Hi, I was wondering if my essay is cogent and succint. Well, my professor says that I need to be more "cogent" and "succint," which I am not. How do I get more discipline, whereby I am relating to the subject and not philosphizing.
Anyhow, here is my essay. Thanks!
Issue 11, Question 1 What are the proposals for universal healthcares?
There are a number of proposals that have been made in the United States for improving healthcare and making it available to more Americans. One of the ideas is a single-payer system, that is, the government should be the primary purchaser of services, but the providers themselves are private. In this way, with the massive purchases, the government has the bargaining power to bring down prices. Another plan is that the government should provide just the basic coverage and allow the citizens to buy supplemental coverage. Also, there is a suggestion of having a completely socialized system whereby the government directly employs most of the providers: doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and many others. Since the providers are government employees that are paid in monthly sums, there is less incentives to treat patients excessively and prescribe unnecessary medications, resulting in a lower total costs. Also, there is a proposal of "sickness funds" that is neither private nor public, that act both as payers and purchasers for their member's care; however, the funds can not discriminate against its member based on age or health status, by increasing rates or denying coverage. To even the playing fields, the government would then absorb the risk by subsidizing the funds that have more unhealthy members. These proposals are currently active in countries such as Canada, Great Britain, France, and Germany.
Issue 11, Question 2 Why does Goodman view tha it is unlikely...and how would his opponent respond?
In John Goodman's analysis, he believes it is unlikely that the defects of national health insurance systems can easily be reformed because of bureaucracy and politics. Goodman states that in a single-payer or socialized systems, the power to allocate limited resources are placed in the hands of politicians vying for votes rather than doctors or the needs of patients. In my opinion, Klein, a proponent of universal healthcare, would respond by stating that albeit the resources (capital) are from the government; the decisions to whom and when patients need to be treated or cured would still lie in the hands of the doctors and nurses. He would point out that the doctors, not politicians, are the people treating these patients and based on their medical professional experience would know which patients are priorities.
Issue 14, Question 1 Do you believe an "enforcement only" approach..., if not what do you propose?
In my opinion, I do not believe an "enforcement only" approach will stem illegal immigration. The notion of an "enforcement only" policy neglects to consider the fact that there is a massive number of illegal immigrants, somewhere around 10 millions to 12 millions, and possibly higher. The amount of money and manpower to find and deport them would be staggering, if not improbable. This proposal would only increase the profit that smugglers would get and increase the inhumane treatments of unscrupulous employers. Rather, I believe the McCain-Kennedy proposals of a comprehensive reform which includes amnesty, a legal way for the illegal immigrants already here to attain permanent residency and an increase of (temporary or permanent) work visas quotas, in addition to a stricter enforcement and an expansion of border control. I must say though, that any immigration reforms would require an enormous amount of money that the United States government currently does not have. However, I believe the latter is a more humane approach.
Issue 14, Question 2 *How do the authors (we read) view amnesty?
Krikorian view amnesty as a failed measure against illegal immigration. In addition, he insists that, according INS, amnesty almost certainly increased illegal immigration, as legal immigrants find ways for their family and relatives to come to America, even if it meant illegally. Sharry, however, views amnesty as a means to "take immigration out of the black market," by providing an avenue for the over 10 million illegal immigrants to come under the law. With that said, I side with Sharry's opinion with the condition that enforcement on new illegal immigration is much stricter and that our borders must be more secured; or else, amnesty would just be a free pass for new illegal aliens that made it across the borders. Due to our American values on education, there are less and less American citizens willing to work for low paying jobs such as farmers and toilet cleaners; the immigrants would assume these positions. In addition, there are many illegal immigrants that have children born in the United States, which by law, are "natural born citizens." The deportation of the illegal parents would create more trouble than it would seemingly solve.
Issue 15, Question 1
Justice Scalia puts forth a number of reasons in supporting the constitutionality of Ten Commandments display in McCreary. First, Scalia states that the Founding Fathers believed in morality as a crucial part of the well-being of society and that religion is the best way to promote it. Then, Scalia uses history and tradition to explain that the purpose of the Establishment Clause permitted disregard for polytheists and atheists because the nation was founded on a monotheistic beliefs. Also, Scalia presented the fact that Presidents have always invocated God. Scalia, then, continued to reasons that the Ten Commandments does not favor a monotheistic religion over; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all believe in the Ten Commandments. I disagreed with this explanation because the acceptance of his reasoning means that I have not fully assimilated in America unless I convert to a monotheistic religion.
Issue 15, Question 2 Give an overview of Justice Steven's opinion on the display of the Ten Commandments. What is the difference between..
Justice Stevens believed that the display of the Ten Commandments at the Texas's State Capitol had no relation to Texas's historic preservation or the found of our Nation. He mainly points to the words "I AM the LORD thy God," which are in bold, can be perceived by observers as governmental favoritism toward monotheistic beliefs. Stevens explains that the difference between personally held views of a politician and the collective expression of a government is that the speeches or the invocation of God by politicians are perceived as an individual's personal beliefs and it does not represent the government; however, the collective expression of a government, in which he described, as the permanent placement of a textual or religious display on state property, are perceived by unsuspected observers as governmental approval of a certain belief.
Issue 18, Question 1
Upon examining the 2 selections on, "Is the Use of Torture Against Terrorist Suspects Ever Justified," there are a high number of areas of agreement between the two authors. Krauthammer believes that even though he despised terrorists, we should provide them with humane treatment because it is morally right as humane people. Sullivan concedes that torture is necessary in one of Krauthammer's hypothetical scenario, the "ticking time bomb": a million people might die to a nuclear bomb, you catch the terrorist(s), and you know that he knows where the bomb, but he is not talking. Sullivan's excerpt hinted that he may believe in the Utilitarian philosophy. With that said, I believe that Krauthammer could eventually persuade Sullivan to adopt his stance completely if those that planned and or executed the torture subject themselves to the punishment of torturing someone. That is, the torturers are voluntarily breaking the law to protect a large amount of people or the nation.
