Political Polarization As To US Healthcare Reform Sample Essay

Introduction

Political polarization is a significant issue that affects most aspects of policymaking in the United States. In recent years, political polarization on the topic of healthcare has become especially prominent (Beaussier and Raillard 383). This can impair the efforts to promote healthcare reform, as political polarization makes it difficult to achieve consensus between political parties (Patel and Rushefsky 16). The present paper will seek to introduce the topic of political polarization with regards to healthcare in the U.S., explain its significance, and outline themes and resources that could be used in constructing an argument.

Main body

The concrete, practical problem that will be addressed in the project is how news sources, specifically CNN and FOX, enhance political polarization in the debate on healthcare in the U.S., thus not allowing for any compromise or acceptable decision for the majority to be made. The chosen problem directly affects the delivery of health care in the country, thus greatly impacting the general public. For instance, single-payer healthcare would provide universal access to care and medical resources. However, due to political polarization, the adoption of this system has become barely possible (Imbrie-Moore). Without healthcare reform, many people have no access to vital medical care, which affects their health, well-being, and longevity.

In order to address the problem, it is important to convince the programming directors of news channels, such as Fox and CNN, that this is a major problem that has a significant impact on the general public. The cost of the problem to the audience is the reputation of the respective news sources. It is widely recognized that news media have an ethical responsibility to deliver truthful information to the public in an objective, unbiased manner.

News on CNN and Fox often use biased language and offer one-sided coverage of issues, which contributes to political polarization. The damaged reputation of major news media affects the people’s use of these resources. According to a recent study by Fletcher and Park, feelings of distrust towards mainstream news channels and newspapers cause people to switch to other news resources, such as social media, blogs, and digital-born news providers (1281). Hence, by not fulfilling their ethical responsibility and causing polarization on the topic of healthcare, news channels, such as Fox and CNN, lose viewers and generate less profit.

When constructing an argument for the target audience, it will be essential to review sources that discuss the impact of polarization on healthcare reform, the role of news media in the process, and the possible outcomes of releasing polarizing news for the news media. Books, peer-reviewed journal articles, and journalist publications from reputable sources should be considered as the primary sources of information.

For example, the book by Patel and Rushefsky will be useful for placing the practical problem in a broader context and explaining its influence (16). The two articles, “Does Single-Payer Stand a Chance?” by Imbrie-Moore and “American Health Care Policy in a Time of Party Polarization” by Beaussier and Raillard will also contribute to the argument by providing information about political polarization and its impact on healthcare reform. Finally, a study by Fletcher and Park could be used to explain the potential outcomes of releasing polarizing news, as the article links distrust with lower use of news media (1281).

Conclusion

Overall, the topic of political polarization and its impact on healthcare is critical to contemporary American society, as it impacts the adoption of healthcare reform. To address this issue, it is necessary to persuade the programming directors of CNN and Fox that this is a major issue requiring a solution. The resources and arguments described in the present proposal will assist in achieving this goal.

Works Cited

Beaussier, Anne-Laure, and Sarah-Louise Raillard. “American Health Care Policy in a Time of Party Polarization.” French Review of Political Sciences, vol. 64, no. 3, 2014, pp. 383-405.

Fletcher, Richard, and Sora Park. ” The Impact of Trust in the News Media on Online News Consumption and Participation.” Digital Journalism, vol. 5, no. 10, 2017, pp. 1281-1299.

Imbrie-Moore, Will. “Does Single-Payer Stand a Chance?” Harvard Political Review. 2018. Web.

Patel, Kant, and Mark E. Rushefsky. Health Care Politics and Policy in America. 4th ed., ME Sharpe, 2014.

Publicly Vs. Privately-Owned Enterprises

Introduction

The two most prevalent forms of company ownership in the world are private and publicly owned enterprises. Each form of a property provides its shareholders and the company with certain advantages and disadvantages. Privately-owned businesses usually make up for the majority of the small and medium sectors, whereas many large companies are public and trade stock on the financial markets (Tricker, 2015). Nevertheless, some large companies choose to remain private. The purpose of this paper is to compare the pros and cons of both types of companies and analyze why certain large organizations chose one form of property over the other.

Pros and Cons of Publicly-Owned vs. Privately-Owned Enterprises

There are several considerable benefits to each form of company organization. Publicly-owned enterprises usually enter the market with an initial public offering, which is sold to potential investors in return for a percentage of future income. This type of offering can quickly provide finances to a company ready for expanding its reach and its potential market share. In addition, the company gets plenty of financial media exposure due to being present in the major markets. However, this growth comes at the price of decentralization, as new shareholders are allowed to affect company decision-making (Tricker, 2015). A public company undergoes great scrutiny and has to file reports on many of its financial activities, which is expensive and time-consuming.

Privately-owned companies do not have the advantage of a large pool of investors. Every individual sponsor is contacted privately, meaning a limited amount of capital derived from such activities. In addition, privately-owned companies have unlimited liability towards their owners (Tricker, 2015). However, privately-owned enterprises are significantly easier to manage due to a smaller pool of corporate shareholders, fewer to no annual reports presented to the government and the market, as well as substantial benefits and tax cuts.

Cases of Google, Facebook, Bloomberg, and Dell

Large companies have various reasons for becoming public, staying private, or turning from public to private enterprises under internal and external circumstances. Google went public in 2004, prior to its massive expansion into the market. The reason why the company went public was to attract investors to fund the predicted expansion. They managed to attract over 1.67 billion dollars in share sales (Strom, 2018).

Facebook, on the other hand, did so for completely different reasons. The company was growing too big, as the number of individual shareholders exceeded 500. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rule from 1964, any company with 500 or more shareholders has to disclose its financial operations just like public companies do (Miller, 2014). In that sense, Facebook was a private company in name only, and becoming public only improved its position.

Dell was forced to go private from being public in 2013, due to its relatively poor standing in the market. Additional expenses, poor ratings, and disclosure demands hurt the company, which was the reason why it had to go private (Voigt, Buliga, & Michl, 2016). A few months ago, Dell went public again, without an initial public offering. Such a motion further illustrates that the initial privatization was made to cut losses and restructure the company.

Bloomberg was created as a private enterprise and remained that way throughout the years. Being private allows Michael Bloomberg (company owner) more flexibility through majority ownership, fewer efforts spent on financial disclosure, and reduced tax rates. Bloomberg has its niche and does not seek to grow, making a public offering a useless venture (Voigt et al., 2016).

Conclusions

Privately-owned enterprises provide greater management flexibility, financial privacy, and tax cuts, at the expense of personal liability and slower growth rates. Public companies can leverage large amounts of money to fund their expansion and attract additional investors. However, this comes at the price of compliance with the Sarbanes Oxley Act and outside influence of the financial market. Companies like Google, Facebook, Dell, and Bloomberg have their reasons for choosing one form of organization over the other.

References

Miller, N. (2014). The Facebook IPO primer. Sudbury, MA: eBookIt.

Strom, T. E. (2018). Expand and centralise: Twenty years of Google. Arena Magazine, 123, 23-27.

Tricker, B. (2015). Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Voigt, K. I., Buliga, O., Michl, K. (2016). Business model pioneers: How innovators successfully implement new business models. New York, NY: Springer.

Is The United States Of America An Empire?

Even though over a century has passed since the War of 1898, there is still much controversy surrounding the question of whether the USA should or should not be considered an empire. Many scholars, politicians, and other actors have expressed their opinions on the issue. The present paper will discuss the arguments expressed in several editorials from the 21st-century newspapers and compare them to the historical cases addressed in class.

DeArment’s editorial introduces the issue of imperialism in the USA in the allegorical light (D.1). The author compares the country to a beautiful mansion whose owner did not need to maintain the building because it was situated in a poor neighborhood. However, as time passed, other houses started looking as well as the man’s, and soon, some mansions were even better than his (DeArment D.1).

With the help of this comparison, the author demonstrates his vision of the U.S.’s current condition. DeArment does not doubt that America is an imperialist nation, but he remarks that it is not in its best state at the moment (D.1). DeArment notes that as well as any other empire, America suffers “delusions of permanence” and ignores the problems that are destroying it from the inside (D.1). DeArment is convinced that the U.S. is going to have the same fate as France, Rome, dynastic China, and Britain did (D.1). To avoid collapse, according to DeArment, the country should stop “deluding” itself that it will stay on top forever (D.1).

In Davenport’s editorial, the U.S. is also marked as an imperialist nation (A.7). The author notes that military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are only “elements” of a much larger issue that is “almost as old as the United States itself,” and this problem is imperialism (Davenport A.7). The reason why the country should be considered an empire is its desire to gain some specific territories. As Davenport mentions, the U.S. always gives “high-minded excuses” for going into war, but the true cause is merely the wish to obtain more land (A.7).

Since such behavior is typical of imperialist countries, the author is confident that the USA is an empire. Davenport remarks that imperialism is ” ingrained” in the mind so deeply that one single person can’t help the nation overcome it (A.7). At the same time, the author admits that no empire can last forever, and the U.S. one will eventually recede or crumble (Davenport A.7). However, it is necessary to continue making efforts for humanity and peace.

The third editorial under analysis contains the views opposing the first two articles. As well as DeArment and Davenport, Brendon considers the USA as an empire. However, this author does not find the country’s fate so pessimistic and does not believe that the U.S.’s imperialistic plans are doomed to failure. According to Brendon, analyzing the current situation in the USA from the point of view of some similar occasions from the past is irrelevant and cannot offer reliable forecasts for the future.

The author notes that even with “the crushing burden of … debt” and “crippling budget deficit,” the country is not going to fail (Brendon). Brendon remarks that comparing the U.S. to Rome cannot be justified because the two empires have many differences. Unlike Rome, America has a powerful army to defend itself and a reliable industrial base to support its economy (Brendon). When rejecting the parallels between the USA and Britain, Brendon remarks that the former is much stronger than the latter. Thus, Brendon considers the U.S. as a stable empire.

The reviewed editorials may be compared to the historical arguments studied in class. In particular, it is necessary to involve Mark Twain’s views on imperialism in this discussion. Twain expresses anti-imperialistic views and is appalled by American politics (n.p.). In his book, the writer repeatedly mentions that the USA has no business in any foreign country (Twain n.p.). As well as Davenport, Twain condemns the military intrusion in other counties’ business.

The author remarks that “a worthy mission” for the U.S. would have been if it helped other countries to become free from tyranny (n.p.). However, America’s choice to get foreign states “under … heel” instead of acting as a protector is regarded as wrong by Twain (n.p.). The author highly disapproves of imperialism and views it as a morally and politically wrong choice of government.

The analyzed editorials and class reading allow making the following conclusions. The U.S. is considered an empire by all authors. Whereas one author (Brendon) does not feel pessimistic about America’s imperialistic future, others view imperialism as a negative characteristic and find it a destructive way of development. Twain and Davenport condemn the military activity of the USA. DeArment and Brendon argue about the possible collapse in case the country keeps its current strategy. What is similar about all reviewed sources is that the U.S. is undoubtedly an imperialistic country that strives to gain specific lands, frequently under the pretext of peace-making or without any justified reasons at all.

Works Cited

Brendon, Piers. “Like Rome Before the Fall? Not Yet.” Editorial. The New York Times. 2010. Web.

Davenport, Gene. “U.S. Is an Imperialist Nation.” Editorial. The Jackson Sun. 2009, p. A.7.

DeArment, Alaric. “U.S. Is an Empire Now in Decline.” Editorial. Star Press. 2008, p. D.1.

Twain, Mark. Weapons of Satire: Anti-Imperialist Writings on the Philippine-American War. Edited by Jim Zwick, Syracuse University Press, 1992.

error: Content is protected !!