The issue of health care is one that affects all of us as American citizens.  Not only should certain individuals have interest in this topic, such as those in government, but all Americans should.  This is a problem that will affect every American, regardless of economic status.  My values are of those that we should guarantee health care, to help those that need it.  It is wrong to not help those in need, and therefore those that can't afford health care should not go without any form of it.  I personally can speak to this issue as I work at a summer camp for children with cancer.  I have seen families go into tremendous debt because insurance companies drop them, or do not cover their medical expenses due to "preexisting conditions."  That is why the camp I work at is free for these campers, it has become such a trend of insurance companies dropping individuals with cancer or diseases that cost a lot to cure, that this camp became free.  Through extensive research, and experience within this specific political field, I have formulated opinions specific to the reasoning of guaranteeing free health care.

The three sources used all developed different values, different reasoning and different claims.  Two of them defend the claim of guaranteeing health care, and the third attempts to defend the claim that health care should not be guaranteed, but essentially fails to do so.

The first article is found from the White House, and describes President Barack Obama's entire plan of action toward guaranteeing health care.  It describes in great detail that America can no longer not have guaranteed health care. It explains that it is possible, and a very real possibility to limit insurance corruption, and make sure that insurance companies do not unfairly drop customers based on excuses.  It also guarantees that we as a nation will help take care of our elderly, and attempt to not only supply medication and help to them, but also limit costs.

The second article is entitled "The Problem With Free Health Care" and is published by the New York Times.  The title is misleading as it implies that there is a problem with the act of guaranteeing health care.  On the contrary, it implies that guaranteed health care must be fixed, and pushed forward.  It points out the flaws within Obama's plan, how insurance companies are getting past these new regulations and also a way to fix these problems.

The third article takes the opposite view point.  It states that the majority of the country does not want to have guaranteed health care.  A significant amount of this issue is in the fact that the research done by this author may have been biased, and not entirely based in fact.  Along with this, the results are incredibly debatable.  Also, besides this, a major purpose of government is to protect the welfare of the minority.  This was something that can be easily overlooked, and has led to atrocities in numerous aspects of our history and society.  Essentially, this destroys the attempt of a claim which the article attempted to make.  Governments purpose is for the overall welfare of individuals within the country.

Finally, one must look at this research question and really think, "what is the reasoning for arguing this?"  Without questioning this, one can never understand the purpose of guaranteed health care.  The issue, if not questioning in depth what health care does, is easy to just see it as another economic debt.  People who do not realize that it is an issue of human rights, and also thinking truly about what limiting someone's health care means, it is easy to say no and just becomes another issue.  The only reason that both sides have an argument, is that one side does not entirely see the issues and tries to justify it monetarily, and not by realizing people's health is a much larger issue.

The agreements in these arguments are both that a change must occur in order to further advance our society.  The disagreements lie in essentially everything else.  Disagreements go down to the sole root of the issue to where one side believes that the issue will throw the economy even further back, and limit jobs and the other believes that health care is a fundamental right, and that whatever occurs as a result is worth it, even though as a country we will limit the repercussions.  These different opinions have helped me view the issue with a clearer head, but I still side with guaranteeing health care.  It is more of an issue of money, it is an issue with American citizens' health and well being.  

In order to make a stronger argument, I will need to revise my research question in order to make the question less biased.  It will need to incorporate both sides, while allowing for the view point of the essay to be related to.
