Sample Passage 1
Senator Favor
proposed a bill in the state legislature that would allow pharmacists to
prescribe medications for minor illnesses, without authorization from a
physician (i.e., a "prescription"). In support of her proposal, Favor
argued:
Doctors
have had a monopoly on authorizing the use of prescription medicines for too
long. This has caused consumers of this state to incur unnecessary expense for
their minor ailments. Often, physicians will require patients with minor
complaints to go through an expensive office visit before the physician will
authorize the purchase of the most effective medicines available to the sick.
Consumers are
tired of paying for these unnecessary visits. At a recent political rally in
Anyone who has
had to wait in a crowded doctor's office recently will be all-too-familiar with
the "routine": after an hour in the lobby and a half-hour in the
examining room, a physician rushes in, takes a quick look at you, glances at
your chart and writes out a prescription. To keep up with the dizzying pace of
"health care," physicians rely more and more upon prescriptions, and
less and less upon careful examination, inquiry, and bedside manner.
Physicians make
too much money for the services they render. If "fast food" health
care is all we are offered, we might as well get it at a good price. This bill,
if passed into law, would greatly decrease unnecessary medical expenses and
provide relief to the sick: people who need all the help they can get in these
trying economic times. I urge you to vote for this bill.
After Senator
Favor's speech, Senator Counter stood to present an opposing position, stating:
Senator
Favor does a great injustice to the physicians of this state in generalizing
from her own health care experiences. If physicians' offices are crowded, they
are crowded for reasons that are different from those suggested by Senator
Favor. With high operating costs, difficulties in collecting medical bills, and
exponential increases in the costs of malpractice insurance, physicians are
lucky to keep their heads above water. In order to do so, they must make their
practices more efficient, relying upon nurses and laboratories to do some of
the patient screening.
No one disputes
the fact that medical expenses are soaring. But, there are issues at stake
which are more important than money—we must consider the quality of health
care. Pharmacists are not trained to diagnose illnesses. Incorrect diagnoses by
pharmacists could lead to extended illness or even death for an innocent
customer. If we permit such diagnoses, we will be personally responsible for
those illnesses and deaths.
Furthermore,
since pharmacies make most of their money by selling prescription drugs, it
would be unwise to allow pharmacists to prescribe. A sick person who has not
seen a physician might go into a drugstore for aspirin and come out with
narcotics!
Finally, with
the skyrocketing cost of insurance, it would not be profitable for pharmacists
to open themselves up to malpractice suits for mis-prescribing drugs. It is
difficult enough for physicians with established practices to make it; few
pharmacists would be willing to take on this financial risk. I recommend that
you vote against this bill.
Sample Items for Passage 1
A.
the man would have discovered this cure without the doctor's
diagnosis.
B.
two dollars is the average price of the cortisone lotion.
C.
eighty dollars is the average price for an office visit of this
kind.
D.
cortisone lotion is effective on all rashes.
A.
sick persons often send others to get their drugs.
B.
narcotics are not normally prescribed for "minor ailments."
C.
most people do not buy aspirin at the drugstore.
D.
most people who need narcotics go to a physician to get them.
A.
Most prescriptions are unnecessary.
B.
Senator Counter will oppose the bill.
C.
If the bill is passed into law it will greatly reduce the cost of
all medical treatment.
D.
If the bill is passed the average costs for treatment of minor
ailments would be reduced significantly.
A.
physicians are not having difficult economic times.
B.
Favor's description of the crowded physician's office is not
completely inaccurate.
C.
the cost of malpractice insurance is not growing at an accelerated
pace.
D.
the quality of health care will not diminish if pharmacists are
allowed to prescribe drugs.
Sample Passage 2
A: The domestic spending policies of the current
administration are simply reprehensible. The real enemy of our democracy is not
big government, but big business. As our society becomes increasingly dominated
by enormous corporate conglomerates, there is less and less room for real
individual initiative. Our lives are becoming completely determined by what
happens in the board room as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
B: How can you say that? You have it just backwards. Excessive
government regulation and high taxes lead to complete totalitarianism. Only
when there is less government intervention in our lives and lower taxes allow
us to employ our assets to our own best advantage does talk of individual
initiative make any sense at all.
A: You elitists are all alike. You think only of the freedom of
opportunity for the privileged few. You have no concern for those members of
society who may not have the resources to be entrepreneurs or investors.
Democracy means "liberty and justice for all," not just for those of
you with a lot of money.
B: Justice? What justice is there in taking away my hard-earned
dollars to pay for welfare programs for people who don't want work? And
besides, liberty is simply a question of the existence of possibilities.
Everyone can succeed in our society, if they only use their talents and assets
wisely. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
A: You're confusing liberty with license. Having the right to do
something doesn't mean that there's any real opportunity for you to actually do
it. The least-advantaged of our society do not have the ability to exploit the
system successfully. Freedom is a matter of choice between real alternatives,
alternatives the poor do not have.
B: People don't choose their parents. It wouldn't be my fault if
mine were a little better off than most. It's a fool's dream to think that you
can get rid of the inequalities of birth. But the glory of democracy is that
everybody has an equal say in where we go from here, given those natural
inequalities. Besides, the only purpose of government is to protect the
property rights of its citizens.
A: But the authority of the government is the authority given to it
by the people. And there is no apparent reason for the poor to recognize your
so-called "right of property" when they do not have any property. How
could you convince them that it is for their own good to recognize this right?
B: Of course it's for their own good. Without the government—human
nature being what it is—there would be constant strife and violence. One of the
reasons for having a government is to ensure "domestic tranquility,"
right? Since life would be so uncertain in a state of anarchy, everybody has an
interest in recognizing the authority of the government. Besides, as long as
the poor can have property, the principle is completely fair—if they had
property, the government would protect it.
A: And if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. Look, it's
only fair that the better-off members of a democratic society provide for the
support of the least-advantaged. A democracy consists in the free will of its
citizens to self-government—you know: "We, the people, in order to form a
more perfect union. . . ." The economic structure of a
democratic society must be such as to command everyone's consent from a
standpoint of self-interest and complete equality. From such a standpoint, I
cannot base my decision on the basis of the position I currently occupy within
society or the amount of property I now have, so I must choose to make the best
of what may be a bad situation—I must choose from the standpoint of the
least-advantaged. So only if the fundamental institutions of a democracy
provide real opportunities for the least-advantaged is there any justification
for individuals to give their allegiance to the government and recognize the
right of property.
B: But that's just what I mean. If we only encouraged investment, a
free and growing economy would provide for more opportunity for the least
advantaged. The profits might be reaped in the first instance by the investors,
but they would eventually trickle down through the economy to raise the
standard of living of every member of the society.
A: You're incorrigible. I don't know why I put up with you.
B: Think what you want; after all, it's a free country.
Sample Items for Passage 2