Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.5K All Categories
- 28.2K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 192 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 36 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 646 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
PT5.S3.Q18 - Dr. Schilling: Those who advocate replacing my
wkim2015
Alum Member
Can somebody please help explain why the answer choice (a) is the correct one for this and not (d)? I don't think neither side is arguing which one would violate people's rights less so I immediately crossed (a) off the list...
Admin note: edited title
Comments
They both would disagree with (D). Here's why: Dr. L also seems agree that there are people who would undeniably be restricted from getting familiar surgery in a nationalized health care system.
As for (A), Dr. L would clearly disagree with that sentiment whilst Dr. S is likely to agree with it.
Dr. S is advocating for a private health care system. He seems to believe it is a graver problem when those who have money to pay for a treatment are denied that treatment, as opposed to when people are denied treatment on the basis of not being able to pay for it. In other words: for Dr. S, it's ok to say no to someone who is unable to pay for a medical procedure, but it is not okay to say no to someone who can pay for it. While he agrees that rights are being violated in either scenario, he feels that the rights violated in the latter is a greater problem. This is why he prefers a private healthcare system.
Dr. S would blatantly reject the above sentiment. He feels that the right to proper medical treatment, irrespective of one's income, is a far more worthy value to uphold. Simply put: while he also agrees that rights are violated in either scenario (private vs. nationalized healthcare system), he is okay with rationing and restricting certain medical procedures.