Opinion critique #3: Sanders gets it wrong on 'Medicare-for-all'

Throughout the article, the author makes the theme clear: Bernie Sander’s call for a “Medicare-for-all” health plan isn’t feasible.

As for evidence, the author uses quotes from Sanders. The author also references a study that Sanders believes to show that “Medicare-for-all” will reduce health care costs and save the nation a bundle.

In order to prove a point, the author analyzes the study that Sanders speaks about. The article states, “The chief author, Alison Galvani, worked as an unpaid adviser to Sanders’ Senate office. Galvani notes that she designed and wrote the study for the purpose of supporting Sanders

 ‘Medicare-for-all’ bill.”

What I find interesting is that the author analyzes the fallacies of Sanders’ speech—something that I found particularly strong about this piece. The study that Sanders uses was written by a scientist that specifically wrote the study for the purpose of supporting Sander’s agenda. That’s the opposite of what scientists are supposed to do. As the author mentions, “Scientists are supposed to objectively study something to discover the truth – not selectively assemble information to build an argument in support of a predetermined conclusion.”

Furthermore, the author points out four fallacies in the study Sanders referenced. And with each fallacy, the author uses statistics to explain why it’s wrong. For instance, one fallacy in the study Sanders referenced reads as follows, “Medicare is a 54-year-old real-world test for the viability of single-payer government-funded health care.”

The author responded to the fallacy as follows, “Medicare is able to cover some 58 million people affordably because it shortchanges hospitals and doctors, paying them only about 87 cents for every dollar of care delivered. Doctors and hospitals shift the unmet costs onto their patients with private insurance.”

Overall, there were ample sources to support the author’s message. The sources were also reliable, partly because she used direct quotes from Sanders himself.

The article could use a stronger lead. As the lead reads, “Democratic presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is flaunting a ‘study’ he claims backs up his ‘Medicare-for-all’ health plan.” In my opinion, this lead wasn’t engaging and didn’t compel me to want to read the rest of the piece. I definitely think the lead could use more color and persuasiveness. As an opinion piece, the lead should have more color and creativity, unlike other hard news leads.

As for the kicker, I didn’t particularly care for it. The kicker states, “It’s too bad when respected medical journals stoop to publishing partisan hackwork.” It lacked a punch or a moving quote. The author should have crafted a better lead and kicker to keep the attention of myself.

The author had adequate transitions. When mentioning each fallacy in the study Sanders supports, she labeled it by number to make it easier for readers, which was something I appreciated as the reader of the article. 

I think my main issue with the article was the lack of color. I wish I could hear more of the writer’s voice to keep my attention. However, the author had ample evidence and statistics to support her opinion.

In order to keep the audience’s attention, the author uses powerful quotes and ample research. But as I said prior, there is a lack of color and lack of voice.

The author also does not have any fallacies; however, she points out the fallacies of the study she references.