The debate is raging on whether to adopt or refuse the new proposed healthcare bill. This is a debate that involves not only the Democrats and Republicans, but the entire nation. Numerous opinions have been expressed for and against the bill, and judging from the direction taken by the arguments, it can be said that most of the views presented have been influenced by three main factors, namely, the society, media and culture. These are the factors that this paper aims to highlight. The paper further tries to draw a verdict on the degree of influence these three factors have on the reasoning and arguments concerning the health care bill.
Key Arguments and Factors Influencing Reasoning
The proponents of the bill believe that the new health deal will lead to a high competition among the healthcare providers, which will in the long run improve the quality of treatment and coverage for a wider majority. This argument comes as a result of what the public has been forced to undergo throughout their lives, there has been a general mood in favor of changing the old ways the society believes that the current bill is raw and has grown out of date, unable to address modern challenges facing the public. Besides, the people have grown bored with the same old methods health experts and providers control everything. The new ways will empower them and put them in a position, where they will be able to take charge of their own health matters. The cost is, however, said to be higher than the existing one, probably, because it intends to provide the insurance coverage for more people including non-citizens. At the same time the bill proponents argue that the system will see more and more people register with the public coverage scheme, a move that will eliminate extra expenses paid to the private health plans and providers. This would ease the tax burden by about 20-30 for more than two thirds of the population. The proposed system is being faulted by individuals, who want the status quo to remain as it stands now they are citing high cost as their greatest backing, they are also for the opinion that the government run health plan is incapable of addressing solvency problems to those below 65 in the long run. It would also be disastrous for the providers themselves.
Position and Justification
The arguments fronted above do take shape because of the three earlier mentioned factors the social one, media and culture. The real truth may be hidden from the public, but still people seem to take sides, based on what they think they know, their past experiences, cultural standards and what they have heard or read over the press. The public has taken over the debate more than even the political leaders. The reason for this is that they have been made to believe that the issue concerns them and their overall wellbeing. When a matter of universal concern erupts in a social setting, it may not require every individual to look for the details before taking a position. Many people would just go by what the majority says is right and not bother themselves with the resourceful grainy details of the facts (Maurice, 2005). A matter of this magnitude will have a vast majority sharing a common opinion. For this reason, therefore, the society is believed to have a vast influence on the reasoning and arguments that would be fronted. The healthcare bill is no different, its debate has come under social influence, where a high percentage of the population is seen as drumming support to it without even bothering to dig out the facts concerning it. After hearing views from the peers, friends and colleagues that the system resonates well with the low class, the mood would be changed and everyone would have all their arms up in support for the new advent, it is the society at large, which will do the judgment and brush any divergent opinion aside (McGraw - Hill Contemporary Learning Series).
Deceptive information concerning the real implications of the bill has been made public. The media has been on the forefront as the chief means to spread numerous views on the topic. The media information may contain either true facts or lies depending on the intention of the creator. The information can either be miss-presented or misinterpreted leading to fully false judgment--reasoning and argument. As the Democrats and other healthcare bill advocates support the bill, critics, on the other hand, are busy spreading propaganda via the press falsifying the stand and sustainability of the new advent. The media comes as a perfect tool to increase the extent of influence of any nature, able to distort political, commercial, civil and religious adventurers. The media can be used to instill fear of the unknown among the listeners and readers in order to manipulate their views and reasoning (Walton, 1992). This is what the healthcare bill opponents have applied to sway some individuals to have indifferent stands on the proposed system. Proponents of the bill have also used the same tool to implore support to have the bill passed. Both factions use the media to prop up massive wave and bring their opponents one down.
The following techniques, discussed by Maurice (2005), are some of the methods that the political leaders are using to implement their views, regardless of the implications. To the proponents they may resort to the use of fancy words and glittering generalities to describe the bill, false unjustifiable explanations, testimonials, plain folks and bandwagon strategy among others. Opponents may also use some of the above techniques, but craft them in a manner that they will fit best. Besides, they also employ the following techniques the faulty cause and fallacy. A combined effect of these steps spread among even the most just and fair public has the capacity to wreck havoc and sway sober reasoning and eventually decision making (Maurice, 21-36). The media is a powerful tool, which forms a basic component of humans daily life it can therefore make or break a new advent, depending on which school of though carries the day as far as public reception is concerned. Informal fallacies are in most cases found to be more convincing than facts themselves (Maurice, 2005), this, therefore, calls for self consciousness before settling to a controversial conclusion.
Another factor that plays a leading role in making people have clouded judgment in reasoning and appeal to emotions is culture. Culture determines what a society regards as core values (Murray, 1978). Any new move can either be welcomed or opposed, depending on how it is seen as resonating with culture and values. Arguments are said to be revolving around the notion of values, regardless of what facts, presumptions or truth there may be. Crucial arguments, like the one on healthcare bill, which touches on the basic fabric that holds a society together has value playing a leading role in reconciling empty claims and solid evidence. Culture encompasses a series of codes, such as the language and non-verbal phenomena that help give meaning to any complex matter that may bring forth cross-cultural arguments. America being a multi-cultural state, argues on the issues that are regarded to be of cultural importance along cultural lines. The general public in this case may, therefore, opt to support a particular opinion simply because it is in-line with their cultural standards and not because of its viability. It is very difficult to find a unifying cultural stand, especially, in a setting like the United States of America, in light of this, individuals drawn from different background will have divergent viewpoints concerning how the proposed new healthcare bill treats them, and it may not be possible to sway them to have a common opinion on the matter. For this reasons, Maurice conciders that reasoning and arguments are deeply seated on cultural background of an individual (Maurice 2005).
The culture of Native Americans, liberal Americans, African-Americans and a stream of other individuals, who possess the American citizenship by alternative means differ greatly, hence their views on the matter may in turn largely differ. Culture is an independent variable in most countries but after assimilations and distortions, due to cross-cultural activities, the differing perceptions can be reconciled and harmonized. By attempting to treat everyone the same way, regardless of the cultural inclination, the new healthcare bill is seen as the path to bridge cultural differences in the United States. From this point of view, cultural beliefs are found to affect the capacity of logical reasoning and it can water down valid arguments by refusing them as fallacies yet they are rational and valid.
Arguments and reasoning of persons in any society are based on a number of factors, particularly, the incidences, which the person got exposed to earlier in his life or others, which surround him or her in the daily life. Culture, media and the society at large are factors that make a major percentage of what a person interacts with on a daily basis, and for that reason, they do influence greatly the way a person reasons and argues. Better reasoning though, should be based on critical analysis, on the beliefs, values, alternatives and implications of any proposed foreign idea, before taking a final position. In view of this, therefore, the new healthcare bill needs to be subjected to openness and examined, if it really fits the modern cultural setting by considering opinions from both quarters, before discarding or adopting it.
Supporting an idea without knowing the real intentions behind the course is dangerous, for example in the raging debate on healthcare bill, very few people are aware of the facts, yet, the same people may be the loudest advocates or critics of the system. Going on a one-by-one interview would reveal this fact. These three factors contribute in swaying the debate with biasness toward one side and deprive the other of support, grounded mainly on some feeble, false and inaccurate accusations, thanks to the power of the media, social influence and culture. The factors lead to an overall distinct public perception on any prevailing debate, which in turn inclines to favor a particular group, thus, sparking paramount concern across the divide and clouds just and fair judgment. The resultant opinion may, therefore, be settled due to cultural beliefs, on social influence or propaganda, spread through the press, but not because they hold any water. Arguments of every nature have got the components of lies ant truth, and to separate grains from ambiguity and vagueness, the Ps and Qs need to be contested by the warring parties. If this is done, then reaching a rational choice, which is regarded as the best choice, would not be an up-hill task as it has always appeared to be. The society should, therefore, be conscious of the influence that these three factors have on arguments and reasoning, before drawing a final verdict, as doing they will be eliminating any possibility of a faulty decision.
Key Arguments and Factors Influencing Reasoning
The proponents of the bill believe that the new health deal will lead to a high competition among the healthcare providers, which will in the long run improve the quality of treatment and coverage for a wider majority. This argument comes as a result of what the public has been forced to undergo throughout their lives, there has been a general mood in favor of changing the old ways the society believes that the current bill is raw and has grown out of date, unable to address modern challenges facing the public. Besides, the people have grown bored with the same old methods health experts and providers control everything. The new ways will empower them and put them in a position, where they will be able to take charge of their own health matters. The cost is, however, said to be higher than the existing one, probably, because it intends to provide the insurance coverage for more people including non-citizens. At the same time the bill proponents argue that the system will see more and more people register with the public coverage scheme, a move that will eliminate extra expenses paid to the private health plans and providers. This would ease the tax burden by about 20-30 for more than two thirds of the population. The proposed system is being faulted by individuals, who want the status quo to remain as it stands now they are citing high cost as their greatest backing, they are also for the opinion that the government run health plan is incapable of addressing solvency problems to those below 65 in the long run. It would also be disastrous for the providers themselves.
Position and Justification
The arguments fronted above do take shape because of the three earlier mentioned factors the social one, media and culture. The real truth may be hidden from the public, but still people seem to take sides, based on what they think they know, their past experiences, cultural standards and what they have heard or read over the press. The public has taken over the debate more than even the political leaders. The reason for this is that they have been made to believe that the issue concerns them and their overall wellbeing. When a matter of universal concern erupts in a social setting, it may not require every individual to look for the details before taking a position. Many people would just go by what the majority says is right and not bother themselves with the resourceful grainy details of the facts (Maurice, 2005). A matter of this magnitude will have a vast majority sharing a common opinion. For this reason, therefore, the society is believed to have a vast influence on the reasoning and arguments that would be fronted. The healthcare bill is no different, its debate has come under social influence, where a high percentage of the population is seen as drumming support to it without even bothering to dig out the facts concerning it. After hearing views from the peers, friends and colleagues that the system resonates well with the low class, the mood would be changed and everyone would have all their arms up in support for the new advent, it is the society at large, which will do the judgment and brush any divergent opinion aside (McGraw - Hill Contemporary Learning Series).
Deceptive information concerning the real implications of the bill has been made public. The media has been on the forefront as the chief means to spread numerous views on the topic. The media information may contain either true facts or lies depending on the intention of the creator. The information can either be miss-presented or misinterpreted leading to fully false judgment--reasoning and argument. As the Democrats and other healthcare bill advocates support the bill, critics, on the other hand, are busy spreading propaganda via the press falsifying the stand and sustainability of the new advent. The media comes as a perfect tool to increase the extent of influence of any nature, able to distort political, commercial, civil and religious adventurers. The media can be used to instill fear of the unknown among the listeners and readers in order to manipulate their views and reasoning (Walton, 1992). This is what the healthcare bill opponents have applied to sway some individuals to have indifferent stands on the proposed system. Proponents of the bill have also used the same tool to implore support to have the bill passed. Both factions use the media to prop up massive wave and bring their opponents one down.
The following techniques, discussed by Maurice (2005), are some of the methods that the political leaders are using to implement their views, regardless of the implications. To the proponents they may resort to the use of fancy words and glittering generalities to describe the bill, false unjustifiable explanations, testimonials, plain folks and bandwagon strategy among others. Opponents may also use some of the above techniques, but craft them in a manner that they will fit best. Besides, they also employ the following techniques the faulty cause and fallacy. A combined effect of these steps spread among even the most just and fair public has the capacity to wreck havoc and sway sober reasoning and eventually decision making (Maurice, 21-36). The media is a powerful tool, which forms a basic component of humans daily life it can therefore make or break a new advent, depending on which school of though carries the day as far as public reception is concerned. Informal fallacies are in most cases found to be more convincing than facts themselves (Maurice, 2005), this, therefore, calls for self consciousness before settling to a controversial conclusion.
Another factor that plays a leading role in making people have clouded judgment in reasoning and appeal to emotions is culture. Culture determines what a society regards as core values (Murray, 1978). Any new move can either be welcomed or opposed, depending on how it is seen as resonating with culture and values. Arguments are said to be revolving around the notion of values, regardless of what facts, presumptions or truth there may be. Crucial arguments, like the one on healthcare bill, which touches on the basic fabric that holds a society together has value playing a leading role in reconciling empty claims and solid evidence. Culture encompasses a series of codes, such as the language and non-verbal phenomena that help give meaning to any complex matter that may bring forth cross-cultural arguments. America being a multi-cultural state, argues on the issues that are regarded to be of cultural importance along cultural lines. The general public in this case may, therefore, opt to support a particular opinion simply because it is in-line with their cultural standards and not because of its viability. It is very difficult to find a unifying cultural stand, especially, in a setting like the United States of America, in light of this, individuals drawn from different background will have divergent viewpoints concerning how the proposed new healthcare bill treats them, and it may not be possible to sway them to have a common opinion on the matter. For this reasons, Maurice conciders that reasoning and arguments are deeply seated on cultural background of an individual (Maurice 2005).
The culture of Native Americans, liberal Americans, African-Americans and a stream of other individuals, who possess the American citizenship by alternative means differ greatly, hence their views on the matter may in turn largely differ. Culture is an independent variable in most countries but after assimilations and distortions, due to cross-cultural activities, the differing perceptions can be reconciled and harmonized. By attempting to treat everyone the same way, regardless of the cultural inclination, the new healthcare bill is seen as the path to bridge cultural differences in the United States. From this point of view, cultural beliefs are found to affect the capacity of logical reasoning and it can water down valid arguments by refusing them as fallacies yet they are rational and valid.
Arguments and reasoning of persons in any society are based on a number of factors, particularly, the incidences, which the person got exposed to earlier in his life or others, which surround him or her in the daily life. Culture, media and the society at large are factors that make a major percentage of what a person interacts with on a daily basis, and for that reason, they do influence greatly the way a person reasons and argues. Better reasoning though, should be based on critical analysis, on the beliefs, values, alternatives and implications of any proposed foreign idea, before taking a final position. In view of this, therefore, the new healthcare bill needs to be subjected to openness and examined, if it really fits the modern cultural setting by considering opinions from both quarters, before discarding or adopting it.
Supporting an idea without knowing the real intentions behind the course is dangerous, for example in the raging debate on healthcare bill, very few people are aware of the facts, yet, the same people may be the loudest advocates or critics of the system. Going on a one-by-one interview would reveal this fact. These three factors contribute in swaying the debate with biasness toward one side and deprive the other of support, grounded mainly on some feeble, false and inaccurate accusations, thanks to the power of the media, social influence and culture. The factors lead to an overall distinct public perception on any prevailing debate, which in turn inclines to favor a particular group, thus, sparking paramount concern across the divide and clouds just and fair judgment. The resultant opinion may, therefore, be settled due to cultural beliefs, on social influence or propaganda, spread through the press, but not because they hold any water. Arguments of every nature have got the components of lies ant truth, and to separate grains from ambiguity and vagueness, the Ps and Qs need to be contested by the warring parties. If this is done, then reaching a rational choice, which is regarded as the best choice, would not be an up-hill task as it has always appeared to be. The society should, therefore, be conscious of the influence that these three factors have on arguments and reasoning, before drawing a final verdict, as doing they will be eliminating any possibility of a faulty decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment