The Affordable Care Act or Obamacare to some has its proponents and opponents. Those who support this bill cite better healthcare for the poor as their major point.
In my chosen article, Hurray for Health Reform, Paul Krugman presents several arguments for this bill (Krugman par. 2). Though they are good arguments, I do not entirely agree. There is a downside to this bill and the writer ignores this in his article.
In his first paragraph, the writer points out that the Affordable Care Act can be judged as good based on its opponents. He forgets that the law-making process is highly political; there must always be proponents and opponents. In this case, Democrats are the proponents and Republicans are the opponents.
Therefore, this is not a good criterion to judge whether this law is good or not. If Republicans had proposed the bill, obviously Democrats would have found political reasons to oppose it, no matter the content. This is because every political party is trying to create a good image in the eyes of voters.
Towards the end of the second paragraph, the author dismisses the arguments against the Healthcare Reforms as dishonest. This is a judgemental comment. Some of the opponents of the bill have very genuine reasons. He has not taken the time to understand why they do not support ACA.
I believe nobody would willingly want to deny other people healthcare. However, all the logistics must be considered before making such a decision.
The writer alleges that it is unfair when insurers are left free to decide who is covered or who is not. This is partly true, because businesses aim at making a profit and insurance is a business too. However, in the same breath, health insurers have to limit their risk to a certain extent or they will soon run into financial trouble.
When insurers run into financial trouble, everyone suffers. This was displayed clearly by the finance industry when AIG collapsed and had to be bailed out by the government. The writer also fails to recognize that young people who need the cheap cover more than the old do.
Many young people are unemployed or struggling in their first jobs. In contrast, many older people are financially stable with steady sources of income. Such people can afford to purchase any health insurance they need. Obviously, the health risk increases with age, therefore insurers charge higher premiums.
Nevertheless, the fact is that older citizens, having worked all their lives, can afford these premiums. Younger citizens need lower, affordable premiums. Insurance firms should not be criticized for creating products specifically for young adults. They are merely trying to serve the bulk of the countrys population currently.
In New York, insurance firms are required not to turn away people with pre-existing conditions. These are long-term or terminal diseases have already been diagnosed. The writer claims that this is not an effective policy.
I believe that this policy has helped many people with pre-existing conditions to purchase insurance. The premiums are high due to the expenses involved in treating such conditions. However, in the end, it is usually cheaper for such patients to pay for insurance than to cover their own medical bills.
This is another case of insurers trying to help but appearing as the villains. We must not forget that insurers have to make a profit too.
The compulsory requirement that everybody purchases insurance is not fitting for this age. The government cannot force people to buy products, and insurance is a product. In this article, the writer argues that this compulsory requirement and the subsidies provided by government will solve Americas health problems.
This is far from the truth. Actually, Americans will end up spending more on healthcare. The subsidies are obtained from taxes, which are collected from citizens. The same citizens are expected to pay compulsory premiums but obtain only basic healthcare.
If they need additional care, they need to purchase alternative cover and pay more premiums. This leaves them in a worse situation than before. Given the current harsh economy, this cannot be the best solution for American healthcare.
The author reminds us that this bill is meant to aid the Americans who fall through the cracks of the healthcare system. However, he fails to tell us that these are approximately 48-51 Million Americans. This number is quite huge. Trying to service all the health needs of everymen may turn out to be more difficult than the author portrays.
If all these people were to be put under compulsory cover, the profit margin for insurance firms would reduce to barely 15%. Many private insurers would have to close down. This industrys profitability would no longer be attractive.
If the government enacts legislation that makes the insurance industry unattractive to private investors, it may have to carry out the insurance functions itself. The government is not an efficient use of resources.
Neither is it an efficient provider of services. This is evident in public schools. If the government ends up as the sole or majority insurer, this industry would be in absolute chaos.
Finally, the author seeks to convince us to ignore the cost of this scheme (Krugman par. 6). He informs us that projections indicate that the actual cost of implementation has reduced slightly.
However, billions of dollars it will cost the government over the next decade is conveniently left out. The government is already operating on a deficit budget. An additional 900 billion will be hard to source.
Investors have also lost faith in the government with its reduced credit rating. The only alternative would be taxes. These will obviously make life harder for the citizens.
In conclusion, the writer does a good job of defending this legislation. He argues that the poor will benefit and everyone will have access to basic healthcare.
However, he ignores the important issues of the effect on the insurance industry and the cost of implementation. For these reasons, I do not agree entirely with the contents of this article.
Works Cited
Krugman, Paul. Hurray for Health Reforms. 18 March. 2012. Web.
The law of employment also referred to as the labor law is a field of law that governs relations between employees and employers. It is adopted by every country with regard to its economic, legal, and mental specificities. This paper aims at investigating the primary features of employment law in the United Arab Emirates and determining how it is applied by organizations.
The overview of UAE law of employment
In the United Arab Emirates, labor matters are governed by one law the Federal Law No. 8 of 1980 Regulating Labor Relations (hereafter the Law). There were several amendments to the law designed and adopted during the subsequent years with the latest changes introduced in 2016. This legal act regulates all workplace relations beginning from employment including recruitment of women, children, and juveniles to determining all details of organizing and managing work processes and defining working schedules, disciplinary rules, and quitting provisions. It also offers information about vacations, professional training, handling labor disputes, controlling the quality of work, and penalties. Gathering all provisions in one comprehensive law is beneficial for both employees and employers because they do not have to investigate a broad legislative framework. It makes the UAE labor system effective and well-organized.
All staff and workers whether natives or foreigners are obliged to follow the provisions of the Law. However, there are several categories of staff and employees to whom the Law is not applicable. These groups comprise of people employed by the federal government and the government departments, public and federal government institutions, municipalities, domestic servants, people involved in agriculture and grazing (except employees of companies specializing in processing food), and members of armed forces, security units, and police ( UAE Labor Law 4).
The Law specifies that employing expatriates is only possible after receiving the permission of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. Moreover, Chapter 3 of the Law highlights the necessity of signing employment contracts that determine all details of placing to the job including the date of starting work, scheduling, wages and remuneration, nature of work and its location, rights, and responsibilities, and the duration of the contract unless it is unlimited in time. It should be noted that it is permissible to conclude the contracts in oral form. However, in this case, they are automatically considered as those for an unlimited period ( UAE Labor Law 12).
The fact that an expatriate should receive permission to work in the UAE is motivated by the active policy of Emiratization designed by the federal government. According to this labor policy framework, specific attention should be paid to making the native population a dominant group of those employed. High wages and standards of living together with a favorable tax regime made the UAE attractive to foreigners. To solve the problem of foreign domination in the workplace, the Ministry of Labor has introduced the labor quota a target of 55 percent for UAE natives employed by an organization (Barnett, Malcolm and Toledo 296). This step is necessary for reducing the level of unemployment among the UAE natives. However, it can be disadvantageous for the organization that views expatriates as more productive (Marchon and Toledo 2254).
The new employment legislation of 2016
In 2016, the UAE labor system was changed. Now, the Law includes some new provisions. For example, it excludes what was earlier known as the employment ban. It is a provision that prohibited working for six months in the case of terminating the contract unilaterally and moving to a new employer (Bobker par. 2). What was introduced instead is the agreed compensation either in the form of financial remuneration or working until the vacancy is not filled (Chaudhry par. 14). There is also the obligation of early notification about termination that is to be at least three months. Another amendment refers to the fixed term of the employment contract. It is now determined to be two years (Kapur par. 18). The same provision is applicable to visas granted to expatriates. The period of their operation will be two years just like the duration of the employment contract. So, in the case, if a foreigner wants to continue working in the UAE, he or she should renew a visa.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be said that the operation of one comprehensive labor law is the strongest side of the UAE labor system. Even though there are several groups of employees exempted from the Law effect, it creates the framework of equality and uniformity because all organizations are obliged to function under unique provisions and cannot make up their own terms of employment. One of its weaknesses, however, is the fact that there is no legally established minimum level of wages and the possibility of concluding a contract in a word that makes it impossible for use in the case of legal disputes. Bearing in mind the amendments to the UAE labor legislation and the policy of Emiratization, it can be said that the country works at improving its labor system preserving its attractiveness for both native and foreign employees but shifting the focus to the native dwellers and caring for their welfare and prosperity.
Works Cited
Barnett, Andy, Michael Malcolm and Hugo Toledo. Shooting the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg: The Case of UAE Employment Policy. Journal of Economic Studies 42.2 (2015): 285-302. Print.
Marchon, Cassia, and Hugo Toledo. Re-thinking Employment Quotas in the UAE. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25.16 (2014): 2253-2274. Print.
Many Americans are familiar with the McDonalds spilled hot glass lawsuit that practically even became a joke. The court decision in favor of the plaintiff, to whom the restaurant paid compensation for the damage caused, is often parodied in the movies (Hot Coffee, 00:05-00:53). Without knowing the details of the case, an ordinary person can find it frivolous since it appears that anyone can get a massive amount of money just due to a hot drink spill.
However, the situation changes when one learns that the plaintiff Liebeck got severe burns and spent considerable financial resources to cover medical costs. Moreover, the trial revealed that Mcdonalds received more than 700 similar complaints, and these people never obtained any compensation at all. McDonalds policy of serving drinks at temperatures up to 205 degrees Fahrenheit has caused damage to hundreds of customers.
This kind of temperature is comparable to a hot radiator during a drive and sufficient to peel the skin from bones in just a few seconds (Batchelor). These and other circumstances, thoroughly investigated in the documentary movies Hot Coffee directed by Saladoff, testify that the Liebeck and McDonalds case is far from frivolous. On the contrary, the lawsuit reveals a critical national issue of tort reform.
Tort reform is one of the most sensitive topics in American politics. Tort actions represent such kinds of law claims that involve damage compensation for wrongful actions, primarily financially. The Liebeck and McDonald case has had a key influence on Texas tort legislation, provoking increased lobbying for the controversial reform that undermines citizens compensation rights. Major federal media were divided, arguing about how frivolous the case was. Some compared it to silly lawsuits like a student suing college because of a loud campus party. The problem is that many Americans had a fundamentally wrong perception of the national law system, assuming this systems error was resulting in flooding in frivolous lawsuits (Hot Coffee). In an attempt to correct this error and redistribute resources more efficiently, tort reform was born.
The idea of the reform was to reduce frivolous lawsuits and consequently limit what a jury awards, contributing instead to healthcare and more doctors working in Texas. However, the number of medical malpractice cases filed in the state dropped by two-thirds (Carter), weakening the power of citizens to claim compensation for received damages since medical malpractice suits can be expensive to pursue ( Texas Tort Reform Didnt Work 03:1505:21).
Moreover, the reform practically displaced lawyers specialized in this field, forcing them to leave the state (Carter). Attorneys became less willing to risk when taking a tort case as the potential payoff often cannot recoup all the expenses associated with a particular tort. Therefore, it is evident that the reform did not reach its goal, conversely leading to unforeseen blasting consequences for the Teas civil justice system.
While ordinary buyers whose civil rights were in doubt suffered, some benefited from the reform. First of all, large companies and institutions, the irresponsibility of which remained safe, became the main winners of the new law system. In part, these players were able to achieve the implementation of the tort reform due to lobbying their interests and pumping money into jury elections (Jackson). Furthermore, medical malpractice cases have decreased in both number and value, which has been highly advantageous for physicians due to the dramatic drop in insurance costs (Vicens). In the end, in theory, the reform was designed to improve the lives of citizens, but in the end, it was far from ordinary Americans who won.
Overall, the tort reform restricts the right of people to go to court to defend their rights and obtain compensation for damages. Of course, a large stream of frivolous cases can harm the system. However, how and who should decide which case is just sinlessness and which one is worthy of the courts attention? More specific and feasible criteria for frivolity should be introduced to reduce the burden imposed on the law system and avoid civil rights being disrupted.
The use of sex offender registries has been a consistent crime deterrence mechanism and public awareness for more than two decades. Policymakers, courts, and law enforcement consistently rely on the database as a response to any sexually-related violations to be used for public protection. However, the current social realities and experience gained from the use of the registry have presented certain practical challenges and an incentive for the potential amelioration of its purpose. Sex offender registration laws require reform to ensure the protection of Constitutional rights, enable social rehabilitation, and become economically practical in application to prevent serious criminal behavior.
History
While some states like California had sex offender registries since the 1940s, they became introduced into national policy in 1994 by the Jacob Wetterling Act. It was reinforced in 1996 with the passage of the infamous Megans Law, which allowed federal officials to release the information regarding sex offenders publicly. In 2006, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA) was enacted, which established rules for registration, increased penalties, and established the Marshals Service by enforcing the law.
The national and state databases consist of two separate parts, one for law enforcement use with more detailed information, and one for public view with the availability of community notifications. The national database consists of a compilation of state and local lists, but despite some level of uniformity brought by AWA, there is a significant difference to standards of information (Biere, 2016).
The problem that needs to be addressed is the initial purpose of the database since it has become, to some extent, a blacklist which is used to stigmatize individuals in a society. Sex offenders cannot lead a normal life because their privacy becomes compromised, significantly isolating them. In turn, this aspect leads to issues with rehabilitation and potentially increases recidivism rather than prevent it or criminal behavior from new offenders. Furthermore, the database has been requiring increased resources to manage and monitor, thus decreasing its effectiveness as a crime-deterrence mechanism.
Problem I
Many sexual offenses are considered a felony, which results in a variety of consequences, including incarceration, supervision by a probation officer, and a mark on the criminal record. Registered sex offenders, similar to other individuals with criminal records, have difficulty with aspects such as employment or financial operations. However, the public availability of an individuals conviction on the sex offender registry makes leading a normal life impossible.
Such aspects as rental housing, working-class employment, and having a social life that would have been possible for a regular criminal conviction (since a background check only occurs in certain instances) are cut off for sex offenders since the information is publicly available. The registration places a public label on a person that creates barriers to re-entry and stands as the primary point of social interaction due to stigmatization. The registry does not usually identify sex offenders based on crime, making it impossible for the public to differentiate between a child molester or a non-violent error of judgment (Evans & Cubellis, 2014).
Problem II
The issues discussed in the previous problem force sex offenders to lead a detrimental lifestyle by living in the worst and most isolated neighborhoods, engaging in illegal activities for income, and evading the public eye. The indiscriminative sanctions against all sex offenders on the registry essentially prevent rehabilitation by creating an environment that forces negative behavior.
The sheer number of restrictions, particularly on movement and residency, create a significant chance for technical violations, which are automatically determined as a felony and additional jail time. Therefore, instead of serving the purpose of preventing recidivism, sex offender registration encourages it, most often in entirely unrelated crimes. At the same time, the statistics that less than 3% of registered offenders ever engage in repeated predatory behavior are ignored for the sake of public opinion (Miller, 2014).
Problem III
Across the United States, there are more than 700,000 registered sex offenders, and the database continues to increase. The states are unable to provide resources to enhance the input of information and technology management of such IT infrastructure. Furthermore, incarcerations from technical violations are resulting in rising incarceration costs for the public penal system. The cost of operation for facilities holding sex offenders was at $224 million in 2004 and continues to inflate further.
Minor offenses such as public indecency and juvenile crimes have overwhelmed the system and deviate police resources from focusing on violent offenders. Law enforcement administration cannot effectively monitor databases of such large sizes, basically eliminating the purpose of the registry to protect the public from violent crime (Hynes, 2013).
Summary
Overall, the use of sex offender registries needs to undergo reforms regarding public policy, legislative significance, and technical parameters. Although the individuals on the list have been found guilty of criminal behavior, they are still protected by their Constitutional right to privacy. By making the information public, it causes stigmatization and creates barriers to maintaining a normal life, which is a form of mob punishment that is both illegal and immoral.
This form of isolation does not prevent future crimes from offenders or anyone else under the fear of being input into the database. It hinders rehabilitation and often leads to recidivism due to psychological factors or a technical violation of extremely unrealistic boundaries established by public policies. Furthermore, the addition of individuals for minor crimes of a sexual nature (mainly adolescents) leads to the rise of human resources and monetary expenses necessary to manage the database or efficiently distinguish dangerous offenders. It is possible to determine a solution by creating a rational approach to the situation that takes into account public interests while ensuring that the registry becomes a useful tool for legislative and law enforcement purposes.
References
Bierie, D. (2016). The utility of sex offender registration: a research note. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22(2), 263-273. Web.
Evans, D. N., & Cubellis, M. A. (2015). Coping with stigma: How registered sex offenders manage their public identities. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 593-619. Web.
Hynes, K. (2013). The cost of fear: An analysis of sex offender registration, community notification, and civil commitment laws in the United States and the United Kingdom. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs, 2(2), 351-379. Web.
The spirituality of the Japanese people is an essential trait of this nation, closely linked to the myths and stories of early Japan. The creation of Japan through divine sources is clearly represented in the creation myths in the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki, which interpret the establishment of the 14 Japanese islands by the gods. According to the stories, the entire landmass of Japan was produced by a pair of siblings, who provided the Japanese people with the land to live on and further continued the legacy of the gods ( The Age of the Gods, p. 1). Given the remarkable origin of the islands and the involvement of the godly powers in their construction, it becomes evident that the people of Japan highly value their spirituality, expressing their gratitude through religion.
Furthermore, of significant interest are the divine roots of the Japanese emperor, also referred to as the Impetuous Male. According to the myths, For his misdeeds Impetuous Male was banished from heaven ( The Age of the Gods, p. 1). Therefore, as the Male later established a palace in the land of Japan, originating the sovereignty of the nation, he became the first emperor of this country. The imperial rule, by extension, becomes a power gifted by the divine source, highly respected by the Japanese.
I believe that the age of the gods perfectly captures the emergence of Japan, providing an insight into the religious dogmas and the importance of the emperor in the lives of the citizens. The source establishes a connection between the creation of the Japanese landmass, specifying the reasons behind this endeavor and linking it to the manifestations of divine power. Furthermore, the deeds of the first emperor and the genesis of his governmental authority are also explained, thus clarifying the subsequent effects of imperial rule. The understanding of the religious practices and the beliefs behind the authority of the emperor is the vital subject that could be derived from the reading, advancing the knowledge regarding the Japanese culture.
The Reform Edict of Taika
The reforms suggested by the emperor in 646 significantly impacted the regional clan leaders, necessitating a proper response. If I were chosen to occupy such a position, I would have responded negatively to such changes, as the alterations greatly affect the community, undermining the authority of the chief. The ordinary way of life in the local areas is drastically changed, as a number of titles become abolished and a novel occupation, Daibu, is being introduced ( The Reform Edict of Taika, p. 3).
Furthermore, as the transportation through the capital is more regulated, with additional forces distributed to the barriers, the increased control over the population might be damaging in the long term. According to the guidelines, Barriers and outposts shall be erected, and mountains and rivers shall be regulated ( The Reform Edict of Taika, p. 3). Although some of these regulations appear beneficial, for instance, the procedures of instituting an alderman, the overall purpose of the novel introductions seems extensively controlling.
The resource examined is exceptionally distinct from the first reference analyzed, as it refers to the change in the legal and organizational structure. While the age of the gods is a mythological piece that establishes the leading religious beliefs and explains the origin of the emperors powers from the folklore perspective, the reform edict of Taika handles more grounded and official matters, distinguishing the new rules for both the local districts and the capital areas.
References
Lu, David. 1997. The Reform Edict of Taika. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe.
The Age of the Gods. Columbia University. n. d. Web.
The desire for power is one of the main drivers for politicians in their elective campaigns. The desire to be the first makes the candidates create more and more inventive reforms which may be offered by people and which may be rather profitable to them. Every new election campaign abounds in different stump speeches of different candidates, which give them information about politicians programs. Different candidates have a different vision of this or that reform, but in some cases, these visions coincide. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden had a different opinions about the social life of the society, some opinions coincided, and following their elective campaigns it is easy to construct the personal opinion about their methods of country ruling.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were the opponents, who tried to be elected with different programs. Being the President, Theodore Roosevelt provided such domestic reforms in the American society as anti-monopoly enforcement, regulated the railroads by increasing the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the conservation the natural resources by limitation of some federal lands sale. Pure Food and Drug Act (1906) was the law that forbade using harmful food additives and the creation of the National Monetary Commission were the measures that were provided with the aim to make peoples life better (Klose and Lader 122-126).
Woodrow Wilsons domestic reforms, during his ruling the country were of the same importance and profitability, which was labeled as New Freedom . This program of reforms supposed the lowering of tariff duties, provided some other economical changes, labor legislations, the permission to vote for a woman, and the prohibition to manufacture, sale, or transport of intoxicating liquors (Klose and Lader 153). During different years of Wilsons ruling, different laws were adopted. The Federal Reserve Act (1913) was the measure, which revised the national money and bank systems. The Federal Farm Loan Act (1916) created the Federal Reserve Bank, Clayton Antitrust Act (1914) provided the improvements in the anti-monopoly sphere and Federal Trade Commission (1914) helped to implement fair trade practices (Klose and Lader 151-153).
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were the representatives of different parties, and the vision of the American economy and politics, which they used in ruling the country, was different as well as the methods of their ruling. That is when Theodore Roosevelt bore mostly on his political skills, Woodrow Wilson was supported mostly by his economical experience. Executive and the federal government were put on the highest level of priority during the ruling of these two presidents and their desires were directed on improvement of the management personnel of the country. Moreover, there were some reforms (mostly in the financial sphere), which coincided from the point to view of the ideas.
Turning to the question of Barack Obama and Joe Bidens reforms and their progress, it should be mentioned that the main priority for these country leaders among other domestic reforms remains the health care reform. Barack Obama and Joe Biden were committed to providing this reform. Moreover, the new Presidents campaign took the health care reform into consideration, as, according to his opinion, better medical care is often cheaper (Herszenhorn and Ye par. 34). The health care reform demand could be a result of investigating the foreign experience. There are a lot of opponents of the theory that qualitative medical care may be cheap for the country but Obama is aimed to prove to everybody that it is possible.
The discussion of the problems continues till now and the reform is not finished yet. The high-quality medical care, which is cheap for the country, and other issues, which are related to the problem continue to be the basis for discussion in the government. The biggest part of the government continues to quarrel that the increase of the quality of health care will bring an increase in taxes, government costs, and deficit. The main change which Obama wants to provide is the shift of the family health problems to the shoulders of the government from the family ones. The problem of insurance arises, as there are people who are satisfied with the current position of affairs and do not want to change something.
So, it may be concluded that different Presidents brought their fresh and effective, from their side, ideas about the country reforming. Theodore Roosevelt paid too much attention to the political and social problems of society. Woodrow Wilson was interested in economical improvement. The legislations which were provided during their ruling confirmed their pre-elective programs. Barak Obama has not realized all his ideas but the work under it continues. The health care reform is the main consideration of his attention for today and he continues to put his elective plan into action. The debate around health care reform continues, but Barak Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are sure that the health reform will help to become a more powerful country not only on the local level but also on the international one.
Works Cited
Herszenhorn, David M. and Ye, Katherine Q. Seel. Live blogging the Presidents speech. The New York Times. 2009.
Klose, Nelson and Lader, Curt. United States history, since 1865. New York: Barrons Educational Series, 2001.
George W Bush, the 43rd American president is one of the significant education system reformists in the history of American Education. The development and establishment of the Every Student Succeed Act (ESSA), is an attribute of Bushs education reforms from his initiative to provide every child with the right to education in his bipartisan act of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002. From the NCLB act, Bush advocated for an increase in federal involvement in the education sector by providing funds and scholarships to cater to needy students ensuring every child gets an education. Apart from funding, Bush was also a promoter of high standards in academics to ensure excellence and great achievements in all schools through a standard testing procedure. In the act, parents have a say in choosing their childrens schools.
The involvement of the federal government has ensured adequate funding, competency, and accountability in students academic standards which has given rise to many reforms strengthening the act since 2002. One of the reforms is the ESSA act in 2015 which promotes the devolution of the education sector from the central government to communities and states which ensures more state and community participation, competency between states, better teaching, and schools accountability academically and financially.
America knows lots of different reforms. One of them may be described as essentially democratic movements that expressed the will and desires of the people at large, others as essentially elite movements that sought to enact reforms that privileged persons believed were good for the common people regardless of whether people actually wanted those reforms. Every reform is a part of American history, and now we may analyze them as the time has passed and we can see the results of these reforms.
Three most significant waves of movements in America dealt with health, especially drugs, alcohol, sex, and tobacco. These tree periods occupied 1830 1860, 1880 1920 and 1970 2007. The movements received the name Clean living movements , which aims were to forbid people till 21 buy alcohol, to reduce smoking in the streets (Engs, 2001).
The first reform movement period dealt with temperance, tobacco and womens rights. Alcohol was considerate as a medicine till 1812, so was allowed in big amount. The problem of drunkenness appeared and it was a struggle with it, but drinking was not forbidden. The temperance movement held in several phases. Temperance movement began to involve more and more people during 1820s 1830s; especially it became popular to refuse from alcohol among middle class (Engs, 2001).
Tobacco was also an essential part of Americans life till it was not identified as dangerous to peoples life. During this time women movement for their rights is on its beginning stage. All these movements were on the wane before the war.
The second period of clean living movement took place in twenty years and dealt with saloons, which played one of the main parts in that American society. The problems of alcohol and smoking still existed, but there appeared several more, the main were tuberculosis and influenza. The problem of public health created new reform movements, which aim was to reduce the number of saloons and create some departments which could control the appearance and widespread of serious diseases, as the epidemias of tuberculosis was a real problem to that time society (Engs, 2001).
The last, third reform movement appeared in 1970 and continues till our time. The problems which appeared during this period also needed some decisions and providing reforms. The biggest problems are drugs and AIDS, what is drugs result in most cases. The religion awoke and requested some changes (Engs, 2001).
So, the different health reform movements appeared in America since 1830 reflect the decisions in our time. The sale and drinking of alcohol is forbidden for people fewer than 21, smoking is forbidden in public, thanks to different health reforms influenza is not so dangerous disease in the USA, and the epidemias of tuberculoses is prevented. Women have much more range of rights than they had before and the religion is developing and more people are involved into the religion beliefs. All these reforms were very up-to-date, and with there help many problems were considered at the very beginning.
Of course, these reform movements were not the only which shook America. Political, agricultural, educational and others appeared in different times in America. Lots of ethnical and race problems were solved during the reform movements. Some problems still exist, and a new President tries to solve them as quickly as possible. Reforms, in most cases, appear right in time when they mostly need and when the society is ready for some changes.
Reference List
Engs, Ruth Clifford. (2001) Clean Living Movements: American Cycles of Health Reform. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Any countrys social welfare is based on an array of factors, among which historical and political ones play the most important role. Indeed, the development of a welfare state depends on the political environment and the overall direction of the domestic policy implemented by a particular administration. The history of the United States has been formed by the decision-making of the presidents whose domestic policies shaped the welfare political background of the modern country. In particular, the enactment of the welfare reforms by Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon has been significant in constructing opportunities for human service professionals to provide their assistance to vulnerable populations. Despite several similarities between the domestic policy reforms enacted by the two presidents, Johnsons positive empowerment of social welfare for vulnerable populations, Nixons administration was less effective in addressing the needs of underrepresented communities. In this essay, the two presidents reforms and policies will be compared for the identification of similar and different features in terms of addressing human service opportunities for vulnerable populations in the USA.
Johnsons and Nixons Domestic Reforms General Descriptions
Lyndon B. Johnsons presidency was characterized by significant policy achievements in the field of welfare. In particular, his domestic welfare policies within the framework of the Great Society were aimed at improving the civil rights of the under-represented communities. According to Dyer (2019), Johnsons building of the Great Society was shaped by the enactment of the Civil Rights bills in the 1960s, which recognized the rights of racial minorities. Specifically, the reforms within the Great Society domestic agenda were aimed at changing the previous state of affairs. The reforms touched on voting rights for African Americans, economic assistance to schools, health insurance for the elderly and the poor, fair housing laws, government protection for the environment, an end to discriminatory immigration policy (Dyer, 2019, p. 59). These reforms established a strong background for consecutive political decision-making in the sphere of social welfare for Americans.
As for Richard Nixons agenda, it was shaped by the political climate in the late sixties and early seventies. Nixons domestic reforms were aimed at stabilizing the economic situation and social security for the poor (Unger & Unger, 2022). Particular attention was paid to the establishment of healthcare coverage and the stabilization of the economic wellbeing of impoverished citizens, predominantly in the Northern states (Starr, 2021). The economic aspect of the reforms was successful in improving the income and opportunities for helping the poor.
Comparison of the Two Presidents Reforms
The two presidents agendas share a number of similar and distinctive features. In particular, when comparing the decisions related to budgeting social welfare within domestic affairs, one might detect that both presidents encouraged allocating increased finances to the sphere of social securities (Unger & Unger, 2022). Another similarity is the attention to the economic sphere of the country through the perspective of Americans income. In this regard, both presidents reforms were aimed at combating poverty through specifically designed programs (Unger & Unger, 2022). Another significant similarity is the attention of both presidents reforms on healthcare and medical insurance since they both prioritized the development of health plans and wellbeing opportunities for American citizens (Starr, 2021). Thus, the human services work with the poor as a vulnerable population has been improved under both presidents agendas due to the allocation of resources and establishment of infrastructural opportunities for welfare enhancement.
The differences between the reforms enacted by Johnson and Nixon are manifested through the consistency of decision-making and the vulnerable populations whose needs were addressed. Indeed, while Johnsons policy was straightforward in its ambition to eliminate racial injustices and protect African Americans as a vulnerable community, Nixons reforms failed to address racial injustices (Dyer, 2019). Moreover, Nixons decisions were characterized by discriminatory policies, which predominantly benefited the white population of the United States while excluding the opportunities for social security for African Americans (Unger & Unger, 2022). This difference is associated with the partisan affiliation differences between the two presidents, where Johnsons was a Democrat, and Nixon was a Republican (Unger & Unger, 2022). Thus, the impact of Johnsons agenda on human services functioning was characterized by a larger spectrum of vulnerable populations, including immigrants, the poor, and racial minorities. Nixons reforms were less impactful and more discriminatory in terms of promoting holistic human service improvement.
Conclusion
In summation, the comparison of the policies and reforms aimed at instilling social security in the United States by Johnson and Nixon has revealed multiple similarities and differences. In particular, both presidents approaches were focused on minimizing poverty levels, improving the accessibility of healthcare, and the overall allocation of significant budgeting to the sphere of human services addressing vulnerable populations. However, significant differences between the two compared agendas have been detected, which are explained by the party affiliation distinction. Indeed, Johnsons democratic decisions were aimed at the recognition of racial injustices and the protection of African Americans rights, while republican Nixons approach was characterized by more attention to the white populations needs and racism.
References
Dyer, S. E. (2019). Cracking open the golden door: Race, Great Society liberalism, and the immigration reform act of 1965 [Thesis]. Washington and Lee University.
Starr, P. (2021). The health care legacy of the great society. In LBJs neglected legacy (pp. 235-258). University of Texas Press.
Unger, I., & Unger, D. (2022). The best of intentions: The triumphs and failures of the great society under Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Graymalkin Media.
One of the main objectives of the governments of G8 countries is to promote and improve the health status of their citizens. In order to achieve this objective, G8 countries have focused on providing effective, accessible, as well as, affordable health care to their citizens. Consequently, health care policies in G8 countries revolve around two fundamental issues.
The first issue is the manner in which a basic package of high quality health care should be provided. The second issue is how to finance and manage health services in away that guarantees their availability and accessibility (Parmmolli, Riccaboni, & Magazzini, 2011). In order to address these issues, health care has been considered a public good in G8 countries. A public good is normally provided by the government and benefits everyone in the community.
The governments of G8 countries are, thus, justified to provide health care services due to the following reasons. First, majority of the citizens can not access health services due to the high costs (Parmmolli, Riccaboni, & Magazzini, 2011). Consequently, the governments provide health services in order to promote access regardless of the ability to pay. Second, health care is a basic right of all citizens, and thus, it should be provided by the government.
Additionally, there are no substitutes for health care. Hence all citizens must be able to access quality health services. Third, the governments are able to mobilize additional funds for health care by providing universal health cover to their citizens (Parmmolli, Riccaboni, & Magazzini, 2011).
The additional funds are used to improve the quality of health care services. Finally, a healthy nation tends to be more productive. This has prompted G8 governments to provide affordable health services in order to enhance their productivity (Arrieta & Guillein, 2011). This paper focuses on the health care reforms in the G8 countries.
Health care in G8 Countries in the Last 15 Years
The G8 consists of the eight largest economies in the world. Despite the fact that all G8 countries are developed, some of them have poor health care systems. The quality of health care among the G8 countries depends on the availability of resources and health policies adopted by each country.
In the last fifteen years, health services in G8 countries, except US, have been provided by the governments. The governments either provided the services directly or contracted private providers to deliver the services. However, the percentage of health care costs paid by the governments varies from country to country. For example, in UK the government pays all the fees while in Japan, the patient pays between 10% and 30% of the total cost (Claudia, 2010).
Both taxation and national health insurance covers are used to finance health services in the G8 countries. Unlike other G8 countries, health care in US is mainly financed through private insurance. The health covers are either provided by the employers or purchased directly by the citizens. The US government has minimal participation in the provision of health services. The health care programs that are supported by the US government include Medicaid and Medicare.
Generally, access to quality health services has increased in most G8 countries. The UK, German and France have had the best health care systems in terms of quality, accessibility and affordability (Claudia, 2010). In these countries, the governments pay for nearly all health care expenses. Additionally, a lot of capital is invested in the health care sectors. Russias health care system remained ineffective in the last fifteen years due to poor management and lack of financial resources.
The US health system has also recorded poor performance in the last fifteen years. In particular, high costs prevent majority of US citizens from accessing quality health services (Juni, 2006). Nearly all G8 countries have faced challenges in providing health services. The common challenges include rising costs, inadequate personnel and declining service quality. These challenges have promoted the G8 governments to reform their health care systems.
Health Care Reforms
In UK, health care reforms began in 1948 with the establishment of the National Health Services (NHS). The objective NHS is to provide health care for all citizens based on need and not the ability to pay (Juni, 2006). NHS is funded by the public through taxation. All legal residents of UK are eligible for the services offered by NHS, irrespective of their nationalities or tax history.
NHS hospitals provide all medical services including surgeries and prescriptions free of charge. Additionally, meals, care workers, ambulance services, therapies and in-clinic nursing services are provided for free (Claudia, 2010). Only general physicians are allowed to refer a patient for acute care in a NHS hospital. The general physicians are also given feedback on the treatment given to the patient and recommendations for follow up actions.
In US, earlier reforms in the health care system involved the formation of the Veterans Health Administration, the Military Healthcare System and the Indian Health Services (Juni, 2006). These programs provide subsidized health care services to specific groups such as the military.
Publicly funded programs such as Medicaid and Medicare provide subsidized health care to vulnerable groups such as the poor, the old (over 65 years) and the disabled. Major reforms began in 2010, with the enactment of the new health reforms bill. The new health bill aims at improving access to health services through universal health cover. Under the new legislation, all US citizens will be required by law to obtain health insurance (Arrieta & Guillein, 2011).
The government will provide tax credits to those living below the poverty line to enable them obtain health insurance. Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing to offer covers to citizens with preconditions. The health insurance covers will cater for all medical services demanded by all US citizens.
Russia adopted a socialist approach to provide health care between 1917 and 1990. During this period, the government provided all health care services through taxation (Claudia, 2010). Thus, all citizens were able to access services such as prescriptions, surgeries, therapies and other treatments for free.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia adopted a mixed model of healthcare provision (Claudia, 2010). In this case, the private and public sector participates in financing and provision of health services. The private sector provides health insurance and health facilities while the government subsidizes the cost of treatment and also provides health workers (Parmmolli, Riccaboni, & Magazzini, 2011).
Reforms in Turkeys health care system began in 2003. The reform program aims at increasing the ratio of private to state health provision and making health care available to all citizens (Feldster, 2009). Private insurance companies partnered with private hospitals to provide quality health care. In 2006, laws that facilitate provision of universal health cover were enacted in order to enhance access to health services.
The government funds nearly 70% while the private sector funds 30% of all health expenses (Feldster, 2009). The family practitioner model was introduced in 2010 to provide low cost medical services by local doctors. The family practitioner model provides treatment to citizens of all ages. Members of a family can receive treatment from the same doctor. However, the doctors are not specialized, and thus, services such as surgery are obtained in centralized government hospitals.
Healthcare in Germany is provided by the government through a universal health cover system. The insurance cover is provided in two forms namely the sickness fund and private insurance (Agrell & Bogetoft, 2001). Membership in sickness funds is compulsory and contributions are made by employers and employees.
Overall, the government funds nearly 77% of the total health care budget. The remaining 23% is funded by the private sector (Agrell & Bogetoft, 2001). The funding from both the government and private sectors caters for treatment, medicine costs, as well as, the cost of staying in hospitals. Following a sharp increase in costs, the government introduced new health financing reforms in 2007 through an act of parliament.
The new legislation guarantees access to health insurance, and provides incentives to enhance effective coordination of health care (Arrieta & Guillein, 2011). Additionally, it introduced a unitary contribution rate, and enhanced competition among insurers, hence reducing the cost of health insurance.
The French health system is funded through pension schemes, family allowances, as well as, health insurance. Pensions and family allowances are managed as a national fund. There are also smaller funds that cater for workers in specific professions. All health funds are private but are highly regulated by the government (Parmmolli, Riccaboni, & Magazzini, 2011).
The funds cater for hospital care, prescriptions, cash benefits and outpatient services. The other services offered include preventive care for mothers and children which are provided through community based health facilities. Health workers such as nurses, midwives social workers are provided to care for children and other patients.
Health care in Italy is financed and provided by both the government and the private sector. The government provides health care through the National Health Services (NHS). NHS pays the family doctors, nurses, and the costs of treatment. However, medicinal drugs can not be obtained without a doctors prescription (Parmmolli, Riccaboni, & Magazzini, 2011).
The drugs prescribed by a family doctor are partly paid for by the patient. Over-the-counter drugs, on the other hand, are fully paid for by the patient. The family doctor is assigned to a maximum of 1500 patients and must visit the patients at least five times in week.
Both Japan and Canada have universal health covers through which they provide health care to their citizens. In Japan, the government pays 70% of the health care costs while the patient pays the remaining 30%. The funds from the government cater for parental care, disease control, and screening examinations (Agrell & Bogetoft, 2001).
Patients can access medical services from doctors of their choice, and have a right to health insurance from any provider. In Canada, health care is provided freely at the point of treatment or use (Arrieta & Guillein, 2011). Health services are mainly provided by private organizations. However, the government regulates the private providers in order to enhance the quality of health care. The government pays for the drugs, treatment and salaries of the health workers.
Effectiveness of the G8 Health Care Systems
In general, the reforms adopted by the G8 countries have helped them to improve the effectiveness of their health systems. At least 85% of Canadians are satisfied with their health care system.
The Canadian health system is also cost-effective since 96.2% of adults spend less than five percent of their disposable income on medical expenses such as prescription drugs (Arrieta & Guillein, 2011). In UK, the reforms have enabled the government to deliver health services closer to those who need them most. Consequently, health care costs have significantly reduced, and the service quality has improved tremendously.
In Turkey, the increased participation of the private sector raised competition for patients. Consequently, the quality of health care in public and private hospitals has improved. The number of health practitioners and health facilities has increased by 30% following the introduction the family practitioner model (Claudia, 2010). Majority of the rural population can now access health care through universal health cover and government subsidies.
The life expectancy in German increased to 78 years while the infant mortality rate reduced to 4.7 for ever 1,000 live births. Currently, German is one of the countries with the highest number of physicians (Claudia, 2010). The health financing reforms introduced in 2007, has enabled majority of Germans to access better health care through health covers.
The French health system is considered the best in Europe and among the G8 member countries. This is because it provides a variety of high quality health care services for free. At least 65% of Frances citizens are satisfied with their health system. Italys health system is the second best after the French system. At least 95% of Italians are able to access quality medical services. In Japan and Canada, access to medical services has significantly increased in the last decade.
Unlike other G8 countries, U.S and Russia still have ineffective health care systems. Russia has the worse health system among the G8 countries. Its health system initially helped in reducing infectious diseases and increased bed capacities in hospitals (Feldster, 2009). However, the introduction of the mixed model led to inefficiency in the health system.
Consequently, the health of Russias population has deteriorated in nearly all measures. In United States, the main challenge is high costs of accessing health care. Additionally, the quality of health services is very low. Only 40% of US citizens are satisfied with their health care system (Arrieta & Guillein, 2011). However, the challenges facing the United States health care system are likely to be addressed by the new health reforms laws.
In conclusion, providing health care through universal health covers has enabled most G8 countries to achieve the objective of delivering quality and affordable health care. However, the existing health care systems are still faced with challenges such as rising costs, inefficiency and administration problems (Parmmolli, Riccaboni, & Magazzini, 2011).
Role of the Private Sector
In all G8 countries, health care services are provided by both the government and the private sector. The government and the private sector participate in financing and actual provision of health care services. The private sector plays three fundamental roles which include the following.
First, private health providers deliver health care services directly to the citizens. The private providers include private hospitals, doctors working in the private sector and private health organizations (Feldster, 2009). Second, private insurance companies provide covers that enable citizens to access medical services. Finally, employers in the private sector help in financing health care by purchasing health covers for their employees.
The extent to which the private sector participates in the provision of health care varies from country to country. United States has the highest percentage of private sector participation in the provision of health care services. Nearly 70% of US citizens access medical services through private insurance.
The insurance covers are directly purchased by citizens and employers (Feldster, 2009). In France, the private sector dominates in the provision of health covers. All insurance plans or health funds are arranged by the private sector under the regulation of the government. In Japan, the private sector funds only 30% of the health care costs. Besides, the government provides most health care services through public health facilities (Juni, 2006). There is minimal involvement of the private sector in UK, Canada, German, Turkey and Italy.
In these countries, the governments pay for at least 75% of the total health care costs. Most health care facilities are owned by the government and the health workers are directly paid by the governments. In countries such as Italy and UK, the services provided in public hospitals are better than in most private hospitals.
Private verses Public
The above analysis indicates that access to quality and affordable health care is high in G8 countries where health services are provided by the public sector (government). However, in US where the private sector dominates the provision of health care, medical services are inaccessible and of low quality.
Thus, we can conclude that the public sector can provide health care in a better way than the private sector. The effectiveness of the public sector can be explained by the following reasons. First, empirical studies reveal that 1% of the population pays for nearly 25% of health care costs. 50% of the population pays for only 3% of the health care costs (Parmmolli, Riccaboni, & Magazzini, 2011).
Since, a high percentage of health care costs are paid by the minority, pooling of resources through a compulsory universal health cover becomes apparent. It is only the government that has the capacity to implement a compulsory universal health cover (Juni, 2006).
Second, provision of health care by the public sector addresses equity issues. Since the private sector is driven by the profit motive, it restricts access to health care through the price mechanism (Feldster, 2009). The public sector, on the other hand, enables everyone to access health care regardless of their purchasing power (Arrieta & Guillein, 2011).
Second, provision of health care by the public sector improves the quality of health services. For instance, the additional resources resulting from a universal cover can be used to acquire more health facilities.
Third, provision of a public good such health care requires a high level of administration that a single enterprise can not arrange. It is only the government that can arrange for such high level of administration through its ministries (Arrieta & Guillein, 2011). Additionally, the private sector might not be able to access the large capital that is required to offer universal health covers. Fourth, providing health care through publicly owned universal covers is likely to be more acceptable than private insurance (Juni, 2006).
This is because a universal cover is relatively cheaper and is not subject to contractual obligations. Finally, the rapid economic growth in G8 countries provides a favorable environment for implementing universal health care (Claudia, 2010). The high employment rates in G8 countries means that majority of the citizens can contribute to health funds. Additionally, G8 countries have high tax revenues that can be used to meet the costs of health care services.
Conclusion
Health care is an important sector since it determines the productivity and welfare of the population. It is against this backdrop that G8 countries have focused on providing affordable and quality health care to their citizens. Health care is considered a public good in most of the G8 countries. Consequently, the governments are more involved than the private sector in the funding and provision of health services.
All G8 countries, except the US, provide health care through universal insurance covers and taxation (Feldster, 2009). In US, the private sector dominates in the provision of health care through private health insurance. The governments pay for the costs of treatment, prescription drugs, costs of staying in hospitals and the salaries of health workers. The private sector mainly participates in the provision of health covers (Arrieta & Guillein, 2011).
The challenges facing G8 countries in providing health care services include rising costs, mismanagement of funds and inadequate funds. In general, provision of health care through the public sector has enabled G8 countries to provide affordable and quality health care to their citizens. Thus, we can conclude that the public sector can provide better health care than the private sector.
References
Agrell, P., & Bogetoft, P. (2001). DEA-Based Incentive Regimes in Health Care Provison. Journal of Economics and Management, 3(2), 78-91.
Arrieta, A., & Guillein, J. (2011). The Private Health Care Sector and the Provison of Parental Crae Services in America. World Development, 39(4) , 579-587.
Claudia, C. (2010). Macrosystematic Reforms in the Health Care System for Eastern European Countries. Journal of Economics and Management, 10(2), 124-128.
Feldster, M. (2009). Balancing the Goal of Health Care Provision. Social Science and Medicine, 31(6), 45-49.
Juni, M. (2006). Public Health Care Provision: Access and Equity. Social Science and Medicine, 43(5), 759-768.
Parmmolli, F., Riccaboni, M., & Magazzini, L. (2011). The Sustainability of European Health Care System: Beyond Income and Ageing. Journal of Economic s and Management, 10(1), 199-209.