1. Source A disagrees with the statement because Source A states that Means Testing is a tedious and convoluted process that is time-consuming. This is reflected by the stethoscope which is drawn to represent a maze implying that means testing is a long drawn process. There is some truth to this because it does take a long time to verify a patient’s income background to ensure that he qualifies for the subsidies. And it would cause additional stress to the patient who awaits the decision to see if he is eligible for the subsidy, hence making means testing to be an unsuitable way. However, the reliability of this can be called to question because the source is from an individual who may simply be voicing his criticism of government policy. Moreover according to the Ministry of Health, the process of determining the eligibility of a patient is hassle-free because it is computerized and has not inconvenienced any patient so far. Thus, this appears to make means testing suitable.

2. Source B, too, disagrees, that it is not a fair means. This is because it disadvantages those who do not qualify for the subsidy but who may need it too. This is implied when the source questions about the status of those who are ‘unemployed’ and whose ‘assets have devalued and the middle class who are squeezed’. And the ending note ‘ In the end, more people will suffer because of means testing’ reinforces the idea that Source B finds means testing as inappropriate and disadvantageous. There is some truth to this because means testing assesses a person’s income level at the point of admission and this does not take into account other financial commitments of the patient which may be a burden to him, like a property which is losing its value. Thus, this makes means testing unsuitable. However, the reliability is questionable because the source is from a member of the opposition party who may have another agenda, that is, to criticize the government’s policies so as to win the favour of the masses. Moreover, according to MOH, means testing is done at the point of hospitalization, so if the patient is retrenched or income is shrunk it will be taken into account. Also medical social workers will evaluate on a case-by-case basis for those who are burdened with other financial commitments and have been advised to err on the compassionate side. Hence, means testing appears to be good for the people.

3. Source C, however, agrees with the statement because it states that it protects the privilege of the low-income and prevents it from being abused by the high-income. This is implied by the source that states, ‘it becomes unfair when high-income patients begin to occupy subsidized beds’ at the ‘expense of low-income patients’. Thus Means testing is welcome because it is about ‘fairness’. There is truth to this because with the rising costs of healthcare, the government cannot be bearing the total cost and there has to be a shared responsibility between the government and the people. However, those in the lower income group cannot be expected to bear the same cost as the rest, and so the government has to provide subsidies for them. Thus, means testing is the best way. But the reliability of this source can be questioned as it is the viewpoint of one individual and this need not represent the views of everyone else, hence it questions on the suitability of means testing.