Statement–Argument — Should government hospitals charge user fees from government employees who pay income tax? Arguments: I. Yes. User fees can ease fiscal pressure and the revenue can fund better services for those in need. II. No. Charging tax-paying employees is unjust since they already contribute revenue to the state.

Introduction / Context:
Health financing can mix general taxation with user fees, exemptions, and insurance. Equity, efficiency, and fiscal sustainability must be balanced.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Government employees are taxpayers; many non-employees are also taxpayers.
• User fees can generate earmarked funds but may create access barriers.
• Targeting (exemptions/concessions) is possible.

Concept / Approach:
Both fiscal logic (I) and fairness/affordability concerns (II) are policy-relevant. Their strength depends on design (exemptions, income tiers).

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I argues for revenue and reallocation to the needy—relevant and potentially effective if implemented with equity safeguards.2) II claims injustice since taxes are already paid; if user fees duplicate burdens and deter care, the fairness concern is real—also relevant.3) Because both concerns can be compelling depending on context and design, “either I or II is strong” fits.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many systems waive fees for vulnerable groups while charging modest amounts to others, reflecting both arguments.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II” ignore the opposing valid consideration; “Both” implies joint acceptance without resolving trade-offs; “Neither” dismisses relevant points.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming user fees are either universally good or bad; neglecting exemption design.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.