Category: Barack Obama

Introduction

Language is that set of symbolic expressions known only to the human race. Most authors believe that culture is the most important factor that makes humans what they are and distinguishes them from the animal world. And inside culture, language, some pretend, is the most important factor influencing mens life. It was the written usage of language that set the civilization to evolve at its heights. Language is spoken but also not spoken. By not spoken I mean other forms of language communication like written signs, different sets of symbols, etc.

Rhetoric is a part of the language. It is a usage of language. Refereeing to the Merriam Websters Online Dictionary, rhetoric is: The art of speaking or writing effectively as a means of communication or persuasion (rhetoric).

The word is derived from the ancient Greek eiro, which means I say. In its broadest sense, rhetoric concerns human discourse. This is the primary meaning of the word. Later we will see some secondary meanings that are more important to us in this essay. From the scholars, Aristotle was the first ancient philosopher to dedicate some time to the study of this issue. For him, rhetoric was the art of practical wisdom and decision-making. He saw it as a counterpart to logic and philosophical thinking. But Aristotle sees it as a branch of politics. For Aristotle, rhetoric was used by politicians to achieve their goals. Often they used it positively, but often they used it to manipulate the people (Aristotles Rhetoric, par. 1).

So we come to the second meaning of the word as shown by the Merriam Websters Online Dictionary. Rhetoric is also:

a: skill in the effective use of speech;

b: a type or model of language or speech ;

c: insincere or grandiloquent language; (rhetoric)

as we can see from the definition rhetoric is used often in speeches. This use is done to achieve some intentions that the speaker, user of rhetoric, has. This is why it is a useful weapon for politicians.

Rhetoric in political issues has been used as long ago as in Ancient Greece. It is the language that the sophists used to convince the population about their arguments. They used it to pass laws that they thought would be good for society. They used it as a weapon of gaining power and respect among the people. According to Aristotle, rhetoric is composed of three essential parts:

1. Ethos;

Which is the standing of the speaker or the writer. It has to do with his character, how much does he know the issue he is presenting, is he familiar with it and how do other consider him: virtuous? With high moral standards, etc. (Aristotles Rhetoric, par. 4)

2. Pathos;

This is the emotional part of rhetoric. The speaker (or writer) in his speech appeals to the emotional, irrational, part of the human beings that are listening, or reading, him. It has to do with the ways he uses words, both written and spoken, to generate emotions to the other with aim to gain support for his thesis. He tries to touch the hearts of the listeners by his words and create strong emotional response in support of his view. (Aristotles Rhetoric, par. 5)

3. Logos;

This is the rational part of rhetoric. You cannot gain support from the people just by appealing to their hearts and leave aside their minds. So the writer, or speaker, develops logical arguments relating to the issue that is presenting in support of its standing. This, along with the emotional part of the rhetoric is used to convince people that you are doing the right thing and that they should follow you. (Aristotles Rhetoric, par. 6).

Lastly, I want to say that when a person uses rhetoric, he uses it by expressing a personification, a metaphor, or an analogy. The first is the representation of a thing, basically a non-human, as human. The analogy is when you compare a certain situation, or thing, with another situation, or thing. These two have similar characteristics to each other. A metaphor is a pervasive feature of language. As J. R. Searle puts it, we use metaphor to talk about the world in both familiar and innovative ways, and in contexts ranging from everyday conversation to literature and scientific theorizing (1979: 6). So, the metaphor in rhetoric is used to appeal mostly to the heart of the people, their emotional and irrational part. The analogy is used by the logos when constructing an argument and making it easier for the people that are listening to you to understand what you mean. The personification is used both to make appeal to the emotional part of the people in order to make your adversary look ugly or you can use it to make yourself look like a hero. For example you can personify yourself as Superman or as Savior, etc. or you can use it to personify the other as pig with lipstick, etc.

The rhetoric of Barack Obama

As we can see from the introduction, rhetoric is very useful to politicians. They can use it as an art, or a weapon, to convince us of the thing they are doing, or that they intend to do. In a democracy, it is essential to have the approval of the people you are representing and governing. And rhetoric helps politicians do this. it is not that rhetoric is a property only of politicians. It can be used by all of us. Everyone can use rhetoric to try and persuade his friends, family, or relatives that this, or that, that he wants to be done is good for them also. But politicians can send their message to large groups of people. They make speeches that affect millions of people. So when they use rhetoric, they use it on such a scale that many of us will never have the opportunity to do in our lifetime. This is the case even for the rhetoric used by President-elect Barack Obama during this year. As we all know he has been campaigning since the primaries inside the Democratic Party with Senator Hilary Clinton, and after that with Republican Party candidate McCain.

During his almost one-year-long campaign, he has used rhetoric several times. He has also been labeled as the new Cicero by the British national newspaper, The Guardian (Barack Obama: The new Cicero, par. 1). It is interesting to see how Mr. Obama has developed his rhetoric and where has he shown it. We will take a couple of speeches to analyze. The first is the speech that senator barrack Obama gave in his electoral visit in Sarasota, Florida, on October 30, 2008. The second is the speech that he gave election night, November 4, when it was clear that he was going to be the next president of the United States.

I will try to do that by seeing what are the pathos, ethos and logos of the speeches he gave. Senator Obama has presented himself during all of his campaign as a man of the people, from the people and for the people. He has repeatedly pointed out that the people of the United States need change and that he is the right person that can bring this change to America. But first, he had to convince people that they do need that change. So he Florida, I have just two words for you: five days. After decades of broken politics in Washington, eight years of failed policies from George Bush, and twenty-one months of a campaign that has taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from change in America. (Remarks of Senator Barack Obama in Sarasota, FL, par. 1).

We can see how Mr. Obama is using the metaphor, from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, to appeal to the patriotism of the people who are hearing him. All of them are part of this country, this beautiful country. He is trying to persuade the people that change is coming and they need no more be worried about their present situation. This is an appeal to the emotional part of the crowd. They have to participate in the change that anyway is coming. Here is another emotional appeal to the people of Sarasota:

Most of all, I knew the American people were a decent, generous people willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations. I was convinced that when we come together, our voices are more powerful than the most entrenched lobbyists, or the most vicious political attacks, or the full force of a status quo in Washington that wants to keep things just the way they are. (Remarks of Senator Barack Obama in Sarasota, FL, par. 7).

He is appealing to the generosity and sacrifice of the American people. As we can see these are irrational parts that Senator Obama was trying to touch in the hearts of the people. They have to believe in him that he is going to make a real change in politics. His speech is connected to the idea that the present party and its representatives in power have brought the country to ruin. So now we have : Folks who cant pay their medical bills, or send their kids to college, or save for retirement cant afford to take a back seat to CEOs and Wall Street banks for four more years. (Remarks of Senator Barack Obama in Sarasota, FL, par. 13).

Here the logos of the speech begin to appear. Mr. Obama not only appeals to the heart of the people by using different metaphors about the situation the country is in, but he uses even logical arguments to convince those who are listening to him.

We are in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 760,000 workers have lost their jobs this year. Businesses and families cant get credit. Home values are falling. Pensions are disappearing. Its gotten harder and harder to make the mortgage, or fill up your gas tank, or even keep the electricity on at the end of the month. (Remarks of Senator Barack Obama in Sarasota, FL, par. 14)

Here he is presenting argumentation and facts about the economic situation of the country. This time he is trying to persuade the people of Sarasota and elsewhere that his opponents have let the country go toward crisis. He concludes by using both ethos and logos about the current situation:

And just today, we learned that the GDP, or Gross Domestic Product  a key indicator economists use to measure the health of our economy  has actually fallen for the first time this year. That means were producing less and selling less  so our economy is actually shrinking. And we saw the largest decline in consumer spending in 28 years as wages failed to keep up with the rising cost of living, and folks have been watching every penny and tightening their belts. Now, this didnt happen by accident. Our falling GDP is a direct result of eight years of the trickle-down, Wall Street first/Main Street last policies that have driven our economy into a ditch. (Remarks of Senator Barack Obama in Sarasota, FL, par. 15).

Another rhetorical speech of now President-Elect Barack Obama is that of the Election Night, in Chicago.

List of references

1. rhetoric. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Merriam-Webster Online. Web.
2. Aristotles Rhetoric. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Web.
3. Higgins, Charlotte. Barack Obama: The new Cicero. The Guardian. 2008. Web.
4. Remarks of Senator Barack Obama in Sarasota, FL. The Obama/Biden Official Website. 2008.
5. Searle, J. R.Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979.

Distinguished guests, comrades and friends, we are standing at yet another turning point. This ceremony signifies the end of an era, and the beginning of another one. It is another opportunity for us to remember and pledge our commitments to our core values. Our presence here shows our ever-bearing need and effort to keep going towards the future. It is a symbol of the connection between our past deeds and our future plans. And in all this, I wish to thank everyone involved in the smooth running of this transition.

Before you all, I have sworn the timeless oath that was put in place by our forebearers. By this, I have reaffirmed my new responsibility to oversee, for the time that the state and God will grant me, any and all significant work aimed at preserving and advancing our national legend. The challenges facing us may continue to change, but in it all, the unity of our nation must be upheld at all costs. Values and principles developed through generations of wisdom must be sustained and driven onwards.

We are the product of an eventful past. Our value system has been created out of necessity, shaped by war and strife, strengthened by discipline, and kept alight by the promise of a new dawn. That new dawn is now upon us. We hold now the torch lights to create the way forward, writing new history as we move along. With your approval and corporation, we can take giant strides towards the future, harnessing each and every individual gift and talent that is within the borders of this great nation. We can reinforce that vital sense of worth that is carried within each and every soul.

All through, let us not forget where weve come from, and how far weve come. We can not make any significant strides, if we cast away our past, and forget its lessons. For, like the best system anywhere, our past is a record of our best decisions as well as our worst mistakes. Let the past successes be seen as steps on the ladder of progress. And let the mistakes be analyzed and avoided in the future. Let us utilize this marvelous gift we have of learning, adapting, innovating, and changing for the good of all. Let the future generations look back upon our era with adoration and pride.

Now, more than ever, our humanity is on the test. Our relentless quest for success has awarded us with much more than we bargained for. We now have in our possessions enough brainpower and technological facilitation to make the whole nation, and even the world at large, a unified village. Yet at the same time, these advancements can also be used to destroy the entire human race, should we choose to. We hold our destinies, one way or the other, in our hands. Let us not forget then, that with great power, come great responsibility.

Comrades, we have a future to shape, let friend and foe alike know that we will continue to press forward, despite the odds. No challenge will stall our collective determination. In this, we will work with all parties that choose to share our vision. But we will suppress any forces that become barriers to our quest. We can not afford any relapse on the progress weve made so far. Far from it, let us be willing to bear any burden and pay any price to keep on the road to prosperity.

Finally, as we set our sights on our future goals, let us keep in mind our place in the universal system, for we are the result of our unique history and a necessary link to the future. Above all, we are but the instruments of our Creator, and should forever seek His guidance. God bless this nation, God Bless you all.

Thank you.

Sources

Associated press Text of President Barrack Obamas Inaugural Address 2009. Web.

John F. Kennedy Inauguration address 1961. 2009. Web.

Paul Brian Nelson Mandela: Inauguration address, 1994. 2009. Web.

Introduction

President Barack Obama was elected so that he could help improve the living standards of American citizens. When he was elected into office, Americans had hoped that the economic situation would improve and get better services from public institutions. The efforts by Obama to deliver this promise has been dealt a big blow due to the problems he is encountering and which he has to fix to continue with his bid to fulfill his promises to Americans.

For instance, Obama is expected to solve the security issues facing the country. His idea of removing troops from Afghanistan before the war against terrorism is won has attracted a lot of criticism, with observers saying that this will threaten Americas security. Obama should fix this problem in order to assure all Americans their security. Also, there have been issues of gun control rules that have initiated a heated debate among various leaders.

The idea of citizens holding guns is seen as a threat to security since they are likely to use the riffles for the wrong purposes. The debate got heated following a schoolhouse shooting that occurred in Connecticut. The President is, therefore, expected to fix the gun control problem to enhance national security. Finally, the use of contraceptive pills is another issue that the President needs to address. Obama needs to address this issue and clear the question of the age bracket of women who should get pills. This essay will discuss the three problems differently and the reasons why the problems should be fixed.

Obamas Wars

America as a nation has been involved in wars with other nations for quite a number of years, currently and in the past. Despite the fact that Obama was elected so that he can bring reforms to the nation and improve on the prevailing economic conditions to make life better for Americans, he cannot ignore the fact that the nation is at war with other countries. Obama has been opposed to the wars that the country has been involved in against Iran and Afghanistan. In fact, the issue of the Iran War was a central issue in his 2008 campaign. It followed that upon his election to office for his first time, the first thing he did was to remove the American troops from Iran.

Obama has gone ahead to reduce the number of American troops in Afghanistan. Islamic terrorists are known to be a big threat to American security. This was evident in the famous September 11 attacks where the property was destroyed and people died in the attacks. This was an eye-opener that there are active terrorist threats staged by Islamic terrorists targeting the US. According to Woodward, the Islamists are a great threat to American security, with serious and active Islamist terrorist threats posed to Americas national security, the majority of them based in the lawless tribal territories between Afghanistan and Pakistan (para 9).

The issue of national security is important to every American. Insecurity is known to affect the national economy and the lives of many citizens. It is very difficult for a nation that has no security to prosper in any field. In fact, insecurity is likely to even affect the education system. Therefore, by Obama fixing this problem, I will be able to complete my education smoothly. In addition, the quality of life increases when the economic situation is not affected by insecurity. This will be of great advantage to me since I will be able to focus on other things in life that will help me achieve my goals. Security will go a long way in encouraging investors into the country.

It is common that in a country where there is no security or there is no guarantee of security, people and companies fear to invest since they are likely to incur losses in case of any act of insecurity. With the Americans fearing attacks by terrorists following Obamas withdrawal of American troops from Iran and Afghanistan, there is a possibility that many people will fear to invest in America, especially with the memories of the September 11 attacks still in their minds. The idea by President Obama to withdraw troops is seen by Americans as a failure and a threat to national security. Obama should, therefore, fix this problem soonest possible.

The White House wants pastors to promote gun control

It is legal for people to own guns in the United States of America. The move is meant for individuals own security purposes. Despite the fact that holding firearms has been of help to the Americans in that they are able to maintain their own security, the same has been associated with a number of negative incidences. For instance, cases of homicide have been associated with citizens owning guns. Robberies and kidnappings have also been partially facilitated by the laws that allow people to own guns.

It is important to note that not all people who own guns commit crimes with guns. As a result, there is a check system known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that was formed to help in regulating gun sales to people who are likely to misuse them. These are people who are prohibited by the law from purchasing guns or people who are deemed to have mental problems. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act helps in providing data to the courts on people who have mental health problems and who are not supposed to own guns.

The gun control policy proposed by the President requires that background checks be conducted before guns are sold to anyone. This proposal did not pass in the US Senate. This has initiated a lot of debate over gun control. It has even promoted the US Vice President to call religious leaders to request them to use their influence to help the gun control measures proposed by the President pass. According to Baldwin, Vice President Joe Biden wants pastors, rabbis, and nuns to tell their flocks that enacting gun control is the moral thing to do (para 2).

After the efforts to implement the gun control measure failed to pass through the Senate, the White House has now turned its focus on religious leaders and wants them to help preach the importance of gun control to the people. The clergy is known to have massive influence among Americans. Therefore, the Vice President believes that they can help in the implementation of this policy by convincing citizens that gun control is moral and should be embraced. When Obama proposed the gun control measures, pastors did not support it at first. According to Baldwin (para 11), the silence by pastors and religious leaders was deafening. Given their influence, Obama should first win their support as part of solving the problems associated with firearms.

Bearing in mind the insecurity associated with guns, Obama should fix the problem by ensuring that the gun control measures have been successfully implemented. This will reduce cases of homicides and robberies. The recent case of schoolhouse shooting that led to the White House stepping up efforts to implement the regulations is an indication that failure to implement the measures might also be a threat to students. Being a college student, I believe that if the President fixes this problem I will be assured of security since cases similar to the one in Connecticut would not happen or would reduce significantly. Cases of homicides would also reduce, as well as kidnappings and robberies.

Jude Refuse to Drop his Order Allowing Morning-after Pill for all ages

The Obama administration has been under test again after women rights activists and the courts of law led by Judge Edward R. Korman of the United States District Court opposed the move by the government to prevent the sale of the morning after pill to women and girls of all ages. The pill prevents pregnancy, thereby reducing cases of abortion. However, President Barack Obama believes that the pills should not be sold over the counter.

He also believes that the pills should not be availed to young girls, citing increased cases of sexual immorality among young girls. According to Judge Korman, the move by the government to block the sale of pills to women of all ages is more political rather than scientific. There is no scientific evidence supporting the move by the government to prevent young girls from accessing the pills. The government argued that women might be confused about the drugs availability if it was made available to everyone without a prescription and then later restricted because the government won its appeal (Shear para 17). Judge Korman was against the argument by the government, terming it an insult to womens integrity.

This is a problem that the Obama administration needs to fix as fast as possible since it has the ability to affect the development of government projects by taking the attention of leaders. If young girls are allowed access to the pills, there is a possibility that the demand for these pills will be too high and will create uncertainty to women on whether they will get the pills or not. This is an issue that is likely to affect the productivity of women and the national economy in the long run.

Blocking access to morning-after pills to young girls is also likely to increase cases of abortion, an issue that poses more threat to their health. Sale of pills over the counter might result in young girls being sold pills without prescription, an issue that might also affect their health. Bad health to citizens will have an effect on the economy since the government will be forced to spend a lot of resources on health issues. This is likely to affect the lives of many citizens. If the President fixes this problem, it will help me in that I will not be affected by the economic effects that may result from the government spending a lot of resources on health issues.

Works Cited

Baldwin, Chuck. White House Wants Posters To Promote Gun Control. NewsWithViews.com, 2013. Web.

Shear, Michael, D. Judge Refuses to Drop His Order Allowing Morning-After Pill for All Ages. The New York Times. 2013. Web.

Woodward, Bob. Obamas Wars by Bob Woodward: Review. The Telegraph. 2013. Web.

President Obama has been getting both criticism and praise in equal measure. He has done a couple of good things but some issues are pulling his ratings down. The aforementioned issues could have a great effect on his entire Presidency.

One of these issues is that the President has substantially abandoned the Democratic Partys agenda of economic recovery. Secondly, Americans have accused the President of being distant from them. Finally, some pundits and political commentators have complained about his governments spending. This paper seeks to advise the President on these three issues.

President Obama has indubitably worked hard to improve the economy. Some of the commendable things he has done are his success in persuading Congress to accept the economic stimulus bill and financial regulation. However, the President has been more preoccupied with other concerns like deficit reduction and healthcare reform than economic recovery.

He had embarked on deficit reduction after the mid-term elections during his first term, and healthcare reform was after his election into office. The President has arguably neglected the economic recovery agenda that was the priority of the Democratic Party during his first term in office. President Obama should employ a more nuanced approach towards the economic recovery agenda in order to ensure that the populace benefits maximally from his two terms in office.

Many Americans have accused the President of telling lies and being distant from the people. Unlike most of his predecessors, the President does not sufficiently show empathy towards suffering Americans. One of the incidences that contributed to this opinion is the bombing in Oklahoma.

Many of the victims felt that the President did not do enough to help them. Despite being an exemplary orator, the President has not been sufficiently talking to the American public. Americans struggling because of difficult economic times feel that the President does not sufficiently connect with them. The President should forge connections with the populace through speeches, which will improve his public rating.

One of the issues that have attracted considerable controversy about Obamas Presidency is his spending. Pundits have argued that the President is spending too much and that he should focus on implementing austerity measures.

These are misguided arguments because austerity measures will indubitably hurt the economy and make the Democratic Partys dream of economic recovery difficult to realize. President Obama should spend in areas that will rejuvenate the economy and decrease unemployment, a challenge facing many Americans. If the President has to implement austerity measures, they should target budget items that do not have substantial effect on the countrys economy.

As evidenced in the discussion above, there are a couple of things that the President can do to improve the performance of his administration. Firstly, he should refocus on the economic recovery agenda, which will lead to more businesses, better trading environment, more jobs and higher economic growth.

Secondly, he should use his great oratory skills to connect with the populace, who feel that he has been distant during his presidency. Connecting with the public will improve his approval ratings and have a positive effect on his Presidency. Lastly, the President should ignore political commentators on the issue of public spending because strict austerity measures will affect the economy. He should invest in economic recovery and ensure that austerity measures do not affect the countrys economy.

The movie, The Obama Deception, and the readings from Dyer-Withefords the New Combination have become a popular narration of the reality of who the new president of the USA, Barrack Obama, really is.

They have been used by their authors to represent the facts they have collected about the life of the then newly elected president and all the evidence they had about any reasons that may have motivated citizens of his country into voting for him and allowing him to become the leader of the number one super power in the world.

These authors also try to give evidence related to the fact that president Obama was actually on the way to breaking his promises to his country and to the whole world (Dyer-Witheford 1).

There is a lot of evidence that relates to the fact that the president is not in power as an individual, talented ruler but rather as a representative of several powerful individuals, organizations and groups. Of more concern is the fact that all these powerful set-ups are behind the power and fame that Obama gained and that led to his election as the president. In fact, there seems to have been little real effects of the public to the election of then president than there was in the forces behind him.

One main group that was viewed as being key to the election of Obama as the president of his country was the group popularly known a the elites, which was a combination of different groups and individuals who held both power and financial control in the country. The group consisted of the council on foreign relations (CFR) and the Tri-Lateral Commission among other groups.

There was a relationship between the main leadership of the country and the group, the elites. This was the same case that led to the election of the president since the group had already shown interest in Obama as their candidate and representative in the government. The group was immensely involved in financing of the main campaigns for the president as well as offering a lot of advice and support for the president.

When Obama became the president of USA, therefore, there was a lot that he could do in line with the requirements of the organizations that were behind his success and consecutively the president was already submitting to a higher authority at his duties and overall as a president. Obama could not be able to fully become independent and self-sufficient in a manner that he could be able to carry out his normal duties at his expense and also make decisions on his own.

On the other side, though Obama had a strong and admirable personality, he had to bow to a higher authority that dictated much of his principles, goals, objectives and strategies. For example, there was a need for Obama to make very many promises during his campaigns.

This was a strategy that helped him to capture the attention of all the citizens so they could vote for him. However, the implementations of all the strategic plans as he had promised were hampered by the organizations that were above him. He had to be directed on the course that he could take as a representative of those groups and hence performed duties as one under some force or power (Dyer-Witheford 17).

One of the main reasons that led to the failed delivery of the promises Obama made to the citizens was the main mission of the elites group that required him to aid them in achieving their mission which was summarized into a global agenda. The agenda involved strategizing for new and more effective ways of delivering globalization to the citizens of the country and all the other countries hence leading to a point where all the involved countries could be placed under one ruler and a similar order.

There is hence a lot of evidence that supports the fact that Obama is not just a world figure and a leader but rather a representative of greater and more powerful forces behind him.

Work Cited

Dyer-Witheford, Nick. The New Combinations: Revolt of the Global Value-Subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 1951. Print.

Introduction

A policy can be described as a plan of action adopted by a state, individual or groups of individuals in order to realize a given set of goals and objectives; it is a framework of ideas put together to guide the achievements of certain objectives within an institution. A policy is utilized to make some rational choice within an organization or institution.

A public policy can be defined as a course of action adopted by the state or government with regard to specific issues of national or international concerns. A number of scholars have defined a public policy as a set or specific regulatory measure and laws regarding certain concerns that are promulgated by government agents, organs or institutions.

In the United States of America, the concept of public policy does not only refer to the final outcome of a set of policies, but it also entails the making of decisions and analyses of decisions made by the government. The significance of public policy has prompted the study of the subject in public policy schools found within a significant number of the Americas major universities (Strassmann, 1995).

The public policy is shaped by the influence of the governmental public policy makers, scholars and interest and or pressure groups. In many cases, these shapers of policy have divergent opinions and some times clash with regards to the nature of public policy that should be in place. The consequence of this is that such policies are most likely to become controversial.

This is because, all the stakeholders cannot agree on the nature of the public policy itself. The theme of this paper is about the controversial new health policy in the United States of American initiated by the Obamas administration. It will examine how controversial it is and the stakeholders involved in the policy process (Marzotto, 2000).

The scope of the healthcare policy concern in the United States of America

The proposal to overhaul healthcare policy within the United States of America began with the heated campaigns by Barack Obama in his quest to capture the presidency of the United States of America in 2008 elections.

The reasons for the new healthcare policy is to ensure low cost healthcare services, sufficient healthcare information and technology, transparency within the healthcare sector or industry, personalized healthcare and access to better healthcare facilities and services by all the public members. The new healthcare policy was intentioned to ensure universal access to healthcare by all the American citizens (Wasik, 2010).

The new healthcare policy is also meant to make health insurance to be more affordable by offering the largest known middle class cut on taxes (Davis, 2009); this is supposed to reduce premium costs for approximated tens of millions of American families and small scale business entrepreneurs who are said to be priced outside the current coverage.

This is supposed to assist approximately over 31 million citizens of the United States of America to get the necessarily required healthcare that they cannot afford today. This is expected to make healthcare coverage to be available to even more American citizens who cannot afford the basic healthcare in the current period (Howard, n.d).

The policy is also meant to lead to the establishment of a new competitive market for health insurance hence offering similar health insurance services enjoyed by the Congressmen and Congress women.

Moreover, the new policy is also expected to curtail abuses of health insurance by health insurance providers which may lead to denied access to healthcare services for many American citizens who may not afford the uncontrolled highly priced premiums.

The policy is also expected to reduce the perceived discrimination against the American citizens who are already having pre-existing conditions when seeking for health insurance coverage (Hadden & Luce, 2008).

The new healthcare policy has been facing a number of controversies due to varied understanding of its impacts on different American people by different stakeholders. Some argued that the new health policy is socialists in nature and may mean that hard working Americans will be paying for healthcare services offered Americans without healthcare insurance.

Moreover, other stakeholders opposed the policy arguing that government intervention is likely to interfere with the principles of free market operations. It this case, the argument is that the health insurance industry should be left to forces of free market operations that are expected to balance market and create low cost insurance premiums by itself (Amato & Neiwert, 2010).

There has also been an argument that the new American healthcare policy will force healthy people to pay for healthcare services provided to unhealthy people. This implies that the insured relatively healthy people have feelings that the money they pay as premiums will be used to subsidize healthcare services offered to patients or citizens with pre-existing conditions.

The stakeholders and the affected constituencies in the context of the new healthcare plan

There are a number of stakeholders who are concerned with the new healthcare policy proposed by the new Obamas administration. Some of the most significant stakeholders are the uninsured Americans whose percentage of the total population is said to be big. It is stated in available statistical records that the number of uninsured Americans has been growing significantly due to high premium costs that they could not afford.

These stakeholders are expected to get affordable health insurance premiums and lower the number of uninsured citizens. In this case, the uninsured stakeholders are expected to immensely benefit from the new healthcare policy. The other stakeholders are all the states of the United States of America; it is expected that all the states should adopt the new healthcare policy in their respective healthcare systems.

The states may have varied healthcare policies, however, in the case of the new bill that is expected to revamp the healthcare industry the states are expected toe ensure that every of their citizens get to benefit from the new policy (Levine, 2009).

Again, the other stakeholders are the healthcare and insurance institutions. After the signing of the bill into law, it became an official healthcare policy that must be complied to with all the health insurance providers and healthcare institutions all the United States of America.

The health insurance providers are now expected to lower insurance premium costs so as to allow middle income earners and other uninsured Americans to have access to better healthcare services at low costs.

This also implies that the pricing of health insurance premiums will be under the direct watch of the federal government under the auspice of the state governments that are actually directly responsible for healthcare institutions within their jurisdictions.

Employers are part of the most important stakeholders of the American new healthcare policy; in fact, they can be regarded as some of the most affected constituencies by the new policy. It is expected that the new healthcare plans by the Obamas administration should be beneficial to the employers who pay for there employees health insurance in terms of tax cuts.

It is proposed that employers who prefer to give health insurance to their employees will enjoy a tax cut of approximated to a maximum of 35% of premiums paid annually and an increment of upto 50% by the year 2014. It is estimated that over 60% of employers are likely to be eligible for these incentives.

However, the employers will be expected to disclose the value of insurance benefits they offer to their employees in order to enjoy such incentives.

Political institutions relevant to the healthcare policy

One of the significant political institutions involved in the healthcare policy is the Democratic Party to which the president of the United States of America currently belongs. The new American health plan was one of the policies the Democratic Party had planned to role as soon as it gets into power.

It is important to note that as a party, the Democratic Party had an obligation to ensure that the new healthcare plans is put into place; should be plan have failed, the party will have failed in its policy plans.

Moreover, the other political institution involved in the new healthcare policy is the Republican Party. As much as the Democratic Party considered the health policy an obligation, the Republican Party was a complete contrast and in the process its members completely opposed it.

The Republican Party has never been happy with the new healthcare policy arguing that it is a waste of public resources; the party members also termed the policy as promoting inequity as far as health are services are concerned.

The Independent Party members cannot be left out in the whole issue about the healthcare policy. Some of the members supported the policy formulation process while some went against it. Nonetheless, what remains is the fact that they also have s stake in the new healthcare policy. There are also other political pressure groups and institutions that are relevant to the healthcare policy issue.

Such pressure groups lobby on behalf of their members. Some of the groups are those that support the new healthcare policy arguing that it will be very beneficial to the uninsured Americans while other pressure groups are against it arguing that the policy will be a burden to the healthy insured citizens since their money will purportedly be used to subsidize healthcare services offered to uninsured individuals.

Proposed policies to address the issue

In a bid to strike a compromise with the group opposed to new healthcare plans, several policies have been put into place.

The Obamas administration has accepted to back undercover investigations that will monitor the providers of health and medical care services to the American people; the providers who will be subject to undercover investigations will mostly be those receiving Medicaid, Medicare and also other programs initiated by the federal government.

Moreover, president Obama also rendered his support for the increment in Medicaid reimbursement to medical doctors in specific states. The Obamas administration has also backed language designed to ensure that certain high deductible health plans are able to be offered in process of health exchange (Cable News Network, 2010).

The new health bill was passed under the reconciliation rule that would allow it be successful and finally be signed by the president into law. The healthcare insurance providers will be required to cover even the pre-existing conditions for American citizens who seek insurance services.

This implies that the new healthcare policy will ensure that the health insurance providers do not discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions (Cable News Network, 2010).

Solution to the problem

The even though the new healthcare policy has several controversies surrounding it, it came to pass and signed by the president of the United States of America. However, it is not without a solution. There may be many people who are against it, but a middle ground that satisfies all the stakeholders can be found.

First, the Obamas administration should not exercise extensive controls on the healthcare services; instead of setting restrictions, the government should only set the ceiling and floor prices for insurance prices and let the free market forces top take its effects it the health insurance industry.

Second, the government should determine the level of basic health requirements for all the American citizens irrespective of economic statuses and use the cost of meeting these basic requirements as the point of entry in terms of offering healthcare subsidy. In this case, the government should offer subsidy by meeting the cost of healthcare for everybody upto the limit equivalent to the cost of basic healthcare needs.

Third, in order to avoid the feelings of exploitation by those paying high premiums, as much as the government wants everybody have affordable healthcare insurance, those paying high premiums should be offered more healthcare benefits, otherwise the United States of America may be promoting unfair treatment to its citizens when it comes to healthcare services; in fact, the government may distort the healthcare market segment and hence the whole American economy.

Finally, employers should not be forced to offer insurance benefits to their employees; they should be allowed to do it out of their own free will and as an incentive to attract professional employees. In this case, the employers should be offered with more incentives if they are to provide all their employees with healthcare insurance.

The cost of the new healthcare issue to Americans

It is expected that the new healthcare plan should not have any extra cost the American people. Instead, the new plan will lower the cost of healthcare services sought by the American people. The government will provide certain amount of dollars to subsidize the healthcare insurance hence making all American citizens to enjoy universal healthcare. However, this remains at personal level and only in the healthcare sectors.

Due to this new healthcare plan, the federal government will have to increase its budgetary expenditures in which it will have to inject more finances into the healthcare sector in order to subsidized health insurance plans for all American citizens. The question is about how the federal government plans to raise the amount required for the plan without increasing taxes in other industrial sectors.

As much as the plan will reduce health cost for the American population, they should expect the possible tax rise on other items. Besides, there is a possibility that the upper class members of the American society may be taxed more than any other American citizen as it had been feared earlier on (OHara, 2010).

The public policy issue of faced by both the federal and the state governments. Since the new healthcare plan is for all the citizens of the United States of America, all the state governments must come into the picture.

The federal government is expected to provide the funding and the state governments are supposed to implements the new plan by integrating it into their healthcare systems.

It therefore implies that the new healthcare policy is both a responsibility and obligation of both the federal and state governments to the American people. The two set of governments, the federal and state governments, must then work in collaboration to ensure all American citizens get the benefits of the health plans (OHara, 2010).

Conclusion

The new healthcare plan was initiated by the Democratic Party under the presidential candidature of president Barack Obama; the new healthcare plans was planned to ensure all citizens of the United States of America would get universal health insurance at low cost premiums and eliminate all forms of exploitations and discriminations by health insurance providers.

The health plan was opposed by the Republican Party members but got strong support from the Democratic Party members. Even so, it passed with majority support. The new healthcare policy is also expected to put checks and balances on the insurance companies to ensure they do not exploit clients by charging unreasonably high premium fees (Davis, 2009).

Reference List

Amato, J. & Neiwert, D. (2010). Over the Cliff: How Obamas Election Drove the American Right Insane. New York: PoliPointPress.

Cable News Network. (2010). Obama outlines final health care plan, urges Congress to act. Web.

Davis, C. (2009). Economic policy crisis and the stimulus: analyses of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, HR 1, 111th Congress. United States: The Capitol Net Inc.

Hadden, B. & Luce, H. (2008). Time, Volume 172. New York: Time Inc.

Howard, P. (n.d). Medical liability: new ideas for making the system work better for patients: hearing. New York: DIANE Publishing.

Levine, R. (2009). Shock therapy for the American health care system: why comprehensive reform is needed. United States: ABC-CLIO.

Marzotto, T. (2000). The evolution of public policy: cars and the environment. New York: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

OHara, J. (2010). A New American Tea Party: The Counterrevolution against Bailouts, Handouts, Reckless Spending, and More Taxes. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Strassmann, P. (1995). The politics of information management: policy guidelines. United States: Strassmann, Inc.

Wasik, J. (2010). The Audacity of Help: Obamas Stimulus Plan and the Remaking of America. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Content

Purpose

The purpose of the speech is to convince the audience that he is the man who can make people live better.

Speakers background knowledge

The speaker possesses all the necessary information to dwelling upon the problems he does.

Influences (traditional, cultural, historical)

The stress is made on the cultural significance of the USA. The different (African American) leader may be chosen to bring the country to the change.

Listeners background knowledge

The listener should be aware of the countrys general political situation to understand the speaker.

Delivery

Repeated words

1. no one could imagine;
2. something is happening; something has happened;
3. different;
4. change;
5. we can.

Emphasized words/phrases

1. Yes we can;
2. Thank you;
3. You can be the new majority;
4. Yes, we can to justice and equality;
5. There is something happening.

Tone

The tone is changing; sometimes, it is strong and convincing; sometimes, it is grateful and admiring.

Word choice (positive or negative language)

Positive words even while dwelling upon the negative aspects.

Rate of speech (fast, moderate, slow)

Rate of speech is moderate.

Appropriateness for the audience, subject, occasion

The speech is appropriate for the place and time. It is the speech of the future president to the nation.

Nonverbal gestures

Eye contact: the speaker views the audience using the three spots technique (left zone, forward, and right zone)

Facial expressions: natural, the desire for victory is seen.

Gestures: impressive, strong, not too numerate, and appropriate to the said

Pauses: The pauses are in the correct places.

Increases or decreases in speaking volume.

Overall Impression

• Speaker: impressive and convincing.
• Speech: effective, encouraging.

Was the speaker effective overall? Was the speech convincing?

Having listened to the speech by Barak Obama, it becomes obvious that the person who says it is a real orator who can convince anyone. Moreover, the words used in the speech make it stronger and closer to each of the listeners. The speaker thanks everyone at the beginning of the speech. That makes everyone to consider him/herself the contributor to Obamas success. The speaker applies all the possible measures to attract the listeners attention.

His gestures are not too numerous, and he uses those in a restricted manner to make sure that the speech is what impresses people. The words the speaker uses are full of meaning. He applies to personal feelings of people referencing to healthcare and children, the themes which cannot leave different anyone. The speaker looks effective and self-assured that helps consider him as convincing. The same is the speech he has prepared. The themes discussed there are up to date, and the audience can see personally how they are dissatisfied with the current estate of affairs and see that the speaker can do something to change everything.

Reference List

Obama, B. (2008). Yes We Can. YouTube. Web.

On November 4, 2008, President Barrack Obama delivered a speech given on the night of winning the election at Grant Park., Illinois. This pivotal address, subject to extensive Obama victory speech 2008 analysis, highlighted his emphasis on the American dream, declaring that it was not fading but revitalized with the advent of change in America. His passionate speech, employing rhetoric that soars and excites, instigated the people of America to restore their confidence in the nation and strive to fulfill their dreams and yet still form part of the larger American family.

My Barack Obama victory speech 2008 analysis essay will concentrate on the way Obama employed the approaches of narration, intonation, verbalization, silence, and telling of stories to draw the attention of the thousands of his audience who were enthusiastically listening to this historic speech. Obama employed different rhetorical strategies to deliver the speech and it was effective in giving the audience hope concerning the future. He started his keynote delivery, by setting the tone with a clear message of hope to the people of America, a theme widely dissected in this Barack Obama victory speech 2008 analysis.

Obama understands the connection between discourse and power, and was able to use that knowledge to develop a discourse that conveyed his views and platforms, but also created a connection with the audience within the context of the circumstance (Tarish 130). Maintaining direct eye contact with his audience, Obama was loud enough to be heard but soft enough so that the poetic words could sink deep into the minds of his listeners.

In addition, the opening allusion to the American dream echoes the words of great speakers in American history, such as Martin Luther King. The findings revealed that Obama frequently focused on evoking the myth of the American dream. Obama was successful in implementing and conveying his message through rhetorical devices. (Hajawi and Alireza 1). Moreover, it was crucial for him to understand which topics to prioritize in order to capture the attention of a broad audience.

Its the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor& (Obama para. 2). The word answer is used once more here, suggesting that he is prepared to address the issues that the United States has been facing in the twenty-first century and reinforcing the idea of change (Bose). Subsequently, Obama employs answer once more in the next two paragraphs to firmly emphasize that momentous change has arrived in America, a rhetorical choice scrutinized in the analysis of the speech following Barack Obamas victory.

In the third paragraph, Obama recognized that America is a diverse country having people from different backgrounds by saying Its the answer spoken & Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America (para. 3).

In order to portray existing situations negatively as problematic and depict future scenarios positively as solutions to these issues, Obama utilizes metaphors. He continues with a metaphor belonging to the field of agriculture (i.e. rack) again to highlight the hardship experienced by the aforementioned families. This shows that people had problems providing their basic needs (Hajawi and Rasti 10).

He intended his audience to realize that his triumph and future effort to bring change in the country will depend on the endeavors of the collective and not entirely on himself. In the mind of the people, the use of the second person is intended to enable them to feel a sense of belonging. Therefore, as their presence is acknowledged, they can feel appreciated and part of the change that was to come to America.

During the acceptance speech, Obama made numerous references within the text of gifted speakers in American history, for example, Martin Luther King, as mentioned above.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep&I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you  we as a people will get there (Obama para. 13). This creates the perception that the road to recovery will not be easy. He wanted his audience to realize that repairing the damage he inherited from the countrys past leadership would not be an easy task.

The inclusion of the inter-textual references of other motivational speakers also served the purpose of instilling hope in the eyes of the people. The speaker continues with the hope of a better life but reminds people of the challenges that they should face. This is liable to give a realistic sense to the expectations of the addressees (Hajawi and Rasti 6). It seems that the plain and musical language of the speech was drawn heavily from the life of the past inspirational speakers.

In the speech, Obama routinely repeats the slogan Yes we can (Brown et al. 1). This acts as an encouragement that all things are possible and the people of America can surmount all difficulties that they may encounter in the journey towards complete economic and social liberation. Before he was elected the 44th president of the United States, Obamas campaigns relied heavily on TV as their chief medium of communication and that this allowed campaigns time to craft messages, advertisements, and responses (Harris 6). Ultimately, this mediums widespread reach and influence allowed for the careful crafting of narratives that resonated with diverse audiences.

Therefore, the repeated use of the slogan seems to emphasize how the nation has changed over time in terms of how it handles economic hardship and how it views womens roles in society (Hajawi and Rasti 9). In addition, it points out that more change is yet to come during Obamas presidency. Finally, but not to be ignored, it also epitomizes the American dream, which every citizen of the country can realize through maintaining a positive mentality in life.

In the speech, Obama gave thanks to various people who assisted him in ascending to the presidency. He started by praising the defeated, A little bit earlier this evening I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. Senator McCain fought long and hard in this campaign, and hes fought even longer and harder for the country he loves (para. 6).

Obama was the first president to claim victory in a social media election (Harris 1). Through this, he demonstrated magnanimity in victory, appreciated the defeat, and did not ignore or trample upon them; therefore, this indicates that he is a good leader. It is interesting to note that he was able to commend his competitors before his supporters.

After that, he commenced a series of thanks. He portrayed the Vice President as an ordinary person to connect with the crowd. And he only mentioned Joe Biden at the end of the paragraph. This created tension and also assisted in capturing the audiences attention.

Next, he thanked his family members, First Lady, Michelle Obama, and his daughters, Sasha and Malia, saying that he owes his presence here to the unwavering backing of his closest companion of sixteen years, the cornerstone of his family, and his nations future First Lady, Michelle Obama  the love of his life. (Bose).

He expressed his love for his children Sasha and Malia, declaring they deserved the new puppy that would accompany them to the White House (Obama para. 8). This demonstrated that he is a normal family man who cares for the well-being of his family, for example, he promised his daughters a puppy. The reference to his grandma who had just passed away without being over sentimental induces the sympathy of the audience.

The speech signifies that Obama will be ready to incorporate the efforts of everybody on the road to recovery. He said, Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long (Obama para. 17).

The phrase partisanship and pettiness, poisoned our Politics (Obama para.17) is an alliteration showing the extent of the damage it has caused to American society. Let us (Obama para. 17) speaks to all voters in America, regardless of their political affiliation, and repeats nobility as well as the call for humility and healing of the land.

Obama artfully employed the life of the 106-year-old Ann Nixon Cooper to both repaint the history of America and draw the audiences attention to the nations past century of successes and failures, effectively connecting them in his speech  an aspect explored in this essay analyzing Obamas victory speech from 2008.

The creation of a sense of history was meant to demonstrate that the extraordinary could become ordinary if Americans were prepared to strive to this end. The history of skin color is meant to indicate that he is a beneficiary of the historic struggle. America, we have come so far (Obama para. 29). This illustrates that he addresses the country with ease since he is a part of the struggle. He also gives an individual touch by relating his two daughters to Ann Cooper.

This speech is very important for him because it makes people know more about his assistance to national advancement, let the people know about his vision, and gather more people to join him so Obama can win the election (Alireza et al. 27). meant to draw the attention of the audience. It also acts as the final call to action. Obama gets back to the central theme of hope and beneficial gains that await the people of America. He concludes the speech by restating the yes we can theme.

Listening to Obamas acceptance speech captured my imagination from the start. The sections of the speech, which can be characterized as celebration, thanksgiving, challenge, history, and hope, had a central focus of emphasizing the importance of unity in America for the benefit of its future. The general approach Obama used in the speech was to form an inclusive sense of history so that every American could see himself or herself as a part of the road to recovery.

Works Cited

Alireza, Eko Rideau, et al. An analysis of illocutionary acts in Yes, We Can speech by Barack Obama. Journal of Ilmu Buday, vol. 3, no. 1, 2019.

Brown, Tony N., et al. Yes We Can! The Mental Health Significance for US Black Adults of Barack Obamas 2008 Presidential Election. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, vol. 7, no. 1, 2021: pp. 101-115.

Bose, Meena. Appraising the Foreign Policy Legacy of the Obama Presidency. Looking Back on President Barack Obamas Legacy: Hope and Change. Edited by Wilbur C. Rich, 2019: pp. 93-113.

Obama, Barrack. Election Night Victory Speech Grant Park, Illinois. Obama Speeches. 4 Nov. 2008. Web.

Hajawi, Yasser, and Alireza Rasti. A Discourse Analytic Investigation into Politicians Use of Rhetorical and Persuasive Strategies: The Case of US Election Speeches. Cogent Arts & Humanities, vol. 7, no. 1, 2020: 1740051.

Harris, Chamberlain. Missing the Mark: Obama and Trumps Use of Similar Communication Strategies, 2019.

Tarish, Abbas Hussain. Us Presidents Political Discourse Analysis: George W. Bush and Barack Obama. A Pragmatics Approach. Romanian Journal of English Studies, vol. 16, no. 1, 2019: pp. 128-134.

In the essay Should the Obama Generation Drop Out Charles Murray analyses the ideas of Barak Obama within the educational system. The author provides the suggestions how to improve the current situation and what measures could help developing an educational reform.

Although Murray emphasizes an importance of the reforms of the educational system, the information in his essay provides the description of the inability of many students to deal with college-level material and incapability to pay for the bachelors degree instead of suggesting the concrete solutions and adequate reforms of the educational system.

The main statement of the essay is that it is not important where a person learned and got the professional skills, it is important what and how one can do the job. I absolutely agree with this position.

As we can see today, majority of students concentrates not on the quality of knowledge and professional skills they can learn, but on the presence of the diploma and the popularity of the school or university.

Murray suggests the concept of challenges the basic elements on the higher education and indicates that those ideas should be supported by Obama. Thus, Murray says, As president, Mr. Obama should use his bully pulpit to undermine the bachelors degree as job qualification (Murray, 2008).

However, although the author proposes the concrete reform, he emphasizes the benefits of the vocational trainings and test which could improve the level of specific knowledge that a worker may need. I disagree that such vocational courses can be more helpful than a full specific education or an additional degree. However, the position of bachelors degree as the only one key element of getting a job needs to be improved.

Murray claims that the standards of materials used in the process of getting the degree is high and require the special abilities of the students. If some of the students are unable to deal with the college and university sources, it does not mean that they do not have the appropriate professional skills and knowledge.

Murray says that a century ago students could easily go to work after high school, but today situation is different. Although they prefer to get more knowledge and skills from university, at the same time, they treat college as vocational training, not as a leisurely journey to well-roundedness (Murray, 2008).

From my point of view, it is incorrect to suppose that all students consider studying at university as the leisure. Moreover, in the other paragraph the author claims that the level of materials in university can be too high and complicated for a number of people. Therefore, I think that such statement is confusing.

Although Murray supposes that his essay can be considered as elitist or pessimistic, I think that those two characteristics are absent. His attitude is absolutely well-grounded and valid. As a realist, the author notices the present problems within the current educational system and claims for their solving.

However, as he wants to improve the situation, some specific ideas and possible variants reforms could be appropriate as well. Writing about discharge of the bachelors degree as a job qualification, Murray indicates the certification tests as a possible solution.

According to Murray, such tests would provide evidence that the applicant has acquired the skills the employer needs (Murray, 2008). Analyzing this idea, I think that this idea is worth to be considered by government. As the result, many young people will be able to prove their capability to work, skills and competitiveness comparing with those who have the bachelors degree.

Of course, this statement is valid. However, at the same time the author says that certification tests would not eliminate the role of innate ability  the most gifted applicants would still have an edge  but they would strip away much of the unwarranted halo effect that goes with a degree from a prestigious university (Murray, 2008). Therefore, such measure will not solve the whole problem. But, the author does not suggest other ideas of solution.

It seems that Murray only indicates the problem for the government and for President Obama particularly. I think that he should explore this question deeper and elaborate the exact ideas of what reforms could be more effective and why. In the present form, the essay Should the Obama Generation Drop Out gives an answer  yes, but it does not give the practical answers.

Emphasizing the value of professional skills and their domination over the bachelors degree, Murray suggests President Obama to use his authority to change the current situation. The bachelors degree should not be a key aspect of acceptance or rejection of an employee. Every person should be treated according to ones professional skills and do not be judged due to the absence of the bachelors degree.

Although I agree with the main statement, the present essay can be considered as more emotional that informative. The author discusses inability of many students to deal with college-level material instead of suggesting the concrete solutions and adequate reforms of the educational system.

Reference List

Murray, C. (2008). Should the Obama Generation Drop Out?, The New York Times. Retrieved from <https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28murray.html>

Summary

President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare into law on March 23, 2010. It was a health reform bill that he had promised to Americans a year earlier during the presidential campaigns. This happened after a protracted period of discussions, lobbying, backlash, and negotiations that at one point, put his legacy at risk because of a possible failure. The world was not privy to the level of lobbying that happened behind the scenes, and the cost to his popularity, bipartisan ideals, and open government. These were among the ideals that Obama had promised to base his leadership on after he became president. Renowned FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk opens the curtain to introduce the public to the occurrences that culminated into the historic legislation that had eluded several administrations. In the documentary titled Obamas Deal, Kirk takes viewers on a journey to divulge Obamas political maneuvering in an effort to transform the US health care system and transform how Washington conducted business. The film includes interviews with senators, lobbyists, and administration officials that discuss Obamas struggles that were part of the process to enact the ACA into law. He had to make deals with persons of interest in the health care industry and many individuals and organizations that were his political challengers.

The Act was monumental because of the billions of dollars needed to fund it. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle reveals that it involved approximately 20% of the United States gross domestic product, a factor that posed a risk of rejection. It was a very expensive affair because Obama spent hundreds of millions of dollars to appease the health care industry stakeholders in order to gain their support. The president sought the expertise of Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff and an experienced negotiator to steer the process. Emanuel gathered a team of congressional insiders who would spearhead the endeavor of health reform. However, the efforts of the team were weakened by the loss of Senator Ted Kennedy, who was an ardent advocate for health reforms in America. As a result, the leadership of Obamas plan for success was given to the head of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus. Democrats were not confident in his ability to get a win for the White House. According to the documentary, he was one of the main beneficiaries of the money used to conduct lobbying among special interest groups and individuals in the health care industry.

The President encountered resistance from interested parties, hence the need for aggressive lobbying that involved huge financial incentives. Baucus negotiated deals with drug companies, insurance stakeholders, and other interest groups. This happened despite the presidents promise of a different White House, where transparency and accountability would be the guiding principles. Some of the deals were controversial and revealed the presidents determination for health reform. For example, an $80 billion deal with Billy Tauzin, whose role was to lobby on behalf of pharmaceutical companies was harshly criticized. The industry received an unfair incentives even though it was reaping profits from the sale of medical products. The White House would later sign related deals with opponents of the bill to win them over. For instance, the infamous Cornhusker Kickback was an overt lobbying effort that angered many legislators and the public. The deal involved a $100 million incentive for the state of Nebraska in exchange for the support of Senator Ben Nelson. Others included the termination of the public option and the lowering of proposed taxes for makers of medical devices. Secretly, the president was gaining more support and winning. However, the public was fed up with the happenings in Washington and opposed the proposed bill.

The public opposition of the bill was an impetus for Obama to conduct more intensive lobbying because it was on the verge of failing and disgracing his tenure. The presidents team countered resistance from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies by attacking them online. However, the industry countered by claims that the proposed bill would introduce hidden taxes. Initially, the health industry representative promised publicly to support the president implement his health care reform. On the contrary, the interested parties advocated for reforms that would benefit the industry. President Obama was compelled to go against his 2008 campaign promises in order to get their support by removing the public option. The bill was passed and Obama had achieved a historical milestone that several presidents before him had failed to attain.

Reflection

The documentary presents some behind the scenes occurrences that led to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The influence of political lobbying, the use of financial incentives to gain support, and the show of might by key players in the health care industry are revealed. It exposes the political wrangles between Republicans and Democrats that take place before a bill is enacted into law. The documentary highlights some of the most pivotal moments that were critical in the passage of the bill. They include interviews, Obamas meetings and pans, and the various deals with Senate lobbyists and representatives of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. However, the representations are superficial and do not provide detailed information about how the deals were arrived at.

One of the documentarys main weaknesses is bias. It is unfair for the writers of the film to shed more light on certain aspects of the process and alienate others as they were all equally important. The producer does not promote fairness in covering all the sides of the issue as some are given more coverage than others. For instance, protesters are shown at the Senate Finance Committee meeting shouting down the chairman and presenting their views while being ignored. However, the viewer is not told the reason for the protests or the events that led to the occurrence. In addition, the documentary shows Dr. Margaret Flowers as an interested party in the process of passing the ACA. However, it does not provide a detailed explanation with regard to her role as an interviewee in the documentary or as a vocal advocate of a single-payer system. In the video, the narrator says that all options were being considered for inclusion in the bill. However, it is evident that the other options were not being considered and the claim was a trick to appease the citizens. It would have been appropriate for the producers to outline all the options that the White House was considering and offer a brief discussion.

Obama promised during his campaigns that universal care would be his priority with regard to health care in America. Therefore, it was expected that his proposed reforms would include single payer as the preferred system. The documentary centers on showing how the president made deals with the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, thus abdicating his promise of universal health care. The presentation of events in the film is proof that the president had made a decision from the outset to support the insurance industry through the reforms. The incentives awarded did not promote health care, but served to increase revenue for companies in the industry and multiply their customers. It is unethical for FRONTLINE to exclude single payer from the documentary. The reporting is inaccurate and biased, favoring the insurance industry. The exclusion of the most popular national health plan from the documentary is an indication of bias in journalism and the misrepresentation of the truth.

The producers of the documentary also exclude several key occurrences and give shallow discussions of certain events. First, the interviews included are short snippets of discussions carried out with key individuals on what happened behind the curtains. The producers included statements that seem to support their agenda. None of the interviews include a mention of single payer, which was an important part of the reforms as promised by President Obama during the campaigns. Second, it focuses more on deals given to the insurance industry and the role played by certain lobbyists as well as the large incentives that they received. The message of the documentary is lost in the misrepresentation of the ACA as a legislation that was made possible because the president dished out financial rewards to special interest groups. Third, the producers show very little of the publics participation in the process of enacting the bill into law. Only a few instances are highlighted: a protest during a Senate Committee meeting, a public protest against the proposed bill, and participation in an Obama rally. The public had a greater role to play and it is not properly covered in the video.