The debate Dr. Schilling and Laforte are having is about private health care vs. nationalized health care. Dr. Schilling is advocating for private health insurance because nationalized insurance is rationed due to high human costs that consumers pay, thereby denying their right to treatments they want and need because access to high technology medicine is restricted. Whereas Laforte advocates for nationalized health care because private health insurance denies access even to basic, conventional medicine to the many people who cannot afford adequate health coverage, while nationalized health care affords equal access to life saving medical procedures and so people's right to decent medical treatment regardless of income is not violated.
So it seems that Dr. Schilling's argument revolves around people's rights being violated due to being denied access because of the restrictiveness of medicine, and Laforte's argument revolves around people's rights being violated due to the inability to afford medicine.
Thus, answer choice (A) is the correct answer. Dr. Schilling would agree with answer choice (A), since his big grievance with nationalized health insurance is that people are denied their right to treatment because the way medicine is restricted and rationed. Laforte would disagree with answer choice (A), since his big grievance with private healthcare is that many people cannot afford adequate healthcare.
Hope that helped! Let us know if you have any other questions.
Ashley-TienJuly 12, 2018
Why is D incorrect? For answer choice A, where does it mention noneconomic grounds in the stimulus?
ChristopherJuly 28, 2018
@Ashley-Tien, this is a Point at Issue question, so you're looking at what is different between two arguments. In this case, Dr. Schilling is arguing that nationalized health insurance denies people the right of access to services due to a method of rationing and restricting certain procedures, while Laforte is arguing that the cost prohibitive nature of medical services has the same effect except it includes virtually all medical services. Both assert that some people will be denied services in each system, but in one system it is due to the cost and one is due to rationing. Laforte seems to prefer a system where everyone has equal access regardless of ability to pay, so the rich are as likely to be denied or provided services as the poor. Dr. Schilling seems to prefer a system in which a person can decide whether they want to spend the money for treatment or not. So the point at issue has to do with which type of service denial is more or less acceptable.
The question stem, then, is asking for the statement on which they would disagree.
(A) fits that description because Dr. Schilling would likely agree with the statement, while Laforte would likely disagree. Laforte's tone condemns the idea of people being denied medical services because they cannot pay for them, whereas Dr. Schilling feels the same way about a system that can deny a patient access to a service even if they are willing and able to pay for it.
Does that help?
ChristopherJuly 28, 2018
@Ashley-Tien, I forgot to answer your part about "why not (D)?" so here is that answer.
(D) reads too much into Laforte's answer. All Laforte says is that rich and poor have the same access. That doesn't mean that no-one will be denied this service or that - only that the stimulus for that decision will not be based on money.
