Argument Analysis #2 Chris Prisbrey PHIL 1000

Introduction
The argument I chose to analyze is titled Train Wreck by Nick Anderson, the editorial cartoonist for The Houston Chronicle. (See Reference 1) The cartoon is about the issues that have occurred with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and its perceived shortcoming by citizens of the United States of America. I believe that the cartoons argument that congress is responsible for the failure of the ACA is a false dilemma, even if it turns out to be correct.

Section 1: Summary of Argument

In the cartoon we are presented with an image of a twisted, smoldering carcass of a train. In the front on the train engine we see the work Congress is written on the side. A speech bubble appears to come from a train car near the end that states Obamacare is a train wreck The ACA or Obamacare has had a long history, which I will not delve into here, but it is important to note the date this cartoon was made in order to understand better the argument that the artist is making. The cartoon was published on October 10, 2013. The ACA went into effect on October 1, 2013. Now if this cartoon had been published 6 months ago, I believe its argument would have meant something completely different, referring possibly to the manner in which the law was passed or in regards to the lack of details contained within the law, or the overwhelming lack of understanding concerning the details of the law by the majority of congress on both sides. Due to the date at which it was written though, it would appear to be critical instead of the implementation of the ACA exchanges which were plagued by inconsistent connectivity, slow access times, broken links, and inoperable code. This resulted in people unable to meet the requirements mandated by the ACA which were to be effective October 1st. From this we can see the authors idea that the passengers, aka U.S. citizens, are upset with the ACA, and all that it represents, when in reality they ought to be upset with congress who was driving the train. In other words, it appears that the author is making the argument that instead of being upset with the ACA, we should instead be upset with congress for the train wreck they have created.

Section 2: Logical Analysis of the Argument

First, there can be no argument that the implementation of the ACA was very poor and in every light a failure. That is not being argued, there is a train wreck. The authors question that he poses to the viewer is, who is the cause of it? Is it that the ACA in general is a failure and cannot succeed, or is it that congress failed and is responsible for the poor reception of the ACA? It would appear that the authors opinion is that congress is the cause of the failure.

Argument Analysis #2 Chris Prisbrey PHIL 1000

When we look at the cartoon, we see that there are two options that we are presented with. We have either the ACA was a train wreck to begin with or that congress screwed it up. Those are our options. This is a false dilemma. We are led to believe that the only two options are the ones presented. In order to show that this is a false dilemma, I need only show that there is at least one other viable options. I will now do so. First lets look at what occurred with the exchanges. The exchanges were created by private contractors under the direction of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS). These contractors bid for this job and had an understanding of what was expected on deliverables and due dates. If the site was not ready, it is possible that they are in breach of contract for not delivering a functioning site by the expected due date. This would mean instead of the ACA or congress being to blame, it could just be a few companies lack of hustle, diligence, or manpower that cause the whole train wreck. There has been at least one hearing between members of congress and these private contractors (see reference 2). In this hearing the contractors blamed the poor site performance on the unclear specifications and last minute design changes mandated by the CMS. In another article we read again the programmers complained about unrealistic deadlines (see reference 3). In addition, it appears that the RFP (request for proposal) that was offered out was ambiguous to begin with. This would put the blame on the CMS for not establishing a clearly defined scope and poor deadline expectations. Another issue would appear to be that incorrect RFP procedures were followed. For the site front end it appeared that everything was on the up and up, and the UI design firm won out of a bid of three. Somehow in all of this, a unknown company named Teal Media was brought on as a subcontractor. Teal Media is owned by a woman named Jennifer Teal, a prominent Obama campaign staffer who was the design manager for Obamas 2008 campaign. With this information the question arises, was Teal Media the best company for this type of work, or was there political impropriety using Teal Medias political connections to gain the government contract in return for the subcontractor contract? (See reference 4 and 5) If these allegations turn out to be founded in truth, it is possible that due to corruption in the RFP process, that the wrong companies were brought on to do the job. If this is the case then there is an entirely different group of people that could be to blame for the train wreck.

Conclusion
We do not know yet exactly what happened. We may never know the details of why the site was unusable for the first month of service. I am not saying that the blame does not lay entirely on the back of congress. My thesis was that the author used a false dilemma for his argument. A false dilemma is one where the audience is given the perception that there are only a certain number of options, and that one of those options must be correct. In the case of this cartoon, it was clear that either the ACA or congress were to blame for the train wreck. In reality, it could have been congress, the ACA, the contractors failure to deliver on their contract, the poor

Argument Analysis #2 Chris Prisbrey PHIL 1000

project management from the CMS, or corruption in the RFP process that got the wrong company to do the job. By limited our options to two, the author has made a poor argument, whether he turns out being wrong or right. My burden was to only show that there was a possibility of their being more than just those two options. I believe that I have done this.

References:

Reference 1: http://blog.chron.com/nickanderson/2013/10/train-wreck-2/ Reference 2: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/24/politics/congress-obamacare-website/ Reference 3: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/obamacare-website-programmers_n_4141411.html Reference 4: http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/10/the-obamacare-website-and-cronyism/ Reference 5: http://www.correntewire.com/obamacare_clusterfuck_exchange_rfps_were_a_project_managers _nightmare