To what extent does providing universal healthcare for all citizens represent socialist and or modern liberal values
4 years ago
Answered By Lorne G
For this question there is wiggle room on your part. You can answer this question in three ways: it represents both, it represents modern liberal values only, or it represents socialist values only.
For both, you can say that modern liberal values sees social safety nets as an important part of making sure everyone in society has a fair chance to participate in the economy, thus universal healthcare for all fits with that ideology. you can use examples like Barak Obama having modern liberal values or the Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada. In terms of how this represents socialism you can say that socialism believes in the redistribution of wealth in order to make society more equal and thus more fair because without government intervention things will not be fair or equal. Universal healthcare for all, as long as everyone gets equal treatent and rich people can't cheat th system, fits into socialism in that way because everyone gets treated. You can use the Canadian NDP party as an almost socialist example that wants healthcare in Canada to be more universal than it is now. You can also bring up Bernie Sanders from the States.
If you want to answer that this represents modern liberal value only, use the same modern liberal examples from above, but draw a sharp distinction between social safety nets and mass wealth distribution. Modern liberalism does not try to make everyone economically equal, they want everyone to have a fair chance at doing well. so you can argue that universal healthcare for all is a necessary part of giving everyone a fair chance and you can contrast Canada and USA on this, where in USA several people have been crippled or lamed by an injury and have not gone to the doctor because it would be too expensive. S, you can say that socialist values would require much more than universal healthcare for all in the pursuit of their goals, thus universal healthcare for all, without a whole package of other socialist things does not count as socialism.
To say that it only represents socialist values I would do this by bringing up the United states and how there is disagreement between having a universal healthcare system for everyone vs. all the private health insurance that people have right now. In the US a lot of people see AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Elisabeth Warren as socialists because they want universal healthcare for all and the way it is now, there are several welfare systems in the United States (hence modern Liberal values) but when it comes to healthcare people are provided several options to choose from, and wealthy people are the only ones who can pay for the best options, so in the United States it is quite socialist, and not Modern Liberalism to advocate for universal healthcare for all. (I find this of the three options to be the weakest one, but I am sure you can make it work well if you want to)
4 years ago
Answered By Lorne G
For this question there is wiggle room on your part. You can answer this question in three ways: it represents both, it represents modern liberal values only, or it represents socialist values only.
For both, you can say that modern liberal values sees social safety nets as an important part of making sure everyone in society has a fair chance to participate in the economy, thus universal healthcare for all fits with that ideology. you can use examples like Barak Obama having modern liberal values or the Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada. In terms of how this represents socialism you can say that socialism believes in the redistribution of wealth in order to make society more equal and thus more fair because without government intervention things will not be fair or equal. Universal healthcare for all, as long as everyone gets equal treatent and rich people can't cheat th system, fits into socialism in that way because everyone gets treated. You can use the Canadian NDP party as an almost socialist example that wants healthcare in Canada to be more universal than it is now. You can also bring up Bernie Sanders from the States.
If you want to answer that this represents modern liberal value only, use the same modern liberal examples from above, but draw a sharp distinction between social safety nets and mass wealth distribution. Modern liberalism does not try to make everyone economically equal, they want everyone to have a fair chance at doing well. so you can argue that universal healthcare for all is a necessary part of giving everyone a fair chance and you can contrast Canada and USA on this, where in USA several people have been crippled or lamed by an injury and have not gone to the doctor because it would be too expensive. S, you can say that socialist values would require much more than universal healthcare for all in the pursuit of their goals, thus universal healthcare for all, without a whole package of other socialist things does not count as socialism.
To say that it only represents socialist values I would do this by bringing up the United states and how there is disagreement between having a universal healthcare system for everyone vs. all the private health insurance that people have right now. In the US a lot of people see AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Elisabeth Warren as socialists because they want universal healthcare for all and the way it is now, there are several welfare systems in the United States (hence modern Liberal values) but when it comes to healthcare people are provided several options to choose from, and wealthy people are the only ones who can pay for the best options, so in the United States it is quite socialist, and not Modern Liberalism to advocate for universal healthcare for all. (I find this of the three options to be the weakest one, but I am sure you can make it work well if you want to)