Week 2
Student
Institution
Week 2
Question 1
I would answer the argument of a couple who did not believe they have to pay school taxes because they have no kids by telling them they have to pay the fees. This is because, if they attended any public school when they were children, then their parents did not spend nearly as much as the actual cost of their education in taxes. Therefore, the payments were paid by other affiliates of the community. In that case, in the situation that the couple has no kids, they need to repay the education they already received. They have to participate in paying education taxes to enable other children to acquire knowledge.
Question 2
The argument that schools in the affluent district should share the wealth with the poor district is excellent. This is because funding the schools in the poor district will improve its education. For instance, children in impoverished regions are highly disadvantaged with more intensive wants, such as learning incapacities or lack of quality education. Therefore, sharing schools in wealthy districts sharing the wealth with schools in poor communities will boost quality education, which is the critical factor in ending poverty and ensuring equality. The sharing of wealth will enable schools in poor regions to be capable of hiring highly-qualified teachers. It will also boost the standard of learning facilities. It would also improve access to education by children in poor districts.
Question 3
Arguments for Universal Healthcare
One argument for universal healthcare is that when a state switches a centralized system, it could lessen healthcare costs. Collective healthcare could also offer coverage to all Americans. Also, it is argued that people could no longer worry about paying healthcare costs out of their pockets with a regime run system. Universal healthcare could also make not to worry about co-pays, deductibles, and insurance. Universal healthcare could also reduce the total spending of a state by trillions of dollars by eliminating inefficient acts such as assertion approval and payment system. It would assist in getting rid of inflation.
A Healthier America
The other arguments for universal healthcare are that it would improve care in America. This is because Americans would be capable of using healthcare more with a single-payer system. Also, when the families and individuals are warranted healthcare per law, they can be more enthusiastic about finding a primary care provider, plan regular screening with physicians, or take their medicines without worrying about inflated charges. It could also reduce the early detection of cancer patients, reducing avoidable chronic illnesses like heart diseases.
Reducing Income Inequality
Another argument for universal healthcare is that, under a single-payer system, the total charges would exploit all private healthcare costs (Healthcare.procon.org, (n.d). This is because universal healthcare would make wealthy Americans be charged with increased taxes, while the middle class and small businesses would see a modest increase in their taxes. Moreover, it would enable lower-income Americans to access life-saving deprived of worrying about premium and co-pays. It could make healthcare affordable to everyone.
Creating a National Healthcare Database
The other argument for universal healthcare is that it would lead to the formation of a centralization state healthcare record, which eases the flow of info amongst care providers and doctors. It enables doctors, care providers, and facilities to have their record-keeping systems, which increase efficiency and lower healthcare costs.
Arguments against Universal Healthcare
Less Innovation
One argument against universal healthcare is that it would lead to less innovation (Caphysiciansalliance.org, 2010). This is because it would take economic rivalry and the self-determination of choice out equality. It would hinder and block modernism in the medicinal field, which may disadvantage patients’ welfare. Besides, care providers and corporations would not be able to compete alongside each other for funding and patients. However, without this rivalry, companies, institutions, and facilities would have fewer incentives to advance new treatment options and quality care.
Reducing Patient Flexibility
The other argument against universal healthcare is that it reduces patient flexibility. This is because patients will still be capable of seeing hospitals of their choice, but cost limitations prevent patients from accessing specific procedures or costly tests. Additionally, the patient would have to seek regime approval before evaluating these services, which reduces personal autonomy in the healthcare industry.
A Painful Transition
Another argument against universal healthcare is that it could lead to a painful transition. This is because comprehensive healthcare coverage could tend to be mistrustful of the capability to handle a vast undertaking by federal governments. It could be time-consuming and preventing the delivery of quality care during its process of implementation. The state would have to use the new system for less than ten years after launch, which may lead to widespread unemployment and massive function between businesses and consumers. The transition to universal healthcare could emerge to be costly and lengthen for numerous years, radically reshaping America’s economy. It could cause long wait times and mishandled healthcare services. Also, it could lead to illegitimate cessation of private healthcare firms such as the private coverage industry.
References
Caphysiciansalliance.org. (2010). Arguments and Counterarguments about Health Care Reform. Retrieved 18 July 2020, from http://caphysiciansalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Single-Payer-Arguments.pdf
Healthcare.procon.org. (n.d) Right to Health Care – Pros & Cons – ProCon.org. Retrieved 18 July 2020, from https://healthcare.procon.org/