Abstract
Police violence towards Black Lives Matter has been an alarming challenge in today’s culture, with reports of unarmed black people being shot by police officers in broad light and open. This investigates the causes of the recurrence of such acts against unarmed Black people. Additionally, it investigates how societal institutions impact police brutality using Durkheim’s social theory and Marx’s conflict theory. The paper will also examine the consequences of not taking action against police officers who use excessive force when handling Africa Americans. Important issues like the existing link between racial profiling and social systems have been addressed with great emphasis on proposing strategies that can solve the issues of police brutality towards people of colour. Finally, the paper provides a brief insight into the necessary dialogue that can help the benefit of having reforms in the criminal justice system, holding officers accountable for their mistakes and determining social factors that promote violence towards people of colour.
Introduction
The criminal justice system, especially the police department, has always been accused of conducting targeted violence towards African Americans over the years. The killing of innocent African Americans by police has sparked outrage by people calling for justice and police reforms. [1]As stated by Wright et al. (2022), the issues of violence targeting African Americans have existed in the United States. After Michael Brown died in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, the Black Lives Matter movement brought the subject of excessive use of force to the forefront of public conversation.
The purpose of this essay is to investigate the social structures that influence civil rights violations, with a focus on African Americans. The paper will use Durkheim’s social theory and Marx’s conflict theory. Further, the paper will provide a comprehensive analysis of how societal structures, a lack of repercussions for law enforcement officers’ behaviour, and policy concepts provide a way to more instances of police brutality against people of colour.
Durkheim’s Social Theory
Durkheim’s social theory sheds light on how social systems affect personal behaviour, such as police officers’ treatment of Black protesters. [2] Bocanegra & Lovett (2020 pp 963-982) states that, once society structures become dysfunctional, they can contribute to criminal and deviant behaviour. Common, pervasive societal structures contributing to police officers’ deviant behaviour toward Blacks are racism, power imbalances and inequality. [3]According to Anon n.d. (pp 199-200.), police who use unnecessary force against Black people have negative attitudes toward them. Therefore, it’s evident that societal structures shape law enforcement officers’ attitudes toward people of colour. In most cases, negative attitudes result from societal structures reinforcing stereotypes of Black folks as dangerous, violent and criminal. These assumptions are reinforced by media portrayals and historical legacies of segregation and slavery, creating a context where Black people are viewed as dangerous, and police officers are justified in using excessive force.
The absence of personal responsibility for police personnel who profile black people reinforce these unequal social structures and power imbalances. [4]Indeed, Kaplan et al., 2020) opines that failure to hold police responsible for what they do propagates the notion that police are above the law and reaffirms their sense of impunity. This contributes to a vicious cycle of abuse and a loss of trust between police and people of colour. Consequently, addressing excessive force against unharmed necessitates addressing social systems that perpetuate hostile feelings toward Black people and strengthen power imbalances. Police officers should be held accountable for their actions, and policies that promote institutionalized racism and inequality should be revised. This can be accomplished by increasing the diversity of law enforcement officers, incorporating community-oriented policing measures, and investing in social welfare programs that focus on the fundamental causes of crime and discrimination.
Marx’s Conflict Theory
When applied to the issue of police brutality against Blacks, Marx’s conflict theory sheds light on the fundamental disparities and disputes between various social groups. The unequal distribution of resources and power creates a dispute between distinct socioeconomic groups in this setting. This power balance is obvious in police brutality against people of colour, who are disproportionately represented in such cases. The inequities and conflicts that are currently at play in American society are brought to light by this disproportionate representation. Therefore, Marx’s theory suggests that marginalized groups like black people can affect cultural transformation by fighting for increased acknowledgement and equal opportunity. By following this strategy, individuals can push for a more just distribution of resources and power, challenging existing power structures (Hughes et al., 2018)[5].
The disproportionate number of Black victims who have suffered at the hands of cruel officers highlights the depth of racism and oppression the black community faces. The unequal share of power and wealth among different races has been identified as the main factor in these differences. The inability of the legal system to hold officers accountable when they murder unarmed people is seen as contributing to a cycle of discrimination towards black people. A perfect example is the 2020 murder of Breonna Taylor by Louisville police officers. During a police operation, Taylor was fatally wounded while asleep in her house; the deputies responsible were not disciplined for their deeds. This impunity represents the unbalanced distribution of power in America and the failure of our justice system to provide adequate safeguards for vulnerable populations.
Society Structures and Police Brutality Against Black Lives
Durkheim’s social theory emphasizes the impact of social institutions on personal behaviour. Social structures are a strong force that informs people’s behaviour, and if they become non – functional, they could cause deviance and criminal behaviour. Racism, power imbalances and inequality contribute to police’ deviant conduct during incidents of racial profiling against Black Lives Matter. These structures shape law enforcement’s perceptions and attitudes toward black people, leading to unnecessary force, victimization, and killing against unarmed black people. The social and cultural structures that have supported stereotypes of black individuals as threatening, criminal, and violent help to sustain police abuse towards people of colour (Desmond et al., 2016, pp 857-876)[6]. Durkheim’s social theory emphasizes the need to address and reform societal structures that perpetuate inequality and racism (Shaw, 2021 pp)[7]. To combat police violence against African Americans,
Marx’s conflict theory offers a framework for comprehending the sociocultural, political and economic dynamics that play an important role in the excessive use of force towards people of colour. Racial disparities in wealth and power create a setting where particular groups are excluded and victimized, resulting in tensions and disputes. These conflicts frequently lead to social transformation as minority people require additional freedom and representation. However, in police brutality against Black people, most people believe that all Black people are criminals; thus, society, especially the white majority, supports the police. According to Marx’s conflict theory, the actions of law enforcement personnel reflect the broader societal conflicts between those with power and those who do not have power. The desires of the powerful are frequently enforced against the powerless with the assistance of the police, who serve as governmental representatives.
The case of George Floyd, who was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis in 2020, shows how an imbalance of power causes police brutality against Black Lives. Floyd knelt on his neck for over nine minutes even though he kept shouting that he could not breathe. This case led to many mass demonstrations and a national discussion about how police treat Black people. The officer involved in Floyd’s case was eventually found guilty of murder, a rare outcome in police violence against Black Lives. The case was acted upon probably because it attracted international outcry. [8]According to Kaplan et al. (2020, pp.147), when the two theories are put together, you can get a good idea of how these social structures affect how police officers think and feel about Black people and significantly contribute to police brutality.
Lack of Consequences for Police Brutality and Policy Designs
Marx’s conflict theory and Durkheim’s social theory offer insights into the elements responsible for the absence of consequences for police harassment against black people and the policy frameworks that support it. Durkheim holds that societal institutions and structures influence individual behaviour. When these systems break down, it can result in criminal activity and deviance. When it comes to police brutality, dysfunctional social structures like discrimination and inequality that affect the attitudes and perceptions of those in positions of power are to blame for the lack of consequences for police officers. Marx’s conflict theory holds that societal conflicts and inequalities ultimately spur social change (Jeffries et al.,2017, pp. 1-22)[9]. Police’s unfair treatment towards Black people is seen as a symptom of underlying injustices and tensions between various social classes. The unequal power dynamics in American society can be blamed for the lack of consequences for violent police officers.
Carl Max postulated that class differences and violence could primarily drive societal change. To some extent, racial profiling by police in the United States can be understood as an outward depiction of structural differences and intergroup gaps that are found in America. Police officers who profile African Americans are rarely held accountable, likely due to the irregular racist policies that impact American society. Policies like stop-frisk and operations such as the war on drugs contribute significantly to the disproportionate policing of black communities and normalize the systemic racism that fuels both of these problems. This is consistent with Durkheim’s theory, which proposes that broken social structures are at the heart of the problem of social deviance and crime. Marx’s theory also highlights that regulatory designs promoting institutional imbalances and conflicts are at the deepest level of police harassment against African Americans and other people of colour.
Implications and Recommendations for tackling police abuse of African Americans
Getting rid of police violence against Black Lives is a complicated problem that requires a comprehensive solution. It means dealing with society’s structures and how policies are made that keep prejudice and bias going. One suggestion for dealing with this problem is to make police officers answer for what they do. This means putting in place things like police cameras and audit oversight boards that make it easy to find and punish police officers who use violenceReforming policies that result in an oversaturation of law enforcement in predominantly Black neighbourhoods is another crucial step toward ending police brutality. More police violence has occurred as a result of regulations like stop-frisk and militarist operations in the war on drugs which are only meant to victimize black people (Njoku et al., 2020, pp. 262-270)[10]. Targeted discrimination can be reduced if these initiatives are revised to ensure they longer foster racism and prejudice.
Increased openness and responsibility within the police force can also aid in finding common ground between the authorities and African-American communities. This includes both bettering the public’s ability to obtain knowledge about police activity and the information itself. Increased accountability and trust in the police can also result from developing strategies for sociocultural supervision and control of policing. To effectively address the problem of police brutality against people of African descent, a holistic strategy is required. Taking action against police officers who are found to have contributed to the maintenance of systemic racism is one way to foster a more honest and accountable police force. A much more just, fair, and equitable society may result from these efforts to rebuild trust for law enforcement and Black communities.
Conclusion
To summarise, police brutality against Black people is a multifaceted problem requiring a comprehensive response. We can learn more about how social hierarchies and policymaking are connected to this issue by looking at Durkheim’s social theory and Marx’s conflict theory. Letting law enforcement agencies take ownership of their conduct, altering policies that maintain racial and ethnic bias, and attempting to make the police service more open and answerable are all steps in the right direction toward solving this issue and restoring trust between the police and Black communities. Everyone needs to do their part to end systemic racism and discrimination so that we can live in a more just and equitable world.
Bibliography
“An Open Letter to Our Community in Response to Police Brutality against African Americans and a Call to Antiracist Action.” 2020. Human Biology. 92(3): 199-200. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/open-letter-our-community-response-police/docview/2535482271/se-2
Desmond, Matthew, Andrew V. Papachristos, David S. Kirk. 2016. “Police Violence and Citizen Crime Reporting in the Black Community.” American Sociological Review. 81(5): 857-876. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44245485
Garner, Roberta., Black Hawk Hancock. 2014. “Social Theory: From Classical to Modern Theory”. University of Toronto Press. 1(3): 1-332.
Jeffries, Devair., Rhonda Jeffries. 2017. “Marxist Materialism and Critical Race Theory: A Comparative Analysis of Media and Cultural Influence on the Formation of Stereotypes and Proliferation of Police Brutality against Black Men.” Spectrum: A Journal of Black Men. 5(2): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.2979/spectrum.5.2.01
Kaplan, Mitchell A., Marian M. Inguanzo. 2020. “The Historical Facts about Hate Crime in America the Social Workers Role in Victim Recovery and Community Restoration.” Journal of Hate. 16(1). https://doi.org/10.33972/jhs.147
Njoku, Anuli., Yussuf Ahmed, Bolanle Bolaji. 2020. “Police Brutality against Blacks in The United States and Ensuing Protests: Implications for Social Distancing and Black Health during COVID-19.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment. 31(1-4): 262-270. doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2020.1822251
Wright, James E., Dongfang Gaozhoa, Kenneth Dukes, Da’Shay Templeton. 2022. “The Power of Protest on Policing: Black Lives Matter Protest and Civilian Evaluation of the Police.” Public Administration Review. 83(1): 130-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13498
Bocanegra, M., & Lovett, A. (2020). Durkheim’s social theory and police brutality: A review of the literature. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 40(9/10), 963-982. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-02-2020-0044
Shaw, K. (2021). Police brutality and the social structure of inequality: Durkheimian insights on the racialized origins and impacts of policing practices. Sociology Compass, 15(3), e12852. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12852
[1] Wright, James E., Dongfang Gaozhoa, Kenneth Dukes, Da’Shay Templeton. 2022. “The Power of Protest on Policing: Black Lives Matter Protest and Civilian Evaluation of the Police.” Public Administration Review. 83(1): 130-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13498
[2] Bocanegra, M., & Lovett, A. (2020). Durkheim’s social theory and police brutality: A review of the literature. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 40(9/10), 963-982. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-02-2020-0044
[3] “An Open Letter to Our Community in Response to Police Brutality against African Americans and a Call to Antiracist Action.” 2020. Human Biology. 92(3): 199-200. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/open-letter-our-community-response-police/docview/2535482271/se-2
[4] Kaplan, Mitchell A., Marian M. Inguanzo. 2020. “The Historical Facts about Hate Crime in America the Social Workers Role in Victim Recovery and Community Restoration.” Journal of Hate. 16(1). https://doi.org/10.33972/jhs.147
[5] Jeffries, Devair., Rhonda Jeffries. 2017. “Marxist Materialism and Critical Race Theory: A Comparative Analysis of Media and Cultural Influence on the Formation of Stereotypes and Proliferation of Police Brutality against Black Men.” Spectrum: A Journal of Black Men. 5(2): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.2979/spectrum.5.2.01
[6] Desmond, Matthew, Andrew V. Papachristos, David S. Kirk. 2016. “Police Violence and Citizen Crime Reporting in the Black Community.” American Sociological Review. 81(5): 857-876. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44245485
[7] Shaw, K. (2021). Police brutality and the social structure of inequality: Durkheimian insights on the racialized origins and impacts of policing practices. Sociology Compass, 15(3), e12852. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12852
[8]
[9] Jeffries, Devair., Rhonda Jeffries. 2017. “Marxist Materialism and Critical Race Theory: A Comparative Analysis of Media and Cultural Influence on the Formation of Stereotypes and Proliferation of Police Brutality against Black Men.” Spectrum: A Journal of Black Men. 5(2): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.2979/spectrum.5.2.01
[10] Njoku, Anuli., Yussuf Ahmed, Bolanle Bolaji. 2020. “Police Brutality against Blacks in The United States and Ensuing Protests: Implications for Social Distancing and Black Health during COVID-19.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment. 31(1-4): 262-270. doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2020.1822251
Harry Truman Vs. Douglas MacArthur Free Essay
Introduction
At the peak of the Korean War in April 1951, Harry Truman rocked the political system in the United States and amazed the world by dismissing General Douglas MacArthur. Most people outside the United States didn’t know that the president could fire a five-star general, and many Americans didn’t think Truman had the guts to do it. However, Truman did dismiss MacArthur, whose criticism of the president had become increasingly public. After China joined the hostilities in Korea in late 1950, MacArthur intended to escalate the conflict. MacArthur felt the president was restricting his options by banning the bombing of China, which he saw as a waste of lives and a threat to freedom for the United States.
President Harry S. Truman removes General Douglas MacArthur from command of U.S. forces in Korea in what is arguably the most legendary civilian-military confrontation in American history. Truman was still determined to maintain the struggle in Korea as a “limited war,” despite the momentary outcry that the dismissal of MacArthur caused.
Months of tension between the troops and the flashy and self-centred General MacArthur they had built up. South Korea was saved from the communist North Korean invasion in the early stages of the war (which began in June 1950) because of the General’s clever strategies and tactical maneuvers. MacArthur advocated for advancing into North Korea to utterly defeat the communist forces when U.S. and U.N. forces turned the tide of combat in Korea. Truman agreed with the proposal but was concerned that the People’s Republic of China’s communist government would view the invasion as an act of hostility and intervene. MacArthur spoke with Truman in October 1950, reassuring him that China’s intervention chances were low. Then, in November and December of 1950, thousands of Chinese soldiers invaded North Korea and threw themselves against American lines, forcing the Americans to retreat to South Korea. To counter the communist People’s Republic of China, MacArthur requested permission to bomb their country and deploy Nationalist Chinese forces from Taiwan. Truman categorically rejected these demands, and an extremely public battle ensued. Truman dismissed MacArthur and substituted him with General Matthew Ridgway in April 1951. Is it possible that Truman and MacArthur disagreed on approaching the Korean War, leading to MacArthur’s dismissal? This essay supports the claims. Ultimately, Truman and General MacArthur had different strategies for the Korean War, but that wasn’t the only reason for MacArthur’s departure.
Thesis Statement
Historical Background
The world was still nursing its wounds from World War II in 1945. The prospect of being involved in World War Three was terrifying. The Cold War erupted just two short years after WWII had ended. The Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, and 57 other countries were all founding members of the United Nations, which was established as a forum to avert future hostilities. The United States took a hard line in response to the Soviet Union’s strong promotion of communism.
Hostilities broke out when the NKPA crossed the 38th Parallel into South Korean territory. Although the United States was committed to its containment policy, it could not turn a blind eye to the communist menace in Asia. However, neither the president nor the American people wanted a protracted conflict. President Truman chose General Douglas MacArthur to lead American forces in South Korea. MacArthur was a military hero when he arrived at his command in 1945 because of the many troops he had led to victory. After leading the Allies to victory over Japan in World War II, he was promoted to Supreme Commander. MacArthur enjoyed widespread admiration and respect in the United States.
The general promised the president that American forces in Korea would be home for Christmas. Initially, MacArthur pushed North Korean soldiers back beyond the 38th Parallel. However, he made a controversial step when he advised striking Chinese cities, allegedly assisting the North Korean army and continued pushing the North Koreans further north. While advocating for a broader fight, MacArthur minimized the potential for starting a major war in Asia.
Signing a ceasefire along the 38th Parallel was not President Truman’s first choice, but preserving lives was his priority. A ceasefire was not an option in General MacArthur’s eyes. There was an altercation between the two males. For Truman, the war was a chance to halt the development of communism in South Korea. MacArthur saw the conflict as a chance to free the North from communist domination and took an uncompromising stance to achieve this goal.
Findings
The President vs. The General:
Centanni N.G’s article talks about President Harry S. Truman versus General Douglas MacArthur and what led to MacArthur’s firing. On April 11, 1951, President Harry S. Truman declared that General Douglas MacArthur’s service would be terminated. He was widely believed to be let go because of his outspoken criticism of Truman’s approach to the Korean War. MacArthur served for over 50 years before being named the Commander in Chief of U.N. Forces in July 1950. Upon his return home, he was greeted by grateful people and a record-breaking parade.
Priority Based on Location
Dennis Wainstock (1999) finds that Truman and MacArthur had different opinions regarding geographic concerns. The Korean War, in Truman’s eyes, was a lower priority than the fight against communism in Europe, and he worried that diverting too many resources there would leave Europe vulnerable to a Soviet invasion. On the other hand, MacArthur thought that the Korean War should take precedence over everything else. As previously discussed, he thought the communism problem would be solved in Asia.
Disobedience, Skepticism, and News Articles
According to John Wiltz (1978), Chiang Kai-shek proposed a force of 25,000 soldiers to keep the communist Chinese at bay. MacArthur went to Formosa and met with Kai-shek despite Truman’s warnings that doing so would worsen matters. He then waited nearly a week before reporting back to the United States. This, combined with Kai-insinuation she’s of a secret agreement with the General, contributed to the Truman administration’s mistrust of MacArthur. Truman saw this as yet another instance of subversion.
Gilbert’s 2000 research agrees about MacArthur’s Insubordination; without permission from the Truman administration, MacArthur had the Air Forces destroy the Yalu River bridges on November 6, 1950. Truman authorized the airstrikes after the order was made, which further fueled suspicion.
Truman’s frustration with MacArthur largely stemmed from the General’s habit of publicly criticizing the president. He was forthright in his mistrust of Truman’s strategic judgment regarding Korea. He claimed to the press that Truman harmed him by preventing him from attacking China. MacArthur wrote a letter in June 1950 that was read at a yearly Veterans of Foreign Wars event (VFW). He criticized the Truman administration’s Formosa policy in the letter. Truman responded defensively, insisting that the United States had no plans to build a base on Formosa. Truman insisted that MacArthur take back his statement, and the General complied, but the damage had already been done. Truman then insisted that MacArthur checks with Washington before making public statements, but MacArthur refused.
Military Tactics in the Korean Conflict
Allen Potter (1972) said MacArthur and Truman’s strategies diverged significantly during the Korean War. MacArthur advocated a “victory” strategy for the war, while Truman favoured a “limited war” approach. When it came to communist aggression in Korea, Truman’s goal was containment rather than punishment of the perpetrators. To demonstrate American might and put an end to communism in the Far East, MacArthur proposed an attack on China and the use of nuclear weapons against China and North Korea.
The Truman administration was on the fence about supporting MacArthur’s plan to land at Inchon, codenamed Operation CHROMITE. The North Koreans’ supply lines were successfully cut, and their forces were scattered due to this manoeuvre. Then, with no one guarding the centre, the X Corps and the 8th Army pushed up the left and right coasts. Chinese forces quickly engulfed a large portion of both forces after they crossed the border despite warnings from Chinese authorities that the United States does not send troops to the border. A violent conflict broke out between communist Chinese forces and U.N. and Korean allies. MacArthur considered the attack from communist China a new war and thought Truman should use all of America’s military might against the Chinese. But Truman sought to negotiate a truce with China. James, D. Clayton agrees on this point.
Last Resort
The PRC first extended peace overtures in January 1951. China requested a conference of the seven major powers to discuss the future of Korea, Formosa, and China’s place in the United Nations. John Spanier (2013) writes Despite the PRC’s offer of peace; the United States refused to accept it because it believed the Chinese nationalists on Formosa to be the legitimate government of China. Instead, the United Nations condemned the PRC for aggression at Truman’s insistence.
MacArthur made the independent decision to irritate the Chinese further. His decision to issue a request to the PRC in March came after he still needed to consult with Washington. The Chinese were ordered to pull back their troops by MacArthur’s orders. In the alternative, he threatened to bring China to its knees. MacArthur’s attempt to unilaterally define and influence U.S. policy infuriated Truman, and the president ultimately decided to fire MacArthur. But Truman waited, and Congress approved NATO in early April of 1951, showing they were on board with Truman’s Europe-first policy. The ultimatum incident had grown stale, and Truman needed a new pretext to dismiss MacArthur.
According to Gilbert 2014, A congressman learned within a few months of MacArthur’s plan to use Chinese Nationalist forces from Formosa in the Korean War because of a leak from MacArthur. It goes against Truman’s diplomatic policies and would only inflame the PRC further. Truman began discussing MacArthur’s dismissal with the JCS after Representative Joseph W. Martin read the General’s message to Congress (Joint Chiefs of Staff). The Truman Administration first proposed negotiating a truce with China in March 1951. After hearing about this plan, on March 24, 1951, General MacArthur issued an ultimatum to China. He wrote that China’s military might be exaggerated and that he would negotiate a peace settlement with them if they shared the same goals as the United Nations in Korea. Truman was outraged, and it was clear that the Chinese felt insulted. He knew he couldn’t put up with MacArthur’s behaviour and, with the backing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, decided to fire him.
Meanwhile, according to Pearlman 2008, General Matthew Ridgway was enforcing the Eighth Army’s position in a good area about 20 miles north of the 38th Parallel as part of Operation Rugged. Many U.S. military officials were expecting another PRC offensive, and Ridgway was preparing for it. The JCS was concerned that MacArthur’s lack of diplomacy in the face of such an attack could escalate the situation and bring about World War III. Truman fired MacArthur on April 11, 1951, after receiving unanimous support for the decision from the JCS.
Conclusion
By early 1951, Truman was eager to end the Korean War, which had grown tiresome for Americans. Truman was infuriated by MacArthur’s threat to the PRC because it only strengthened China’s resolve to continue fighting. MacArthur’s unreliability grew as he increasingly made decisions without first consulting Washington, even though his prediction that Stalin and the USSR would avoid a war with the United States was correct. It’s unclear what prompted MacArthur’s erratic behaviour, but sensing the end of his career, he sought martyrdom. Some might say he was trying to get fired to become a Republican hero and run for president. Regardless, MacArthur disregarded direct orders to exercise restraint and diplomacy from the President at Wake Island. It’s strange that MacArthur, charged with protecting the country, would disobey his constitutional duty to serve his commander-in-chief. American politics are heavily based on upholding the constitutional order.
Truman made a brilliant move by allying himself with the JCS in their fight against MacArthur. MacArthur, a Republican Party hero and an enormously popular figure in American politics, was immune to arbitrary dismissal. After MacArthur’s firing, many Republican members of Congress began suggesting they could remove Truman through impeachment, so it was very smart of Truman to consult with the JCS. Truman was spared impeachment thanks to the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), the highest military authority in the United States. While prudent personally, Truman’s actions had far-reaching political consequences. The JCS became a political force it hadn’t been before because of its support for Truman, which may have prevented his impeachment. In the following decades, presidents sought the JCS’s counsel on military decisions to limit political fallout in the event of a failed operation.
MacArthur’s backers were justified in feeling betrayed by his firing. MacArthur was an indispensable leader in the Pacific theatre of World War II and the architect of the successful landing at Inchon that helped end the Korean War. They had a right to be upset with the fairly rude way Truman, thanks to his botched transmission, had dismissed this General who had dedicated so much of his life to fighting for the U.S., even if they acknowledged that some of his recent decisions, such as crossing the 38th Parallel or making unilateral threats against the PRC, were not well thought out. After being fired, MacArthur returned to the United States to extravagant parades and celebrations in San Francisco and New York. Historians need help reconciling MacArthur’s contradictory actions and legacy. He was a military genius who did great work for America and a narcissist who disobeyed superiors and led the country into unnecessary conflicts.
Bibliography
Centanni, Nicole G. “The” Inevitable” recall: a historical, psychological and conflict management style assessment of the leader-follower relationship between Harry S. Truman and General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War.” 1998.
Gilbert, Robert. “Douglas MacArthur: Disordered Narcissist.” Constructing the Past 15, no. 1 (2014): 5.
James, D. Clayton. Command Crisis: MacArthur and the Korean War. No. 24. United States Air Force Academy, 1982.
Patterson, Amy, Wynell Schamel, and LEE ANN POTTER. “Truman’s firing of General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War.” Social Education 64, no. 7 (2000): 441-441.
Pearlman, Michael D. Truman, and MacArthur: Policy, Politics, and the Hunger for Honor and Renown. Indiana University Press, 2008.
Pollard, James E. “President Truman and the Press.” Journalism Quarterly 28, no. 4 (1951): 457–468.
Potter, Allen R. The Truman-MacArthur controversy, a study in political-military relations. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1972.
Spanier, John W. “The Truman-MacArthur Controversy and the Korean War.” In The Truman-MacArthur Controversy and the Korean War. Harvard University Press, 2013.
Weinstock, Dennis. Truman, MacArthur, and the Korean War. No. 176. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999.
Wiltz, John Edward. “Truman and MacArthur: The Wake Island Meeting.” The Journal of Military History 42, no. 4 (1978): 169.
Healthcare Finance: The Cost Of Healthcare Free Essay
Introduction
The cost of healthcare has recently been under intense examination, and calls for rate transparency have grown louder and more earnest. The amount charged for services in the healthcare sector varies significantly from person to person, as well as from country to country. Hospital administrators must be ready for rising demands for transparency, which the government may voluntarily impose. The most recent examination of healthcare pricing, the attitude of healthcare management toward transparency, the impact of national transparency legislation on healthcare pricing, and the application and morality of price-transferring in healthcare settings are all covered in this essay.
Latest Examination of Healthcare Costs
The cost of healthcare has been under much scrutiny in recent years. With the high price of healthcare services, patients, consumer organizations, and legislators are calling for more transparency in pricing. Before receiving their reimbursements, which frequently include hefty deductibles and copays, many patients need help understanding the actual cost of the treatments they may be receiving. Patients find it difficult to make informed decisions about their healthcare due to this loss of transparency, which puts them at a disadvantage when negotiating costs with their providers (Keehan et al., 2020). Given the need for more openness in the sector, which makes it difficult for patients to appreciate the value of their healthcare offers, the investigation of healthcare pricing is appropriate.
The Role of Healthcare Management in Transparency
Healthcare managers can be essential in establishing pricing transparency. They can begin by giving patients lucid and succinct information at the expense of healthcare services. Companies can adopt standardized pricing models that patients can comprehend to make healthcare pricing more transparent. Management can collaborate with legislators to draft laws requiring fee transparency in the healthcare industry (Keehan et al., 2020). Healthcare management can also utilize information analytics to estimate the cost of healthcare services and provide this information to patients, enabling them to make educated decisions about their healthcare.
Being Ready for Future Requests for Transparency
Healthcare management must adopt a proactive approach to prepare for expanding transparency requirements. They must put more effort into improving patient communication with their organization regarding the cost of healthcare services (Biswas et al., 2021). They might make efforts to ensure that pricing information is easily accessible on their company’s website and in their billing statements (Keehan et al., 2020). Management can also invest in information analytics to better understand healthcare services’ prices and make informed pricing decisions. To ensure that all patients have access to the same information, healthcare management must also advocate for regulations requiring price transparency in the industry.
State Transparency Laws’ Effect on Healthcare Costs
State transparency legislation aims to increase healthcare price transparency. According to these laws, healthcare providers must give patients clear, concise records of the costs associated with their services. From state to state, different transparency laws have different effects on healthcare costs (Biswas et al., 2021). While in some areas, these regulations have decreased the price of healthcare services; they have had less of an impact in others (Keehan et al., 2020). Even with national transparency laws, determining the actual cost of healthcare services can often take time.
Finding the Accurate Prices of Medical Services
Even with national transparency regulations, discovering the precise cost of healthcare services may be challenging. This is because healthcare vendors use a variety of pricing strategies and because medical billing is a complicated process (Konstantopoulos et al., 2022). Many healthcare organizations charge exorbitant rates for the same services, depending on the patient’s insurance plan or the payment method. Also, patients could receive separate bills for particular healthcare treatments, making it challenging to estimate the actual cost of their care (Biswas et al., 2021). However, people can work with their healthcare providers to learn more about their costs and, if feasible, to reduce them.
Healthcare Settings’ Cost-Shifting
Moving the cost of healthcare services from one payer to all others is a process known as cost-shifting. Vendors frequently charge different prices for the same service in healthcare settings, depending on the patient’s insurance coverage (Konstantopoulos et al., 2022). Cost-shifting can be unethical because it could lead to patients needing insurance or with less comprehensive coverage being charged higher costs than those with more comprehensive coverage (Biswas et al., 2021). Disparities in access to care and a financial burden on vulnerable groups might result from this.
Cost-Shifting is sometimes accomplished by negotiating specific fee charges with exceptional payers, such as insurance companies or governmental programs. For instance, compared to personal insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid applicants negotiate cheaper charge rates with merchants (Konstantopoulos et al., 2022). Moreover, providers could charge patients with private insurance more for the same services to offset the lower reimbursement costs from government programs (Biswas et al., 2021). Those without insurance frequently pay the most significant fees for healthcare services. Therefore this can also happen to them.
Some contend that cost-moving is a crucial technique for carriers to ensure financial equilibrium and maintain the ability to provide patients with high-quality care (Keehan et al., 2020). Others counter that it adds to the broader annoyance of rising healthcare costs and should be addressed through a more thorough overhaul of the healthcare system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, price-shifting is a widespread practice in healthcare settings that may result in inequities in access to care and financial burden on already vulnerable communities. While some contend that businesses must maintain economic stability, others contend that this causes rising healthcare costs and must be addressed through comprehensive reform. Healthcare managers must be aware of this issue and advocate for fair and transparent pricing policies that prioritize patient access and affordability.
References
Biswas, N., Mustapha, T., Khubchandani, J., & Price, J. H. (2021). The nature and extent of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in healthcare workers. Journal of community health, 46, 1244-1251.
Keehan, S. P., Cuckler, G. A., Poisal, J. A., Sisko, A. M., Smith, S. D., Madison, A. J., … & Hardesty, J. C. (2020). National Health Expenditure Projections, 2019–28: Expected Rebound In Prices Drives Rising Spending Growth: National health expenditure projections for 2019–2028. Health Affairs, 39(4), 704–714.
Konstantopoulos, A., Chantzaras, A., Ktena, D., Karokis, A., & Yfantopoulos, I. (2022). HPR142 The Impact of Cost-Shifting Policies on the Pharmaceutical Sector in Greece During the Financial Crisis. Value in Health, 25(12), S258.