Argumentative Essay About Health Insurance
The 25 Most Interesting Argumentative Essay Topics In Health Care
The core concept in an argumentative essay is for you to convince the reader that your point of view is the right one. In most cases, highly experienced teachers will not mark your argumentative essay based on the content, but they will do so with regard to the convincing manner in which you have presented your work. It is more like law. You do not have to be innocent to win, just present your case properly and you will walk away a free man.
The following are some neat argumentative essay topics that you can consider writing about when you are taking a course concerning health care:
- What is melanoma?
- Explain how osteoporosis is a hidden condition affecting so many people without their knowledge
- A lot of adults today have autism because they never noticed it while they were kids, discuss
- Explain the role of learning institutions in dealing with obesity
- Heart attacks are more catastrophic in women than men. Discuss
- Discuss how meditation helps in improving the power of the mind
- Discuss 5 stress relief alternatives that most people are not aware of, or take for granted
- Discuss solutions relevant to urinary incontinence as an adult challenge
- Explain the benefits of mastectomy
- Choose a topic of your choice in birth control, and discuss how effective and ineffective it can be, citing relevant solutions where necessary
- Present an argumentative essay on how vasectomy can be a terrible choice for someone’s partner
- Menopause is often associated with women. Discuss how men deal with similar issues in life
- Argue in favor of or against health insurance
- Discuss the role of alternative therapy in dealing with menopause
- Explain how homeopathy works, citing challenges and possible solutions to overcoming them
- Fast food restaurants are taking too much blame than they should over obesity. Discuss
- Explain how fitness programs at work can improve efficiency
- Discuss the challenges of weaponizing biology and the immediate effects to humans
- Explain some of the disadvantages of an ageing population on health care
- Explain how lead poisoning occurs at a domestic level
- Malpractice happens all the time in medical institutions. Explain the causes and how this can be prevented
- Discuss how noise pollution affects the rest of the body other than the ears
- Ease of access to prescription medicine should be discouraged. Discuss
- Explain how effective “smoking zones” are
- Discuss why and how men get razor bumps while women do not
Each of the topics and tasks below were inspired by the Steven Brill article above. I highly suggest that you, the teacher, read the article so that you've got a firm grasp on the issues and some of the facts. Then, you can decide what (if anything) you want your students to read to inform their own opinions.
Should there be limits on the prices drugmakers and hospitals charge for certain drugs?
New, sophisticated drugs are necessary to treat diseases like cancer. These drugs often cost several thousand dollars per treatment straight from the manufacturer, and hospitals will often mark the price of these drugs up even further when they bill patients. The patient usually has little to no choice in the matter, and there's no competition to help drive down prices as would happen in a normal market.
Drug makers, on the other hand, argue that high prices are necessary to fund research and development. Brill has some interesting numbers to challenge that assertion, and you'll want to read his findings before you make up your mind. However, there's a fundamental question about free market economics, liberty, and fairness involved in this question.
Should there be limits on the salaries of hospital administrators?
One of Brill's findings is that hospital CEOs and other administrators are paid outsized salaries - often in the high six figures or even seven figures. In the case of hospitals attached to research universities, the hospital administrator is often paid more than the university president. This is similar in some ways to the salary arms race going on in college sports, where head football coaches are paid exorbitant salaries.
In the scheme of things, reducing administrative salaries probably won't bring costs down much. But it just seems like a good idea. It's also interesting to note that many of these hospitals are not-for-profit organizations.
Should hospital fees be tied directly to the cost of providing a particular service?
A constant theme of Brill's article is the "chargemaster" list. It's a list of prices for particular services and items administered at a hospital, and it's the basis for all prices charged to individuals and to insurance companies. These lists have no logical connection to the actual cost of services, and they often produce extremely high mark-ups (1000% to 2000%) over the actual cost.
There's an alternative method, which Medicare uses. When the government reimburses hospitals for treating medicare patients, it draws on a calculated list of what it actually costs to provide a service. These prices are drastically lower than the ones on the chargemaster. An interesting reform might be to tie the prices of all fees to this Medicare reimbursement list, and then allow a certain mark-up for the hospitals to make a profit.
Should uninsured individuals pay more for the same services?
A peculiar problem of the American healthcare system is that uninsured (or underinsured) people face steep charges if they go to the hospital. These fees are based on the previously mentioned, outrageously over-priced chargemaster. Insurance companies negotiate lower prices, and the government insists on a particular schedule of fees when it pays for Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Yet individuals who have no insurance are at the mercy of the hospital, and they must pay whatever the hospital charges them. To make matters worse, people often don't know how much they're going to be charged until after they've been treated. This begs the question of whether it's fair for some people to pay far more for healthcare than those who are covered by insurance.
Should there be limits on malpractice lawsuits (i.e. tort reform)?
On the conservative side, one argument about healthcare is that prices are so high because hospitals and doctors have to be concerned with malpractice lawsuits. One wrong step and they're on the line for millions of dollars of liability. If they don't exhaust every option, then they might even be on the hook for that. Brill suggests that this leads to massive over-testing, and doctors are ordering all kinds of tests (like CT Scans) that aren't really necessary.
By tightening the rules for proving malpractice - i.e. requiring true negligence on the part of the doctor - you free hospitals from the need to run excessive tests to simply cover their butts. This could help bring down spending significantly, although the counter argument is that this could lead to inferior care.