Summary
____________________________________
Response
As we have just done before, we will discuss Rogers and Zemach's following discussion questions in blog comments, which is likely to generate a wider variety of ideas in addition to giving us a more permanent record of our ideas while also getting in some practice writing for fluency in a less academic style, but still writing our ideas in grammatically complete sentences that clearly state our ideas.
____________________________________
Questions
- Do you think governments should spend money on programs educating people about disease?
- Why are the opposing arguments unconvincing?
- Who should be responsible for funding research into disease?
- Why might some people disagree with your opinion? Why do you find their arguments unpersuasive
____________________________________
You have 15:00 minutes to plan and write a response to the three questions. I suggest you divide your time roughly as: - planning = 3:00 minutes
- writing = 9:00 minutes, and
- editing = 3:00 minutes.
Remember, your writing should make sense independently of the question it might be answering, so it would be useful to give background, which can usefully be done by paraphrasing the question into statements that begin your answer.
____________________________________
Reference
- Rogers, L. & Zemach, D. E. (2018). Skillful 3: Reading & Writing (2nd. ed.). London: Macmillan Education
My usual idea is that governments do not have a right to use tax payers' money on things that the tax payer would not want to spend it on, so my initial idea was that governments should not spend money on education programs about disease, or any other problem. If the citizens of a society want to spend their money on those things, that is great, and it's a good thing to do, but forcing citizens to commit good deeds treats them like slaves who are not free to decide things for themselves.
ReplyDeleteBut when I thought about it more, I think that some things do justify government spending to educate people about disease. But not things like alcohol, cigarettes or any non-infectious diseases.
I think the government can justly spend tax money to educate citizens about infectious diseases because those diseases are a threat to other people, like a woman with a gun who wants to kill someone. She is a threat to the other person, and preventing such attacks is part of the government's responsibility. This is also why there should be laws against drinking alcohol and driving your car: it is a danger to others that the government should stop. But if people just want to get stupid drunk, even to overdose and die from alcohol or some other drug, that stupidity is their business, not the government's.
Infectious diseases, such as Covid-19, are a threat to everyone else in society, and that means they are something the government must work to prevent, and education can be an effective prevention tool. This is why I think the government should spend tax payers' money on education programs about infectious diseases, but not other types of disease, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Non-infectious diseases are the private business of private citizens. The society should care about them, but it's not the government's job to try to make citizens be healthy.
So, who should be responsible for funding research into disease? As I just argued for education, I think that research should largely be done by private businesses who want to make profits. Making profits is a powerful tool for creating value for everyone. For example, his desire for vast profits pushed Bill Gates to create Windows, which has improved the lives of billions of people around the world. Mark Zuckerberg got super rich for similar reasons: his hard work and ideas created value in the lives of more than two billion people.
I suppose that government should provide the knowledge about diseases by spending money on study programs. Since I beleive that there are some part of my countries do not have enough knowledge abuot the disease. For instance, in Thailand, which is the country that affect by infection of Covid-19 and there are some populations that do not know how to go through it.
ReplyDeleteThis means that the government should progess the educating people about disease.
In my opinion, the governments should support about educating people about disease because if the people are healthy, this is the first step to develop the country, if they are unhealthy, they can’t concentrate on their job. I think the governments don’t support only the money, they should support anything else such as include a good behavior (wash your hand, wear mask when you sick) in the lesson.
ReplyDeleteI think the governments should be support funding research into disease first because in the real world the medical company is private corporation, but if new disease is very new and the private corporation doesn’t see the benefit, they might be doesn’t research so the governments should be try to do research at the first time after that the private corporation is going to do the research same as the government.
Q1.
ReplyDelete-Yes, governments should spend money on that programme because it could prevent epidemic from their citizens in the long runs.
-I think that the writer want to people think about only this topic and it is the basic responsibility of governments. It is also one of public facilities.
Q2.
-Governments should provide funding on disease research. It is a part of educating people about disease. This funding could improve knowledge about diseases.
-Some people may think that the funding research come from their taxes and it’s not their responsibility.
Government should provide fund to educate people about disease, since it is a good way to start helping people know to prevent an infection and also live more safely lead to help government saving heath care fund that may spend for our citizen careless behavior that may cause them illness. The beneficial failed other opposing arguments.
ReplyDeleteSupport disease researching should not provide only by government but also private sector. Two source is better than one source since they have different pro and cons in term of their different purpose.
There are some important reasons why the government should subsidize for educating people about diseases. Firstly, fighting with the majority kinds of sickness base on each person's behavior and cooperation with medical teams hence it might be more effective for treatment.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, if people had sufficient knowledge about health and disease, they would have a healthier lifestyle. For example, personal responsibility and health behavior also affect preventing contagion disease.
Meanwhile, funding research into disease should be supported by many organizes not only the government. I think that humankind's life should be the priority so it shouldn't be under just only one organization. This situation might lead to monopolize power in the medical term. In addition, organizes have different perspectives that might be better supported to improve medical innovation.
I see. Spending time with ourselves is quite peaceful. I also grew up in a huge family.