In their reply, Sam Fleishacker and Sherry Glied offer an analogy about a corrupt town's new mayor. At the end of their analogy, they state:
We can leave the provision of headphones entirely up to the free choices of individuals, but we can't do that with health care. Since health is a condition for choice, rather than simply a result of it, leaving it up to the market alone imposes costs that can in the long run deprive many people of their ability to choose freely at all.
In your essay, explain the authors' analogy and this concluding statement. What point are they making? Then, develop one objection to their concluding statement. Why might someone deny that such long run risks are sufficient to establish a right to healthcare specifically?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is Explicate both the authors' analogy between a corrupt town's new mayor and giving up health care in favor of other, less necessary goods and their concluding statement
Develop an objection to the authors' concluding statement
A strong objection will address the authors' perception that cash provision is in tension with individuals' freedom. Perhaps, this objection will draw from Freiman's defense of healthcare provision

In Their Reply, Sam Fleishacker and Sherry Glied Offer an Analogy