Obesity is Expensive
![Picture](/uploads/1/4/9/3/14939570/2337765.gif?0)
This chart is an example of the high costs of obesity.
(Chart taken from the web site: window.state.tx.us.)
(Chart taken from the web site: window.state.tx.us.)
Counterpoint:
Obesity Should Not be Covered by Insurance
In the article, “Counterpoint: Obesity Should Not be Covered by Insurance”
co-authors Otis Kramer and Nancy Sprague argue that health insurance should not cover the cost associated with obesity. They point out that health insurance is meant to pay for “doctor and hospital care for illness, injury, and for some preventative care…” and obesity is a self-imposed problem that should not be covered by insurance companies (Kramer and Sprague). While the authors do provide an interesting argument, there are weaknesses in this argument. The weaknesses include the following: there are very few facts given to back their argument, their purpose is not always clear, there is faulty reasoning in the article, and the credibility of author Otis Kramer can be questioned. This article is certainly thought provoking; however, it falls short of presenting itself as an effective argument for not covering obesity through an insurance policy.
The authors weakly appeal to logos. They miss several critical opportunities to support their claims with facts. Kramer and Sprague state in their article that “obesity is a condition primarily brought on by voluntary behavior, though it is believed in specific cases to be the result of identified endocrine disorders.” There is no reference to support this claim anywhere in the article; no health magazines, newspaper articles, or research books are cited to back this statement. The authors miss opportunities to cite research when they discuss obesity, and the potential for the obese to need medical care at some point in their lives. The authors say we have “a societal inclination to obesity in very young children,” but they fail to cite any research or expert to illustrate their claim. They could have used statistics to show the obesity rate in children; they chose not to do this again. Kramer and Sprague fail to provide a date when they state in their article that “obesity has only recently been designated as eligible for disease status by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.” When Kramer and Sprague say, “there may be various arguments about the ideal number of calories or fat content that should be consumed daily…excessive calorie intake and insufficient exercise may lead to being overweight” they give no concrete numbers. They could cite numbers to represent recommended daily caloric intake, and then compare this number to actual average American daily caloric intake. The authors claim that “too much body weight and too little exercise may also lead to adult-onset (type 2) diabetes.” Kramer and Sprague fail to indicate how many adults are diagnosed with adult onset (type 2) diabetes each year in the United States. So many opportunities were presented to support these claims with evidence, and the authors did not use the opportunities to make a more valid claim. Kramer and Sprague repeatedly fail to do this as they talk about the health problems associated with obesity.
Kramer and Sprague write that “carrying too much weight can put stress on the joints and lead to arthritis.” They do not suggest any concrete number of pounds or percentage of body weight that would cause this adverse effect. Stating that arthritis is one among several problems associated with obesity, the argument would have been more convincing had Kramer and Sprague given dollar figures for how much obesity costs Americans and insurance companies in health care. Kramer and Sprague generalize many of their claims; their argument would be far more convincing if they had cited facts, statistics, or experts. It
states that most insurance policies do not cover treatment for obesity, and yet
it fails to give the name of even one company that withholds benefits to the
obese. Even examples of a few big name companies (like State Farm, Prudential,
or All State) would have been beneficial in supporting the thesis that insurance
companies do not cover obesity. They state that “medical researchers continue to examine causal links between obesity and about two dozen other serious health conditions, such as cardiac disease and high cholesterol.” The article should have provided more examples of other health conditions linked to obesity rather than just stating that there are over two dozen conditions while citing only the two examples of cardiac disease and high cholesterol. In all these instances, Kramer and Sprague fail to use facts from experts, statistics, or research. McWhorter
states in her book, Successful College Writing that one of the basic components of persuasive writing is “support: reasons and evidence" (530). That basic component is missing from the article written by Kramer and Sprague, which leaves it as a weak article incapable of convincing its audience that obesity should not be covered by health insurance. This is not the only shortcoming of the article; it also lacks purpose.
The second weakness in the article is the lack of clarity of the authors’ purpose. Kramer and Sprague open by defending why obesity should not be covered by health insurance, but as the short article continues they diverge from their position and include several tangents. Kramer and Sprague say “it may be said that obese people should pay more for coverage since they are more likely to need treatment than people who maintain a healthy body weight.” They suggest that obese people should pay more for their coverage; this indicates that coverage should be provided. They conclude the article with questions to ponder, one of which is whether obesity “may also be caused by mental depression or social isolation” (Kramer and Sprague); these types of questions guide us on yet another separate line of thinking. Could obesity be caused by other disorders that are beyond one’s control? This does not support the authors’ thesis and gives more doubt to their proposal. The last point of the article suggests if we cover obesity, it would follow that we concern ourselves with, “Paying for people to move away from toxic waste dumps…” (Kramer and Sprague). This is another way that the authors distract from their thesis.
With doubt already existing to the authors’ thesis, other weaknesses occur. Another weakness to the article is the authors’ use of faulty reasoning. The authors compare car insurance with health insurance, stating that insurance is for risk. They go on to say that health insurance covers routine exams, and car insurance covers the unexpected. That does not support the claim that insurance is for risk only. They also compare obesity to unsafe driving. They do not provide sufficient evidence to compare obesity with driving, and they even distract or confuse the reader when they state “the only reason car insurance is even available to such a driver is so that other drivers can be paid in case the offending driver causes an accident” (Kramer and Sprague). This is an example of a false analogy; this occurs “when a writer compares two situations that are not sufficiently parallel or similar” (McWhorter 532).
Kramer and Sprague also use a red herring, stating that “there is no doubt that people who are obese ought to change their behavior for their own benefit….” “With a red herring, a writer attempts to distract readers from the main issue by raising an irrelevant point” (McWhorter 532). This statement does not support their argument about health insurance, and the statement distracts the reader by introducing the personal aspect of health. McWhorter states that, “In an argument essay, a writer may inadvertently or deliberately introduce fallacies, or errors in reasoning or thinking. Several types of fallacies can weaken an argument; undermine a writer’s claim; and call into question the relevancy, believability, or consistency of supporting evidence” (531).
There is also room for concern regarding the credibility of the authors. With a nursing degree, a master’s degree in health care policies, and work experience, Nancy Sprague has all the qualifications for writing an article on obesity and health care coverage. There is no information provided about Otis Kramer’s qualifications; the absence of information is of concern when judging his credibility to argue on the topic of health care for the obese. By failing to cite his credentials,
this co-author fails to appeal to ethos and casts doubt on his authority to write on the topic.
On several levels, Kramer and Sprague fail to make their case against the coverage of obesity by health insurance. Faulty reasoning is a failure of logos;
Kramer and Sprague use this when they compare car insurance to health
insurance. By adding the red herring about behavior benefits, they have successfully steered us from the main topic. A lack of credentials on the part of Kramer is a failure of ethos. Finally, not presenting statistical evidence throughout the article leaves substantial doubt as to whether or not obesity should be covered by health insurance. More facts on the subject would have been more convincing.
Works Cited
Kramer, Otis, and Nancy Sprague. “Counterpoint: Obesity Should Not Be Covered by
Insurance.” Lakeside Publishing Group, LLC, 2011. Web. 30 Sept 2012.
McWhorter, Kathleen T. Successful College Writing: Skills, Strategies, Learning Styles. Brief 5th ed. New York,
Bedford St. Martins, 2012. Print.
co-authors Otis Kramer and Nancy Sprague argue that health insurance should not cover the cost associated with obesity. They point out that health insurance is meant to pay for “doctor and hospital care for illness, injury, and for some preventative care…” and obesity is a self-imposed problem that should not be covered by insurance companies (Kramer and Sprague). While the authors do provide an interesting argument, there are weaknesses in this argument. The weaknesses include the following: there are very few facts given to back their argument, their purpose is not always clear, there is faulty reasoning in the article, and the credibility of author Otis Kramer can be questioned. This article is certainly thought provoking; however, it falls short of presenting itself as an effective argument for not covering obesity through an insurance policy.
The authors weakly appeal to logos. They miss several critical opportunities to support their claims with facts. Kramer and Sprague state in their article that “obesity is a condition primarily brought on by voluntary behavior, though it is believed in specific cases to be the result of identified endocrine disorders.” There is no reference to support this claim anywhere in the article; no health magazines, newspaper articles, or research books are cited to back this statement. The authors miss opportunities to cite research when they discuss obesity, and the potential for the obese to need medical care at some point in their lives. The authors say we have “a societal inclination to obesity in very young children,” but they fail to cite any research or expert to illustrate their claim. They could have used statistics to show the obesity rate in children; they chose not to do this again. Kramer and Sprague fail to provide a date when they state in their article that “obesity has only recently been designated as eligible for disease status by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.” When Kramer and Sprague say, “there may be various arguments about the ideal number of calories or fat content that should be consumed daily…excessive calorie intake and insufficient exercise may lead to being overweight” they give no concrete numbers. They could cite numbers to represent recommended daily caloric intake, and then compare this number to actual average American daily caloric intake. The authors claim that “too much body weight and too little exercise may also lead to adult-onset (type 2) diabetes.” Kramer and Sprague fail to indicate how many adults are diagnosed with adult onset (type 2) diabetes each year in the United States. So many opportunities were presented to support these claims with evidence, and the authors did not use the opportunities to make a more valid claim. Kramer and Sprague repeatedly fail to do this as they talk about the health problems associated with obesity.
Kramer and Sprague write that “carrying too much weight can put stress on the joints and lead to arthritis.” They do not suggest any concrete number of pounds or percentage of body weight that would cause this adverse effect. Stating that arthritis is one among several problems associated with obesity, the argument would have been more convincing had Kramer and Sprague given dollar figures for how much obesity costs Americans and insurance companies in health care. Kramer and Sprague generalize many of their claims; their argument would be far more convincing if they had cited facts, statistics, or experts. It
states that most insurance policies do not cover treatment for obesity, and yet
it fails to give the name of even one company that withholds benefits to the
obese. Even examples of a few big name companies (like State Farm, Prudential,
or All State) would have been beneficial in supporting the thesis that insurance
companies do not cover obesity. They state that “medical researchers continue to examine causal links between obesity and about two dozen other serious health conditions, such as cardiac disease and high cholesterol.” The article should have provided more examples of other health conditions linked to obesity rather than just stating that there are over two dozen conditions while citing only the two examples of cardiac disease and high cholesterol. In all these instances, Kramer and Sprague fail to use facts from experts, statistics, or research. McWhorter
states in her book, Successful College Writing that one of the basic components of persuasive writing is “support: reasons and evidence" (530). That basic component is missing from the article written by Kramer and Sprague, which leaves it as a weak article incapable of convincing its audience that obesity should not be covered by health insurance. This is not the only shortcoming of the article; it also lacks purpose.
The second weakness in the article is the lack of clarity of the authors’ purpose. Kramer and Sprague open by defending why obesity should not be covered by health insurance, but as the short article continues they diverge from their position and include several tangents. Kramer and Sprague say “it may be said that obese people should pay more for coverage since they are more likely to need treatment than people who maintain a healthy body weight.” They suggest that obese people should pay more for their coverage; this indicates that coverage should be provided. They conclude the article with questions to ponder, one of which is whether obesity “may also be caused by mental depression or social isolation” (Kramer and Sprague); these types of questions guide us on yet another separate line of thinking. Could obesity be caused by other disorders that are beyond one’s control? This does not support the authors’ thesis and gives more doubt to their proposal. The last point of the article suggests if we cover obesity, it would follow that we concern ourselves with, “Paying for people to move away from toxic waste dumps…” (Kramer and Sprague). This is another way that the authors distract from their thesis.
With doubt already existing to the authors’ thesis, other weaknesses occur. Another weakness to the article is the authors’ use of faulty reasoning. The authors compare car insurance with health insurance, stating that insurance is for risk. They go on to say that health insurance covers routine exams, and car insurance covers the unexpected. That does not support the claim that insurance is for risk only. They also compare obesity to unsafe driving. They do not provide sufficient evidence to compare obesity with driving, and they even distract or confuse the reader when they state “the only reason car insurance is even available to such a driver is so that other drivers can be paid in case the offending driver causes an accident” (Kramer and Sprague). This is an example of a false analogy; this occurs “when a writer compares two situations that are not sufficiently parallel or similar” (McWhorter 532).
Kramer and Sprague also use a red herring, stating that “there is no doubt that people who are obese ought to change their behavior for their own benefit….” “With a red herring, a writer attempts to distract readers from the main issue by raising an irrelevant point” (McWhorter 532). This statement does not support their argument about health insurance, and the statement distracts the reader by introducing the personal aspect of health. McWhorter states that, “In an argument essay, a writer may inadvertently or deliberately introduce fallacies, or errors in reasoning or thinking. Several types of fallacies can weaken an argument; undermine a writer’s claim; and call into question the relevancy, believability, or consistency of supporting evidence” (531).
There is also room for concern regarding the credibility of the authors. With a nursing degree, a master’s degree in health care policies, and work experience, Nancy Sprague has all the qualifications for writing an article on obesity and health care coverage. There is no information provided about Otis Kramer’s qualifications; the absence of information is of concern when judging his credibility to argue on the topic of health care for the obese. By failing to cite his credentials,
this co-author fails to appeal to ethos and casts doubt on his authority to write on the topic.
On several levels, Kramer and Sprague fail to make their case against the coverage of obesity by health insurance. Faulty reasoning is a failure of logos;
Kramer and Sprague use this when they compare car insurance to health
insurance. By adding the red herring about behavior benefits, they have successfully steered us from the main topic. A lack of credentials on the part of Kramer is a failure of ethos. Finally, not presenting statistical evidence throughout the article leaves substantial doubt as to whether or not obesity should be covered by health insurance. More facts on the subject would have been more convincing.
Works Cited
Kramer, Otis, and Nancy Sprague. “Counterpoint: Obesity Should Not Be Covered by
Insurance.” Lakeside Publishing Group, LLC, 2011. Web. 30 Sept 2012.
McWhorter, Kathleen T. Successful College Writing: Skills, Strategies, Learning Styles. Brief 5th ed. New York,
Bedford St. Martins, 2012. Print.