            As American citizens, the issue of health care is one that affects us all.  This is not a topic that should be of interest to a select few individuals, such as our government representatives, but of interest to all Americans.  Regardless of economic status, this problem affects every American.   My belief is that we should guarantee health care, to help those who are in need of it.  I feel that it is wrong to not help those in need.   Therefore, my stance is that those who can not afford health care should not go without some form of it.  Since I work at a summer camp for children with cancer, I can personally speak to this issue.  I have seen families incur tremendous debt because insurance companies drop them or due to "pre-existing conditions" do not cover their medical expenses.  That is the reason the camp where I work is free for these campers.  It has become the norm for insurance companies to drop coverage for individuals with cancer or diseases that are extremely expensive to manage and/or cure.  This camp is supported completely by charitable contributions.  It gives children a chance to have an experience that would otherwise be unaffordable.  Through extensive research, and experience with the workings of politics in the field of heath care , I have formulated opinions specific to the reasoning for 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.   The third attempts to defend the claim that health care should not be guaranteed.  This attempt fails to support that premise.

            The first article is from the White House.  It describes President Barack Obama's complete plan of action toward guaranteeing health care.  It describes in great detail why America must guarantee health care to its population.  One way to do this is to identify and remove insurance corruption.  This would make it unallowable for insurance companies to unfairly drop "sick" customers based on excuses and actuarial tables.  It also guarantees, that we, as a nation will care for our elderly, by not only supplying medication to assist them, but to limit costs, as well.

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

The third article takes the opposing view point.  It states that the majority of the country does not want to have guaranteed health care.  A significant problem with this article is that the research done by the author may have been biased, and not entirely based on facts.  Along with this, the accuracy of the results are debatable.  Also, a major purpose of our government is to protect the welfare of all people and not exclude minority groups..  This is something that can be easily overlooked.  It has led to atrocities in many aspects of our history and society.  Essentially, this destroys the claim which the article attempted to make.  Governments purpose is for the overall welfare of all individuals within the country. 

Finally, one must look at this research question and really ponder, "what is the reasoning for arguing this point?"  Without questioning this author, one can never understand the purpose of guaranteed health care.  By not questioning in depth and understanding the results of  health care, it is easy to just see it as another economic debt.  People who do this, do not realize that it is an issue of human rights. By not  truly thinking  about what limiting someone's health care means, it is easy to say no and just make it another issue.  Health care has become a constant argument and debate.  It is viewed by some as an entirely monetary issue.  This argument does not encompass the true value of health care as it affects lives and well being of the sick, healthy and their families.

The agreement in this argument is that a change must occur in order to further advance our society.  The disagreements lie essentially in everything else.  The sole root of the disagreement with this issue is the monetary cost vs. a person's health.  One side believes that guaranteed health insurance will throw the economy into a tail spin and limit jobs.  The other side believes that health care is a fundamental right, and whatever occurs as a result of supplying this is well worth the cost.  They believe, that as a country, we will limit the repercussions.  These different opinions have helped me weigh the pros and cons of guaranteed health care.  After much consideration and thought, I still believe that health care should be guaranteed to all Americans.  It is more than solely and issue of money.  It is an issue of the health and well being of American as a country. 

I will need to revise my research question in order to make the question less biased and allow for better and more in depth research.  My question will need to incorporate both sides, while allowing for the view point of the essay to be related to it.
