1. Peer Review

The subject of the paper, “Is Healthcare an Universal Right?”, addresses whether or not healthcare is a basic human right. It is an issue that has taken over the United States. Obamacare is a buzzword in the United States vernacular.  People are divided over this issue in the United States. The paper tries to convince readers to for universal healthcare with evidence for each point of view.  The paper explores reasons why certain groups of people cannot get access to healthcare. The main purpose of the paper is to prove that universal healthcare should be available to everyone. Universal healthcare will improve the lives of a everyone in the United States. The paper seeks to promote healthcare as a basic human right.

This paper was peer reviewed in order to ensure clarity and strength of purpose. It was also checked for spelling and grammar errors. This paper beings by outlining the different reasons that healthcare should be a basic human right. Overall, healthcare should be a classified as a medical service that everyone as access to in America. The paper offers a telling commentary on how many people do not have access to healthcare.  The paper cite that financial barriers are the top reason that people do not have healthcare. The gap between the rich and poor is widening. People on the lower end of the financial scale cannot get access to the level of healthcare they need. The paper does a thorough job in explaining these financial barriers.  The financial differences between the rich and the poor are far too great. The paper also claims that racial discrimination is  a reason for why certain groups of people cannot get  healthcare.

This claim of racial discrimination had to be backed up with evidence or it was just an antagonistic statement. The paper has medical evidence to support this claim. That paper tell readers that African-Americans are more likely to die of heart disease and organ failure. This is because they do not have access to healthcare. Another reason the paper gives for is cultural, social, location, and language barriers. The paper was examined to see if the writer gave reasons for this claim. The paper stated  that medical practices tend to be set up in wealthier areas. Many rural and urban areas are left without healthcare. The paper also stated that people could not get healthcare because they were too busy with other things. The paper uses convincing arguments to tell others why universal healthcare is important.

The paper goes to claim that universal healthcare has always been important. People want to be sure they are healthy. Not being healthy means being out of work or unable to take care of one’s self. The papers states that the wealthy are horrified at the thought of universal healthcare. They view it as being too socialist or communist. The paper did not have any concrete evidence to support why the wealthy are against universal healthcare. This would have been a good place to  have facts, statistics, or quotes to support these statements. It only states that the general public is wary of anything that has a hint of socialism in it. Again, evidence would have strengthened the claim. This section also had a few grammar and spelling errors that detracted away from the paper.

In order to persuade readers to accept that idea of universal healthcare the paper offers evidence of  other countries that have it. The paper mentions Sweden and Great Britain. Evidence was given here about the benefits these countries experience with universal healthcare. The paper discusses that these countries do not allow certain factors, like wealth and race, become barriers to healthcare access. The paper also discusses, a bit weakly, of the building blocks of universal healthcare. It does not clearly state how universal healthcare is funded or the number of people that benefit from it. It did not offer any facts on how long these systems have been in place. This section could have benefited from more solid evidence.

The next sections in the paper talk about healthcare and its importance. It states that healthcare should be considered on the same level as education. Everyone should have access to it. The paper says that the government tries to ensure that every child has the chance to go to school and college. However, there is no evidence as to how or why the government does this. It does not explain why healthcare is less important than education. The paper also strongly states the government should ensure that people have the same access to healthcare. The paper also does not have offer any solutions for this problem. The argument could have been improved if there had been some quotes or the writer’s own proposed solutions. The paper goes on to talk about different scenarios involving healthcare and access.

The next sections of the paper are greatly improved. The paper used the Theory of Justice of Fairness by John Rawls. Using Rawls’ theories helped to support the paper’s argument. It says that everyone should have access to specific liberties and healthcare should be considered one of those liberties. The paper also uses a theory by Normal Daniels to support the paper. These sections were well written in thought out. It helped to persuade readers of the purpose of the paper. The part of the paper also proposesd important questions to consider when thiking about healthcare. The writer carefull answered each question with thorougness that was slightly absent at the beginning of the paper. The paper showed considerable improvement throughout. The writer dealt with counterarguments in an effective way that only lacked some evidence. The writer affirmed their statements that everyon should have access to affordable healthcare. The conclusion was well-written and did not show any deviation from their original thesis statement. The peer review process offered helpful comments and suggestions for this paper.

This paper is a good example of why it is good to have others reading them over. An outside perspective can bring new insight into the paper.  The peer review process iss helpful in recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. The comments were helpful and gave insight on what needed to be done for this paper. Peer Review for this paper comments are as follows:

Good objection to consider. Could you maybe expand on it a bit more? How     does it tell against your thesis?

Interesting. For what it is worth, I’m not sure if we should treat the two cases differently. Maybe you should give the money for the ride just as quickly?

R: Can you really prove your thesis without addressing the other two?

I think this is a reasonable response.

This looks pretty good. But it shouldn’t be bolded (that might be an accident of my changing it to a .doc). You also need to indent the second line of each entry.

C: What about the minority who doesn’t? How does the argument deal with them?

In any persuasive argument, it is important to see the counterargument and respond. This paper could have been improved with evidence to support its claims. The paper made many declarative statements but had little to support them. The claims made earlier in the paper needed evidence. The paper, overall, had good clarity. Also, it felt like a less is more approach would have worked here. The paper was full of long statements. It would have been more effective to be more succint. The writer wanted to be sure their point was made but it could have been more concisely made. A few grammar errors interuppted the flow of the reading process. Once these corrections are made, the paper should read easier. The paper did not stray into abstract concepts but it could have offered more concrete statements. The paper had a firm grasp of he concepts it presented. The use of theories from Dawls and Daniels stregthened the paper. This paper does well in persuading others that healtchare should be universal. The paper needs only a little improvement in evidence and grammar.

1. Self-Assessment

I chose to write a paper that would persuade readers that healthcare should be universal. I have very strong opinions on the topic. For this paper, I wanted to clearly express my thoughts on why this should be so. I wanted to write many different reasons why it should be accessible for everyone. I felt like this paper expressed my beliefs on healthcare. There was no doubt that I expressed myself adequately in this portion of the paper. I decided a good way to persuade others is to cite theories by Normal Daniels and John Rawls.

I felt  the theories by these two thinkers fit my beliefs on social justice and fairness. The point of the paper was to tell readers why healtchare should be given the same level of importance as education. I wanted to emphasize the poing and the two theories helped me. I needed to highlight why it was a social injustice if people cannot get access to equal healthcare. This is why I chose those theories to support my paper.

I wanted to focus on the social impact of  univesal healthcare rather than the statistics of it. People are dying around the United States from being denied healthcare because of their income or race. This was not meant to be a research paper intending to prove a thesis. It was intended to promote a social cause. However, based on peer review I could provide more evidence. The sections detailing the benefits of healthcare the one talking about governement action need concrete evidence.

This paper challenged me as a writer. I had to be persuasive and be prepared to handle counterarguments. The peer review process was very helpful to me. I learned that I could get too involved in this paper. I need an outside perspective to give me comments for improvement. It is important to be able to take criticism and turn them into a better paper. I believe I made the right choices for the direction of paper. However, I will do what is needed to improve it.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?