This paper explores the interrelations between temporality and emotion in rhetorical argumentation. It argues that in situations of uncertainty argumentation affects action via appeals that invoke emotion and thereby translate the distant past and future into the situated present. Using practical inferences, a threefold model for the interrelation of emotion and time in argumentation outlines how argumentative action depends on whether speakers provide reasons for the exigence that makes a decision necessary, the contingency of the decision, and the confidence required (...) to act. Experiences and choices from the past influence the emotions experienced in the present and inform two intertemporal mechanisms that allow speakers and audiences to take the leap of faith that defines decision-making under uncertainty: retrospective forecasting and prospective remembering. Retrospective forecasting establishes a past–future–present link, whereas prospective remembering establishes a future-past-present link, and, together, the two mechanisms provide a situated presence that transcends the temporal constraints of uncertainty. Finally, the applicability of the model is illustrated through an analysis of a speech delivered by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a time where the need for decisive, yet argumentative action was crucial. (shrink)

There is a vast amount of evidence across countries that the use of health care services (including hospitalizations, physician services, and clinical preventive services) is positively associated with income, education and other markers of socioeconomic position. In some analyses, lower socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with greater physician and hospital use, although it appears that these findings are primarily driven by higher rates of poor health status or medical need in socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Three general sets of explanations have been (...) investigated to explain SES differences in health care use: (1) financial access or affordability differences (e.g. the poor use fewer services because they have fewer financial means); (2) knowledge, attitudinal and cultural differences in seeking care (e.g. the poor use fewer services because they value and/or understand the benefits of health care less than other people); and (3) health care system factors (e.g. the poor use fewer services because of ways in which the health care system is organized). The empirical evidence from a number of countries suggests that health care system variables, especially non-financial components of access, offer the greatest explanatory power regarding SES differences in utilization. The policy implications of such findings are important, for they suggests that providing universal coverage or offering free health services to the poor is not a panacea for reducing social inequalities in health care utilization. Research across countries also suggests that, although SES differences in the use of health care services may contribute to some portion of observed SES disparities in health status, the contribution here is likely to be small. Social inequalities in health status are driven by myriad factors other than access to and use of personal health services. (shrink)