Reference no: EM13892928
Respond to EACH post (4 total) 150 words each and using at least TWO reference sources EACH (not the same ones for each).Write whether or not you agree and why. How informative the post was, etc.THANK YOU
POST ONE
The topic I chose to discuss is national health care and how a national health insurance plan would affect health care in America. The national health care plan has common examples in those arguments in favor of it. Those examples being other nations who've implemented a national health care plan such as Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and other developed countries. There are a few differences to note before considering those ideas as a model for the U.S. First, there are huge population differences. The United States has approximately 321 million citizens.1That is more people than the citizens of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom combined.
The next point that needs to be made is entitlement spending. In 2011 Canada received $237.1 billion in revenue from taxes and other sources.2 The U.S. government spent over $800 billion on Social Security in 2015.3 One entitlement program in the U.S. is more than the vast majority of other nation's total budgets. These numbers alone represent the basic fundamental problem with the idea of a national insurance plan in the U.S., we can't afford it. Unless the current entitlement programs are reformed and made solvent, a national health care plan is something the government simply cannot afford.
More to the point of how it would affect health care in America, it has potential to resolve a great deal of problems while also creating new ones. For example, in the article Health Care in a Free Society published by the CATO Institute, one of the first topics discussed is the idea of a right to health care. The article stated, "The 100th person waiting for heart surgery is not entitled to the 100th surgery. Other people can and do jump the queue."4 The notion a national health insurance or health care plan will allow everyone to receive the treatment they need is, in a lot of ways, false. Although the small percentage of Americans who do not have health insurance in America will be covered, the treatment for everyone else will suffer.
The other article relating to this in this week's lesson discussed how the VA is a model for what could be on a national level.5 However, the article was published in 2007 and the horrific VA medical scandals were not discovered until about 2014. Based on the updated information, I believe the author would need to revise his assessment.
There are many other issues facing this debate. If a national health insurance plan is implemented, will malpractice suits be non-existent to the point medical providers are not held to the current standards? One way to ensure a dip in health care cost is to stop one of the driving forces behind it, lawsuits. It seems that the country would be swapping one set of problems for a new.
Works Citied:
1. "Country Comparison: Population." World Factbook. July 1, 2015. Accessed December 1, 2015. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html.
2. "Archived - Your Tax Dollar: 2010-2011 Fiscal Year." Department of Finance Canada. January 18, 2012. Accessed December 1, 2015. https://www.citationmachine.net/chicago/cite-a-website/manual.
3. Chantrill, Christopher. "What Is the Spending on Social Security?" U.S. Government Spending. Accessed December 1, 2015. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/social_security_spending_by_year.
4. Goodman, John. "Health Care in a Free Society Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance." Policy Analyst. January 27, 2005. Accessed December 1, 2015. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa532.pdf.
5. Klein, Ezra. "The Health of Nations." The American Prospect 18, no. 5 (2007): 17-21. Accessed December 1, 2015. https://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/201132074?accountid=8289.
POST TWO
According to reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee the CIA has been using coercive forms of interrogation for the last fifty years. When it comes to interrogation the CIA uses the principal coercive techniques of interrogation: arrest, detention, deprivation of sensory stimuli through solitary confinement or similar methods, threats and fear, debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, narcosis and induced regression (Stein, 2014). However, after the attacks on September 11, 2001 the CIA began working on a new list of interrogation methods which included sleep deprivation, slapping, subjection to cold and simulated drowning, also known as "waterboarding".
Although former President W Bush claimed that the CIA had saved several lives by performing enhanced interrogation techniques others disagree. In fact, one of the individuals that disagreed with President Bush was President Barak Obama so much so that on his second day in office President Obama signed an executive order banning those enhanced techniques (BBC, 2014). Even senator John McCain proposed what was known as the "McCain Amendment" which banned enhanced interrogation techniques that were being performed on prisoners of war. Many people commended Senator McCain for this after he, himself was a POW who suffered harsh interrogation techniques by the North Vietnamese (Krauthammer, 2005, p21).
After 9/11 the Bush administration tried to justify the use of enhanced interrogation techniques because they claimed they were not cruel, inhumane, or degrading under international law and that they were effective in obtaining direct information about impending attacks. However, after several investigations the Senate Oversight Committee concluded that the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining co-operation from detainees which forced the intelligence community to end such techniques (BBC, 2014). Overall, the Senate Oversight Committee helped to validate that the CIAs use of enhanced integration techniques had violated human rights and American Principles.
Reference:
1.Stein, Jeff. "CIA ‘Torture' Practices Started Long Before 9/11 Attacks." https://www.newsweek.com/2014/12/26/cia-torture-practices-started-long-911-attacks-senate-report-notes-290746.html (accessed December 1, 2015).
2.BBC News.com. "CIA tactics: What is 'enhanced interrogation'?https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11723189 (accessed December 1, 2015).
3.Krauthammer, Charles. 2005. "The Truth about Torture." The Weekly Standard, Dec 05, 21-25.https://search.proquest.com/docview/233010280?accountid=8289.
POST THREE
For years, health care in the United States has been a massive political battle. Arguments range from no government involvement, to socialized healthcare, and everywhere in between. It does appear that most people agree that there is need for reform and improvement in the American healthcare system.
Those who favor a single payer system, in other words government provided health insurance, point to countries like Great Britain, France, and Canada as models for the United States to learn from. Some laud France as the world's best health care system because patients can see any doctor they please at any given time with no need for referrals or advanced appointments. France even provides healthcare for citizens with no maximum limits.
The other side of this debate are those who argue that no government involvement is appropriate in healthcare or health insurance. That argument is basically the exact opposite of the previous position stating that the United States has the best health care systems and other nations should follow its example. There are some interesting points to this argument. Taking breast cancer for example; in France a woman diagnosed with breast cancer has a 1 in 3 chance of dying from the disease whereas in the United States that number is 1 in 4 which is among the best in the world.
Of course, simply analyzing breast cancer survival rates in 2 countries with vastly different healthcare systems is not enough to draw conclusions, however it is an interesting figure that suggests perhaps, that the United States is the best place in the world to have breast cancer treated.
It would seem that the most significant part of the debate comes down to sick people being able to get treatment regardless of their ability to pay. Those who argue in favor of a single payer, government insurance program emphasize the need for those less fortunate in society to have healthcare and demonize for profit insurance and pharmaceutical companies.3 The other side of the argument claims that having a government insurance program gives the government control over its citizens health.4 Both are compelling points!
The United States economy has long been driven by free enterprise and capitalism. That includes the health industry. Although the system is very expensive compared to other nations, the United States is still acclaimed as the world's leader in medical technology and innovation.5 Over the past few decades, the United States has been credited with more medical Nobel Prize winners and more of the world's most important medical than any other nation in the world.6 That medical technology and innovation is then used all over the world improving healthcare. It is capitalism that drives this innovation.
Health care, and insurance are no doubt far too expensive for many people in the United States and reform is necessary. That said ingenuity has always been fueled by a free market economy and if the government were the only payer for medical needs, medical innovation may decrease in America.
Resources:
1- 1 Klein, E. (2007, 05). The health of nations.The American Prospect, 18, 17-21. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/201132074?accountid=8289
2- 2 Goodman, John. "Health Care in a Free Society Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance." 2005. Accessed December 2, 2015. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa532.pdf.
3- 3 Ibid 1.
4- 4 Ibid 2.
5- 5 Cowen, Tyler. "Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don't Measure Nobels and Innovation." October 4, 2006. Accessed December 3, 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?_r=0.
6- 6 Ibid 5.
POST FOUR
Affirmative action, although sometimes perceived as a unwanted and unnecessary nuisance, acts as a pertinent means of ensuring workplace equitability. The assessment of whether it is in keeping with ideals and protections presented in the Constitution can be skewed by time and individual perceptions driven by self-conforming stereotypes. (Loury, 2002) The provision that all men should be able to achieve life, liberty, and pursue happiness without government intervention has proven to be contingent on the effects that pursuit has on another individual or groups ability to do the same. There are flaws with the Affirmative Action program, but the flaws are indicative of a deeper racial divide that continues to exist and hampers the nation's societal progress. (Williams, 1997)
The attempt by government to support workplace diversity creates a point of noticeable divide between the masses operating in the workforce. Arguments supporting the dissolution of the practice range from the obvious self serving individuals who feel that they are less likely to achieve their desired position because of the program, to the corporation that feels that the program doesn't provide for the selection of the most qualified candidate. (Loury, 2002) These positions are not without merit, but they avoid the historical and current inconsistencies that contributed to the impetus being emplaced originally. Furthermore, even with programs supporting this initiative established, the levels of disparity between white and minority employees continue with minorities being represented far less in the managerial and professional occupations than Whites. This is especially obvious when addressing the disparity at the senior management level in which minorities comprise only 12.1% of the 842,911 of this work-class. (EEOC, 2013)
The racial equity of the nation's workforce being the predominant cause for Affirmative Action, it is in need of review and revision. Impressing upon one group the need to make room for a certain amount of minorities does little to foster a societal structure that reflects racial or ethnic parity and infringes on the free-market ideals outlined by the capitalist system. (Konrad et. al. , 1995) The polarization of sentiment, both for and against the equal opportunity program, exposes the continued divide that exists amongst the American populace. There is a need for a system that guarantees that the few are allowed access to the American dream, but the zero-sum concept makes such a system difficult to discern without infringing on the liberties of another group. (Williams, 1997)
Source:
Loury, Glenn C.. 2002. "Anatomy of Racial Inequality." Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
Williams, Walter E. 1997. "Affirmative Action can't be Mended." Cato Journal 17 (1): 1-10.
"2013 Job Patterns for Minorities and Women in Private Industry." U.S. EEOC.
Konrad, A. M., &Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices?.Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 787-820.