Strength Evaluation
Which of the following two arguments is stronger?

Please compare the strength of the two arguments below, ignoring all others.

Note. The platform identifies the top arguments for each viewpoint independently of others. This implies that the competition occurs among arguments supporting the same viewpoint.

Argument A

A 2009 study estimated that lack of health insurance was linked to 45,000 deaths annually in the U.S. A more recent study, published in the respected medical journal The Lancet in 2020, found that Medicare for All could prevent about 68,000 unnecessary deaths per year—staggering figures for the wealthiest nation in the world.

Opponents of Medicare for All argue that a government-run healthcare system could lead to inefficiencies, mismanagement, and lower quality of care, ultimately increasing mortality rates. However, the success of government-run programs like traditional Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system contradicts this pessimistic view. Additionally, evidence from other countries with universal healthcare systems disproves this claim, as these nations achieve better health outcomes while spending about half as much per capita.

Argument B

Universal healthcare can lead to a healthier population overall, which in turn improves daily interactions, reduces absenteeism, and increases overall well-being, benefiting society as a whole.

Overview