells us, "if you want good/free health care you must go to "Great Britian." I agree with him. I noticed Michael did not have any stories, with good health care experiences. This may make people think that he is just covering the bad stuff about our system, and its not all that bad. I want to give this country the benifit of the doubt, but in the end I can guarentee there are more people in ths country with horror stories then good stories about their medical experiences.
Michael Moore spoke with a lot of logic in concern about obesity, lack of insurance in this country, when evryone knows that is the powerful U.S. But i don't think is the way. I feel so sad in how other European countries take care about their own people and how a poor country as Cuba gave to this people inmediately doctor assistance for free when they are from U.S., this people helped to others in the cero zone, i am so happy in how still exist people with big heart. And living in Europe is another benefit, because you don't have to worry about to pay health insurance or save money in order to go to college in the future because, the Government is the one to take care of all this. Michael also use a lot of ethos because he traveled to all this countries to compare the quality of living and the assistance for all this people don't matter what is their economic situation. unfortunaly I am living in America but not for long time. I may going back to Germany because I been living there 10 years ago. But after this increidable vidio I change my mind.
The movie was very persuasive. I think he did a great job at showing what other countries do. I only knew about Canada having a free health care systems, not any other countries. It makes me think why can't we have the same systems.
Chris Gaskill
I think Michael Moore did a very good job with his argument. He showed a number of different countries and how they managed to make universal healthcare work. He also showed how poor the american healthcare system looks along side these other countries. Moore managed to be very persuasive and had a lot of different emotions from different people within his argument. Not only does Moore grab these emotions of everyday people he gets information from doctors in all these different countries. I think Moore did a good job with this movie and really got me thinking about what the american healthcare system could really be like.
I feel Michael used a great amount of pathos throughout his film. He makes us feel sad about the medical care some Americans receive here in the US. He also uses his ethos of being the big star movie guy to help others. For example when he took the sick to Cuba and helped get them medical care. He also uses logos with some of his different interviews with people. He sits down and gets the facts from the people who know what they are talking about. I feel his argument was pretty effective. Yes, I would have liked him to give us more details and facts, especially when he was making other countries healthcare sound so great.
Michael Moore uses pathos a great deal in this film. He is showing it not recieving health care is affecting many people and families. He also shows how the heros from 9/11 are appreciated but when it comes time to help them because of health issues related from 9/11 they can't recieve the help. Michael uses logos when he gets different statistics and opinions from other doctors in different countries. He also uses the community in those countries to express how much different it is between the U.S and their country.
I feel Michaels argument is strong because of the way he interacts with many different people and issues and he also makes this film affective so a person can see the great deal of differences in each country. He catches the viewers attention in every inch of the movie because of the strong facts he presents.
Brittany Hagge
I think Michael Moore makes an extremely effective argument. I really hate him, but he knows how to prove a point and be very persuasive. I think the best way he does this is by pathos. By hearing all of the people's stories it makes one realize that something does need to be changed. His ethos is great as well because the movie shows him in all these other countries experiencing their health care systems so it makes you feel like you can trust his insight. His logos is obvious. It just seems logical to make a universal health care system in the United States. One fallacy of his argument though was that he skimmed over the downfalls of a universal health care system. He didn't really give us any figures regarding the amount of taxes citizens in these socialize countries have to pay. I think that if he would have at least let us know how much they pay we would be better equiped to either agree or disagree with his ideas.
Michael Moore does use a lot of logos. He goes around and talks to many differnt people. He talks to many doctors and residents that many different problems. He also uses pathos, he does by what he says to all that different people. The things that stuck out to me were, people live longer in other counutries than the United States, and that if you want free health care then move to Great Britian. I agree with him, the United States health care programs is very poor. The only other choice that we have is to go somewhere else to get the help that we need. Michael does a great job of letting us know what is wrong with the U.S. health care, and what we should do to fix it. The way he puts it is, that the U.S. is not as good as the other countries, because of many differnt things. One our health care isn't near as good, and two we pay so much more than other people have to for anything that we buy.
Mr. Moore uses pathos very effectively throughout the whole film, from stories of firefighters who didn't recieve help for their health problems, to a woman dumped on the side of the road because she couldn't pay the hospital he continually showed these "sick" people who weren't getting help in America. It was very poweful and thought provoking. Although these stories helped his argument he used a bias slant that I couldn't get over. When interviewing people he always tried to get to his agenda and didn't show the opposite view in the correct light, which annoyed me.
Through it all I thought he was excellent at presenting his view and his argument. Which ultimately should be our goal.
Josh Crim
In this movie Michael Moore did a good job portraying his argument, about the health care in the United States, with the use of pathos and logos and ethos. He used a lot more pathos, by showing all the people who have had bad experiences with health care. He also used some logos with the facts about the “free” health care in other countries, but he really didn’t state how much they had to pay in taxes to have the “free” health care.
For his logos I would say the fact that everyone should be entitled to the medical care they need without driving them to bankruptcy. The main area he had ethos in would be the interviews he had with the citizens of free healthcare nations comparing them to the interviews with our U.S. citizens. For the pathos, I would have to say that the whole film was full of it. Michael is trying to make us feel what it is like to be in situations that can actually cost people there lives due to financial reasons.
I agreed with most of his arguments, but I was left wondering how much in taxes does each citizen pay. That would have strengthened it a bit, but also we have all heard mention of individuals that had to wait months to receive certain services in the free healthcare systems.
Tadd Kingsbury
Michael Moores arguement seems to be valid, but seems a bit too bias towards America. He used ethos each time he refered to the Docters within the diffrent countries. A fact that he convientely left out was that almost no other countries medical professionals can transfer into America's medical field without obtaining a US medical education. Other countries have lower standards of scholastics and requirements to obtain a medical license. He used pathos many times, especially while he detailed the individual realities of his guests/patients. By each person tearfully speaking about the run-around the American healthcare system, viewers feel compelled to see that they recieve the attention they need. Overall I believe that Moore's viewpoint of Americas healthcare was amazingly expressed and potrayed, regardless of what his "oppostion" feels about his documentation.
Mike Ross
I think Michael Moore used pathos throughout most of the movie. Moore brought in people who haven't had the benefits of good medical care, which only makes us feel for those people. Moore used logos by showing that Al Qauida members get better health care treatment by the U.S., than innocent citizens do. Moore tried using ethos by showing interviews with doctors in the U.S. and outside the U.S. I think Moore's usage of ethos was probably his weakest link. Moore never really touched on how much those other countries pay in taxes. It's obvious that if there is "free" medical care, then the government will have to raise taxes drastically. Moore never showed the negative impact "free" health care has on those countries. Moore never showed a person having to wait days or months to get into the hospital in another country. So I think he used a fallacy, by displaying people in other countries never having to wait to get medical care; they can go in immediately after they have symptoms. I agree with Moore that the U.S. health care system isn't perfect, but I think the U.S. wouldn't have as many problems, if people would take responsibilty for themselves. I also think the U.S. isn't as bad as Moore portrays it to be. We can look at the many positives our country possesses that other countries don't have, as well.
brokaw
i'm not a big fan of Micheal Moore however, I feel that he created a very successful arguement. i feel that is successful because the type of ethos and pathos he used. He also used a lot of emotion in his movie. the emotion he often used was sadness. most of it came from examples of Americans who have been sick or dieing that have been refused health care. Micheal Moore also used creditability by giving examples of other countries health care sysytem. i often understood that their has been a problem with our health care. however, i never knew how well other countries had it. i feel that our country should do whatever it takes to accomplish a new health care system.
-Greg Call-
Mike Moore takes the heath care a step further. This has always been a problem in the U.S. When he goes about doing this movie he is taking a huge chance in that he might get some big hits. When he talks about the guy with the web site that just takes every little stab at him. He is gaining some credibility. Then he goes and sends the check? He just takes his argument to a maximum extreme at that point.
Brad Carlson
jinny
Michael Moore did a good job putting this video together. He not only gave examples of people without health insurance, but he prooved that people with health insurance have some of the same problems. This showed the ethos and pathos both. He showed logos by giving us logic about the other countries, and their health insurance. Showing that the other countries aren't worse off by doing this but they're better off. He showed pathos by
jinny
Michael Moore did a good job putting this video together. He not only gave examples of people without health insurance, but he prooved that people with health insurance have some of the same problems. This showed the ethos and pathos both. He showed logos by giving us logic about the other countries, and their health insurance. Showing that the other countries aren't worse off by doing this but they're better off. He showed pathos by
In the video Michael Moore used a lot of logos to help prove his point. In some ways everything that he pointed out acutally could make some one dislike him, for the simple fact that he is pointing out one of the major problems of this country that the government has been trying to cover up. He also tries to show how other countries handle medical expenses and the way he comes across it almost seems like he's trying to tell us to move out of the U.S. to these other counrties that have the government paying and covering all of these things that those of us living in the U.S. are worrying about.
By watching this video, I learned a lot about arguement. I learned personally, the movie helped me understand that you don't want to be too redundent because other wise the reader/viewer starts getting very bored, and you as the writer don't want that to happen.
Aryn
Caleb Avery
Michael Moore’s Sicko, uses a lot of pathos, everything from the 9/11 references, to the women crying and the children dying. The examples of pathos are effective, who can not feel a touch of sadness when ever a child dies, or when someone brings up the 9/11 attacks. His examples of logos were also good, the statistics show that other countries with free health care have less infant mortalities, that is a fact and no one can argue that. His ethos however, falls short of the marker, so short in fact, that it almost completely eliminates his effective use of pathos, and logos. Admittedly I can not stand Michael Moore, so I have a somewhat biased opinion. He is severely overweight, so that makes his concerns on health care a little strange. Also all of the opinions are biased that he puts in the movie, not all Canadians like the health care up there. I feel that he is just a person that lieks to stir up trouble.
Moore uses alot pathos. He just wants you to be mad at America. I know that Moore has lied alot in his movies and leaves out a tremendous amount of information. I take everything Moore says with a block of salt.
Matt Chasteen
This film had countless examples of pathos everywhere. 9/11 workers and volunteers not receiving the care that they need and deserve for their actions. Terriorist prisinors in Guantanamo Bay recieve better health care than actual citizens of the United States. I could list examples for ages. The examples of logos is just as high. Speaking to doctors and citizens of several countries that have free universal health care, shows that the method works. The people in these countries live longer and are healthier than people in America. ~Amanda Hall
I believe Michael Moore used very strong and effective pathos and ethos. He was successful with proving his argument by traveling to the different countries, interviewing the people from those other countries with free health insurance, interviewing people from the U.S. (with or without health insurance), and the doctors that work in the countries with free insyurance. He had more than enough information to back up his argument and more than enough emotion with all the families that had lost loved ones. I am personally shocked by how twisted our government really is when dealing with health insurance and it makes alot of sense now. It makes me want to move to one of those other countries for sure.
alreed1
Michael Moore uses so much pathos in this movie that towards the end I felt like he over did it! But then again I also felt that it brought his audience members to side with him too so I guess that was his point! He also used a lot of logos by interviewing many doctors and people who actually work for the insurance companies. He also left out a lot of the facts. Yes he showed how these other countries were so much better off than we are because of their universal health care but he never told us how much they have to pay in taxes in order for these services to be provided. I thought that his argument was effective in that it at the very least made me think twice about universal health care.
Andrea Bollenbaugh
Michael Moore definitely used an extreme amount of pathos in this movie. He interviewed a numerous amount of United States citizens that have been denied necessary health care from their insurance companies. I think his most effective use of pathos was used in the end of the movie involving the September 11th rescue workers. How is it fair that our heroes are being denied the health care that is being provided for Al Qaeda? Logos was definitely present in the movie as well. How is it logical that the United States, which is such a strong, powerful country, is one of the only countries that don't provide its citizens with free health care? When Michael Moore went to Canada, England, and France, it really made me open my eyes and take a look at what's going on in this country. His ethos on the other hand is somewhat questionable. Michael Moore is by no means a healthy person, so why is he a credible individual to make such a movie? However, I do believe that he is one of the many concerned United States citizens worrying about the current health care crisis going on in our country, so he does have a right to take a stand on an issue that he feels is important.
I feel that Michael Moore's argument was extremely effective. He used so many examples of real, American people that really need help and are being denied. I personally have been lucky enough to never have to worry about health insurance or medical bills. After watching this movie, my eyes were opened to a whole new light that really makes me think about what's going on in this country.
I learned a lot about argument from this film. I feel that Michael Moore used a lot of good argument tactics, especially pathos. I also liked the part when he wrote a check to cover the medical bills of the wife of the man who has the "Michael Moore hate website." He really did a nice job of showing that he could be kind to someone who stands against everything he believes in.
Caitlin Weaver
Michael Moore argued that the american healthcare system needs drastric changes. He showed how Americans are taught that the countries we hate the most seem to have the best healthcare. He did fairly well with this and used the pathos of the 9/11 volunteers and the logos of the countries that we hate have better healthcare to help persuade the viewer to his view. There was little if any ethos, or personal experience or credibility, to help his argument. The argument was fairly effective despite my hatred for the guy. He pointed out a couple of good points and i learned that you just need to show what is actually going on.
Brandon H
On a normal occasion, I would pass on subjecting myself to any of the films by Michael Moore. However, no matter how dark my thoughts of him may be, I feel that his reasoning behind making this film was well justified. He uses Pathos throughout the entire production, as well as using logos to verify his facts as he interviews many different people from largely different heath systems. But it wouldn’t be a Michael Moore film if he didn’t use some fallacies:
1) Ad populum against the United State Government,
2) Begging the question fallacy is used against the Heath Insurance Companies,
3) False analogy toward the “happiness” of people in other countries (all they ALL happy?)
Fortunately for Michael Moore, the argument sells itself, at least to those that can use it!
Micheal Moore uses pathos and logos in his argument. He uses pathos by says how he feels about the U.S.'s way for dealing with people who need medical attention. He uses logos by going around to different countries asking doctors how much medication is there. He also asks residents how they like living there with free hospital bills, good daycares, and the government to hire someone to help you at home. While in the U.S. it is difficult for most people to get the care they need, even some people that helped in the September 11th.
I didn't really know who Michael Moore was. I'd heard of him and I guess many people don't like him and I think that, I may have been influenced by what I’d heard of him. I am by no means a liberal either but I do think that he did an excellent job with this film. He used pathos through out the film I know it almost brought tears to my eyes even though I am one of those people with no healthcare insurance. His ethos was when the film interviewed people who worked for the insurance companies and healthcare professionals both from here and from the other countries. His appeal to reason is this, I think, that if we are so much better than them why can’t, we take better care of our citizens. There will always be those that think, it’s not really that bad here look at all the good we do, sending food and aid to underdeveloped countries. Many of those people, who think its not that bad, have never had to wonder were they’ll sleep, how they’ll heat their home (if they have one), or where their next meal is coming from. As a kid I was a big flag waver thought that the U.S. was the greatest country in the world and for the most part I still do. As a kid I didn’t know whether there would more then one meal that day, I struggle bad health I still want to see the good in this country, and I don’t want lay down my flag just yet, but those other countries are starting to look better and better all the time.
He uses ethos because he interviews people who have lived the experiences that he is wanting to make us aware of. He interviews both patients and doctors. He uses pathos when he has these people tell of their awful experiences where they have either gotten sicker or even lost a loved one because they were denied care. He uses logos when he makes the statement that if this system that other countries use for their medical care will work for them why would it not work in the United States? I think his argument was pretty effective the way it was, however we all know we can always improve on everything. I felt it was effective because he got his point across.
Post a Comment