#18 - Dr. Schilling: Those who advocate replacing my

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (A)

This Stimulus is shared with Question 19 and it is a dialogue between two doctors; Dr. Schilling concludes that advocates of a national health insurance program fail to consider that there are high human costs to such a plan: namely, that in countries that use a nationalized health insurance program, access to high-technology medicine is restricted. His counterpart, Dr. Laforte, advocates nationalized health insurance because access to health care is equal, regardless of one’s ability to pay.

The Question Stem for Question 18 is a Point at Issue question type, and asks about which answer choice would the doctors most likely disagree. The key to answering these types of questions is simply to ask what the views of each doctor are regarding the answer choice. If they disagree, that is the correct answer choice. If the doctors agree, then that answer choice should be eliminated.

Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. It states people’s rights are less violated when denied health care because of an inability to pay as opposed to denial of said treatment on non-economic terms. Dr. Laforte would not agree with this statement because he believes that the right to decent medical treatment regardless of ability to pay is paramount. Dr. Schilling would agree with the statement because he does recognize that the ability to pay is a factor in determining allocation of healthcare resources.

Answer Choice (B): This answer is incorrect because both doctors would agree with the statement that the wealthy are more likely to receive better health care than people who are unable to afford health insurance.

Answer Choice (C): This answer is incorrect because while Dr. Schilling would agree that in a country that relies on private health insurance, a person who needed a kidney transplant would receive one, it is not known what Dr. Laforte believes regarding this. One could speculate that he might believe that the patient would not receive the kidney because he or she might not afford it, but that is speculation.

Answer Choice (D): This answer is incorrect because while Dr. Schilling disagrees with the statement (because care is rationed and people are denied their right to treatments they need), Dr. Laforte takes no position on it. Rich and poor have equal access, but that doesn't mean that everyone gets what they need. It only means that any denials are not based on the ability to pay.

Answer Choice (E): This answer is incorrect because both doctors may disagree with the statement that anyone who wants a particular medical treatment has the right to it. Dr. Laforte would agree that basic medical treatment is a right, but it is not a right for the patient to receive any medical treatment he or she wanted.

[rachue]

Hi,

I read the explanation for why D was wrong in this one but I don't really understand it. I understood by D that a "familiar medical treatment in order to stay alive" was referring to where Dr. Schilling says in the stimulus that "kidney transplants and open heart surgery, {which are} familiar life- saving procedures..." which is why I chose D as the correct answer. How is my interpretation wrong?

Thanks in advance.

[Steve Stein]

Keep in mind that this is a point at issue question, which means that the two speakers need to be committed to different sides of the issue.

Answer choice provides that with a nationalized health system, everyone who needs a familiar treatment gets it. Schilling would disagree with this assertion, as you pointed out.

But what about Laforte? Does he take the other side of the argument? In order to do so, he would need to claim not only equality but guaranteed access.Laforte only holds that the rich and poor have equal access to life-saving procedures. This is not the same as claiming that everyone who needs such a procedure will get it.

[rachue]

Ah ok, I see where I messed up. Thanks.

[biskam]

Confused as to how we can show from the stimulus that Dr. Schilling would agree with A? ("Dr. Schilling would agree with the statement because he does recognize that the ability to pay is a factor in determining allocation of healthcare resources.")

Is there an assumption here that I'm not seeing?

Thanks!

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Biskam,

The evidence for this position is not completely obvious, but Schilling's argument only leads in this direction. First, consider that there are only two options being debated: nationalize the healthcare system or not. The nationalization option would deny some people healthcare because they cannot afford it, and the non-nationalized system would deny some forms of health care because of bureaucratic reasons.

Dr Schilling claims that if you believe in nationalizing healthcare, then you overlook the "high human cost" of restricting "access to high-technology medicine." He believes that it is a violation of people's rights to do this. Since Schilling is arguing against nationalizing healthcare, we can assume that he believes the arguments he offers against nationalization would likely not apply to his preferred system (otherwise, why would he give those arguments?), and so we can infer that he thinks that people's rights would not be violated or be violated less in a non-nationalized system.

[SammyWu11201]

I get why A is the right answer for the most part, but what are the "noneconomic grounds" the answer choice is referring to? Thank you in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

Those noneconomic grounds are basically anything other than economic grounds, SammyWu11201. You're right that the stimulus never tells us what they are, but the argument is basically this:

Dr. S: "If I can afford it, I should be able to have it." (Economic grounds take priority)

Dr. L: "Being able to afford it shouldn't give you any special priority." (Economic grounds should not be a factor)

Dr. L isn't arguing that rationing doesn't happen in a nationalized system. The Dr.'s argument is just that the rationing, based on whatever factors it may be based on (maybe "first come, first served"?), is better than the kind of prioritizing based on affordability you get in a private system.

[blaisebayno]

HI there,

I do not understand why C is incorrect.

C states: In countries that rely primarily on private health insurance to pay for medical costs, most people who would benefit from a kidney transplant receive one.

Because Dr. Schilling describes one flaw in nationalized health care as the denial of kidney transplants, one would assume that he believes that in his own privatized system, this same denial would not take place. Otherwise, why would he bring this example up? There fore, Dr. Schilling would disagree with this claim. Dr. Laforte, however, would agree because he states that privatized systems deny people access to even BASIC, CONVENTIONAL health care, which implies that healthcare that is more advanced (like a kidney transplant) is certainly denied in such a system.

Thanks for whoever clarifies my error!

[atierney]

The problem with C is its specificity. Its probably purely academic to go through the agree/disagree test here, although it appears as though you have it backward, Dr. Schilling would certainly agree with the claim, whereas. Dr. Laforte would be the one most likely to disagree with C (it's pro private health insurance). However, this is really to specific of a claim, a tree that misses the broader forest at issue, and it's important to read into these dispute questions an implicit call for identifying the "key" issue to the extent that an answer choice so provides it. You want to select the answer choice that captures the main idea of the dispute, and C, while capturing, possibly correctly, an implied detail, doesn't capture the crux of the issue.

Let me know if you have any questions on this.