More is not better
In the article “It cost more but is it worth more” Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Steven D.
Pearson is against the idea about the investment towards new proton beam treatment. The new technology will cost more than $180 million just to build a facility to use the proton beam machines. Emanuel and Pearson argue in favor of Americans because they do not believe that
Americans taxpayers should pay the excessive amount of money towards proton beam machines that lack evidence of curing cancer more effectively. The issue that arises about the topic is that there are cheaper alternatives of radiation, that cancer patients can receive for fraction of the price of proton beam therapy which can cost $50,000 a treatment. During these hard economic times it is unreasonable to follow through with the outrageous sum of money it requires and yet it does not have any significant scientific evidence it can cure cancer. Therefore the money going towards the proton beam technology is better used elsewhere. Instead of spending the outrageous sum of money on the two new proton beam treatment facilities at the Mayo Clinic which are located in Minnesota and Arizona because it will cost more than $180 million dollars each. The claim that the authors wanted to make to the public is that the proton beam technology should not be invested in because of its high risk and low reward . The benefit cost analysis of having proton beam technology compare to not having it, is pretty obvious. The

proton beam technology is inferior to other forms of radiation treatment for cancer patients even though it cost twice as much. Therefore the money invested in the technology would be better served elsewhere. There only has been one random trial with a small insignificant sample size using the proton beam radiation. With such a small number of patients showing positive results, the proton beam does not deserve the higher price cost. It is nonsense for Americans to pay the crazy amount of money for something that simply does work better than cheaper alternative for life-threatening diseases like cancer. The two authors explained the reasoning behind chaos of pushing towards the development of protons beam treatment is driven by competition. Mayo
Clinic is competing against Massachusetts General Hospital, M.D. Anderson in Texas, the
University of Pennsylvania and Loma Linda in California; all of which have the new proton beam technology. The reason behind is the proton will generate a profit for the business due to the generous reimbursement from Medicare. Emanuel and Pearson's argument is that the high risk and low reward of proton beam therapy should not be paid for by the public. The approach to the new innovation is quite disappointing due to the fact that there is no confirmation the device will save any cancer patient's life nor reduce the side effects. The financial burden is caused from the bad decisions of the United State government for not making the right decisions regarding United States health care costs. The numbers may be overwhelming because of all the careless choices United States for supporting ideas and innovation that lack evidence of effectiveness and in addition mishandling taxpayer dollars with no questions asked.

The tone and language used by Emanuel and Pearson throughout the article sounds persuasive and convincing on the subject about not implementing proton beam treatment facilities. The numbers they provided looks astounding, which will catch a lot of reader's eyes.
Due to the fact that the money figures look out of the ordinary for the proton beam treatment facilities and in additional the proton treatment does not provide benefits of constructing it.
Therefore the reader will follow logic and side with the two authors opposition about their stand against the proton beam treatment facilities. The article is informative and creates a mental outlook on the decisions that the United States regarding healthcare costs are awful. They are also careless and ineffective when using taxpayers money. Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Steven D. Pearson has provided strong support to why we should not go through with the proton beam technology. The reason being is the machines are tremendously expensive and requiring a particle accelerator encased in a football field-size building. Each session of treatment cost two times more compare to other forms of radiation for cancer patients. The proton beam therapy does have any evidence it can cure or reduced any side effects of cancer other than a handful of rare pediatric cancers. For that reasoning the innovation of proton beam therapy is a waste of money. It cannot be maximized to it's full potential because it can be only utilize for small number of cancer patients that have the handful of rare pediatric cancers which consists of brain and spinal cord cancer. For the other cancers it can treat the number of people around the world that has it is so low it would not make a difference.
Unfortunately the therapy does not cure or reduce side effects of lung, esophageal, breast, head, prostate, and neck cancers. With the supporting information along with statistics provided

Emanuel and Pearson has made a strong case for not following through with the proton beam treatment facilities. Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Steven D. Pearson used logos to appeal to the audience logically.
The two authors have factual data and statistics to appeal to the readers throughout the article. It grabs the reader’s attention when seeing the numbers such as “ $180 million” or “$50,000” in the paper. With the figures in place it will make the reader more alert and interested in the topic at hand, so the logic appeal to the audience has an positive effect. Therefore it will evoke a cognitive and rational response from reader which indeed is the purpose the two authors has in mind. For conclusion, Emanuel and Pearson has made a strong case for not implementing beam treatment facilities at the Mayo Clinic which are located in Minnesota and Arizona, at cost more than $180 million dollars each. The innovation is not worth wild since there are more preferred choices that will do more. The reasoning behind it is there is no convincing evidence it will outperform other alternatives since there is a slack of studies to acknowledge it as the successor of other forms of cancers therapy. As a reader I am on Emanuel and Pearson side of not agreeing to the way American healthcare is mishandling American taxpayers money on ineffective equipment. Therefore the United States should do more further studies before using money on any unnecessary goods that clearly benefit the public.