@Munda:
(A) reads:
On the other hand, Schilling--the private guy--says that national is more right-infringing because you're denied treatment for noneconomic reasons--access to high-tech medicine and translplants is restricted under national. He thinks this is MORE of a right infringement than the situation LaForte outlines (being denied treatment because your wallet isn't deep enough). In other words, Schilling thinks being denied treatment because your wallet isn't deep enough is LESS of a right infringement than being denied treatment for noneconomic reasons. Schilling would therefore agree with (A).
Does that help?
(A) reads:
Schilling is the private guy. LaForte is the national guy. It's easier to think about LaForte first. He thinks that being denied medical treatment because you can't afford it is a HUGE breach of rights. So to say that your rights are violated LESS when you're denied treatment because you can't pay for it is something he would disagree with. So, LaForte disagrees with (A).(A) People's rights are violated less when they are denied an available medical treatment they need because they lack the means to pay for it than when they are denied such treatment on noneconomic grounds.
On the other hand, Schilling--the private guy--says that national is more right-infringing because you're denied treatment for noneconomic reasons--access to high-tech medicine and translplants is restricted under national. He thinks this is MORE of a right infringement than the situation LaForte outlines (being denied treatment because your wallet isn't deep enough). In other words, Schilling thinks being denied treatment because your wallet isn't deep enough is LESS of a right infringement than being denied treatment for noneconomic reasons. Schilling would therefore agree with (A).
Does that help?
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto












