Analyzing the effectiveness of an argument

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/opinion/15tue2.html

I have looked into an editorial published in the New York Times last week entitled “Medical Inattention in New York Prisons”. Since I am interested in the healthcare professional field, this editorial caught my eye. The first thing I searched for was the author, but there is no name given, so I assume that the author is an ordinary citizen of New York expressing his opinions to fellow New Yorkers and government officials who have the power to pass or veto bills. The central claim made in this article is that prisoners generally bear higher infection rates than the rest of the population, and therefore, a bill should be passed to ensure testing and treatment for prisoners that meet state guidelines. This claim is qualified in the first paragraph, by stating that “prison inmates are the sickest people in society”. This sentence is an absolute claim, but it is necessary to grab the reader’s attention. Furthermore, the author recognizes exceptions when he says that failure to treat these inmates will make it more likely that they spread infection, which insinuates that these inmates may not always spread their diseases. One question that comes to my mind after reading the first sentence is, what makes prisoners the sickest out the entire population? Do they contract blood-borne diseases by sharing intravenous needles in prison? Was it the prison environment that led to the disease, or did the prisoners already have diseases before they were locked up? Some more clarification as to how these diseases were contracted by the prisoners may make the claim more credible.
The rest of the argument discusses the current situation regarding treatment and diagnosis of prisoners, and what effect passing the new bill to improve these prisoner services would have. The author blatantly states his opinion when he says Governor Paterson should “ignore them [correction officials] and sign it [the bill]”. The reasoning behind his claim is that, if left untreated, prisoners can rapidly spread their diseases to the population once they are released, which is a relevant reason for concern. To support his opinion about passing the new bill, the author discusses how the current prisoner medical care system is inconsistent, and therefore, it needs to be standardized and meet state guidelines. He gives evidence for his reasoning by citing a report from the Correctional Association of New York, stating that testing has not been thorough and not all infected prisoners have been treated. This evidence is relevant to the reasoning. However, the evidence given in the report is estimated, and some more concrete statistics and numbers would increase the report’s credibility to readers. The author also examines opposing viewpoints and refutes them. For instance, he says that prison medical officials see no problem with the current system. Some elaboration as to why they feel this way would make a stronger opposing claim. The author then goes on to cite more authorities, such as the critics in Legislature, who agree with his view that a standardized change needs to be made in the system. The author’s final opposing viewpoint is that the cost of improving prisoner medical services is one that cannot be afforded by the state, which he nicely refutes by stating that in the long run, this new bill could cut several healthcare costs.
Overall, the author presents a convincing argument for standardizing and improving medical care for prisoners by citing credible evidence and refuting opposing viewpoints. However, the main weakness in this editorial is failure to provide background information as to why the claim is being made. Understanding how and why prisoners are the sickest of all people will make readers realize what a serious problem this is. Additionally, some more numerical statistics, such as the number of prisoners who are left untreated every year, would better convey the magnitude of the situation to readers and make them more inclined to seek a solution for change.