Write about 200 – 250 words each in Prompt 1 and Prompt 2 and Prompt 3

Afterwards, comment on 2 classmates in Prompt 1 work on either you agree or disagree along with the grounds for your agreement or disagreement. (100 Words on each classmate)

Then, comment on 2 classmates in Prompt 2 work on either you agree or disagree along with the grounds for your agreement or disagreement. (100 Words on each classmate)

Last, comment on 2 classmates in Prompt 3 work on either you agree or disagree along with the grounds for your agreement or disagreement. (100 Words on each classmate)

Prompt 1:

Among the welfare state policies that are hotly debated these days is Universal Basic Income (UBI). But even before that debate, the U.S. is quite involved in a highly partisan debate on universal healthcare. The U.S. is known in the world for its overpriced, private, for-profit healthcare system that often fails to deliver adequate healthcare except the few rich or the few lucky lower-middle classes who happen to get jobs with good benefits that include a decent healthcare coverage. Even in those cases, healthcare costs and prescription drugs are still much more expensive than either other advanced industrialized countries or even many underdeveloped countries. As a result tens of millions of Americans are either uninsured or underinsured.

*But how can this issue be solved? Should the U.S. have universal healthcare? For instance, it could be organized by the government with a public insurance program, where government negotiates with doctors, medical equipment, and pharmaceutical companies directly for the best price as in most parts of Europe. But neither of those companies nor the for-profit health sector would easily agree with this and they would block those efforts as long as they do not make profit with government contracts. Then what can be done?

In short, would you support universal health care? If yes, why and what kind of system do you have in mind?

If not, why not? What are the pros and cons?

*Second, do you think the government should go further to provide universal basic income to eradicate rampant poverty and economic inequality in the U.S. as in some parts of Europe? Would that work in the U.S. given the “political culture of self-reliance” and strong convictions about “personal responsibility of the poor”? Is it a good idea for the U.S.? Why or why not?

1. State your position and provide a clear reasoning and justification. You can give logical justifications and illustrate your position by examples from current or past politics. In this discussion, you can definitely defend only universal healthcare and not UBI, only UBI and not healthcare, both, or neither.

Prompt 2:

One of the most divisive issues that the framers faced during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was slavery. The Northern states as well as many Southern delegates denounced it as repugnant. However, upon threats by Georgia and Carolinas, the Northern delegates did not insist on banning slavery or slave trade, and they even gave in to those Southerners by admitting a provision on returning fugitive slaves to the Southern states.

During such foundational moments of forming a union, many members of such constitutional conventions face similar dilemmas: When they get together to form a “more perfect union” they have to make compromises on their strongly held convictions. In many cases, if they insist on those ethical convictions, there will be no union. A lot of their interlocutors may be sexist, racist, religious bigots, or insist on preserving abominable practices for the sake of preserving their way of life. But they are still part of the society and they form a significant constituency.

For the sake of inclusion and unity, people with strong ethical objections often make such compromises, hoping that these issues will be solved over time. But in many cases those concessions become petrified and recognized by legalization. In some cases, they come back to haunt this union and embroil it in perpetual conflicts, and even in the form of more serious challenges, such as civil wars. This is exactly what happened in the U.S. history. Lingering as an unresolved issue, tabling the issue of slavery cost a Civil War almost a century later with very atrocious actions and crimes in between against humanity in the context of the American people of African descent.

If you were part of the 1787 Convention, or any such convention anywhere during those foundational moments, what would you do? Would you insist on your strongly held ethical conviction at the risk of jeopardizing the unity of the country (this means keeping on an ongoing civil war sometimes), or would you prioritize having a deal and compromise at that moment, tabling the issue to a later date to be solved gradually. Which one do you think is a better course of action?

Prompt 3:

In your opinion, should congressional representatives act more as delegates or as trustees?

In the delegate model, a representative will make their best effort to reflect the constituency’s preferences without basing it necessarily on their own conscience or notion of what is right or wrong on this issue. On the other hand, a representative who considers representation as doing what is best for the common good of the constituency and what is the right thing to do think that she or he is not an embodiment of the net sum of individual demands, interests or preferences on the policy issue being discussed. Refer to the textbook or class discussions for further details.

Explain why you think the representative must act like a delegate or a trustee.