Question

here is ongoing debate among U.S. policymakers whether the role the government in the healthcare system should be expanded or reduced. Which of the following are the arguments put forward by those who would like to see a reduced government role? Check all that apply. Private insurance companies put profit ahead of people. The government is to offer people a public option in the healthcare. The government is to offer people a single payer system financed out of tax revenue. A centralized government-run system would limit individual freedom, excessively ration care, and stifle innovation. Both sides of the policy debate over healthcare often point to Canada, where the government runs the healthcare system, financed mostly by taxes. Which of the following are the features of the Canadian centralized system considered by those in favor of a reduced government role? Check all that apply. Limited individual freedom Excessively ration care Efficient resource allocation Elimination of wasteful treatment

Answer 1

Answer 1 :

The Correct answer is "Private insurers and providers should compete for consumers"

Step-by-step explanation:

I can clarify this with a model

if there are numerous Private insurance plans in the market everybody will attempt to give or present their best to remain in the market (as a result of rivalry), this will give buyers a bit of leeway to pick which one is the best for him/her both in economy term and just as Healthcare point of view.

Answer 2:

The Correct answer is "Limited individual freedom"

Step-by-step explanation:

when there is an administration's job in any action people(citizen) have not many or no alternative instead of to pick what government is giving. This would give an individual (purchaser) restricted opportunity and choices to pick which is best for him/her both in monetary terms and Healthcare point of view. Since there is no opposition in the market.