Question

Write a research paper on (S. 1895) lower health care cost act 2019

Develop a policy analysis utilizing the following guidance. This should be five to seven pages and include no fewer than 10 quality source citations using a standard APA style.

1. Introduction: Include a brief summary of the bill/policy and where it was introduced/adopted. Provide a thesis statement at the end of the introduction that gives a roadmap about what the paper will cover.
2. Problem:
   1. What is the health problem? Options might include:
      1. Basic needs are not being met (e.g., People are not receiving the health care they need)
      2. People are not being treated fairly (e.g., People with disabilities do not have access to public places)
      3. Resources are distributed unfairly (e.g., Educational services are more limited in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty)
      4. Current policies or laws are not enforced or effective (e.g., The current laws on clean water are neither enforced nor effective)
      5. Existing or emerging conditions pose a threat to public health, safety, education, or well-being (e.g., New threats from terrorist activity)
   2. Study the issue or problem. Outline the facts, myths, or values associated with the issue. Consider exploring:
      1. The results of previous research about the issue or problem.
      2. List who or what is affected by the current state of affairs. Ask:
         1. How are they affected? (e.g., 50% of those seeking shelter in a local homeless shelter are turned away for lack of space)
         2. What needs to be done differently to lessen the problem? (e.g., Screenings for learning disabilities could to be done with all children to identify learning problems early and address them)
         3. What do those who are affected by the issue think would be an ideal situation?
3. Policy:
   1. What is being proposed? What are the planned policy goals?
   2. How have similar issues been resolved through policy decisions in other places or organizations? (If this is available. You might not have comparative data.)
   3. Review whether the planned policy goals, strategies and actions fit the situation. Consider whether they:
      1. Are timed well (e., Is this a good time to raise the issue?)
      2. Use available resources and allies (i.e., Does it take advantage of the group's strengths? Engage its allies? Deter opponents?)
      3. Are likely to work (i.e., Does it correct the original problem or inequality?)
4. Politics:
   1. Indicate potential allies and opponents of policy development efforts.
      1. Who are the advocates? (Individuals or organizations who share common values or are engaged in related efforts. Are they leading lobbying efforts, providing financial support, etc?)
         1. How will passage of this policy impact the advocates?
      2. Identify likely opponents:
         1. Who is the opposition?
         2. How is this policy a threat or violation of their values?
         3. How is their opposition made known?
   2. How has the politics of the bill – or even just the legislative process – helped or hindered passage?
5. Conclusion

Answer 1

Ans a...Poverty, hunger, homelessness, illiteracy, preventable disease, polluted air and water, and most of the other ills that beset humanity have the same root cause: the inequitable distribution of the planet's wealth and resources.

Ans B...The world holds enough to satisfy everyone's need," Mahatma Gandhi once observed, "but not everyone's greed." In these few words he identified the main cause of most of the world's social and economic problems--and also pointed to their obvious solution.

Poverty, hunger, homelessness, illiteracy, preventable disease, polluted air and water, and most of the other ills that beset humanity have the same root cause: the inequitable distribution of the planet's wealth and resources.

People who have an adequate income, no matter where they may live, are well-fed, well-housed, well-educated. They don't have to visit food banks or sleep under bridges. This simple truth underscores the equally obvious fact that the answer to most human misery and injustice is a fair allocation of the world's wealth.

Unfortunately, the economic system that now predominates in most parts of the world--unfettered global capitalism--promotes, defends, and even extols an obscenely unequal distribution of wealth. Its three basic principles are greed, individualism, and competition--all of which militate against economic and social justice.

So we have a system in which 400 billionaires own more wealth than the poorest two-and-a-half billion people. And the proponents of this grossly inequitable system see nothing wrong with it. They would presumably not object if eventually 600 billionaires owned more wealth than 90% of the rest of humankind. That's what a free market is all about, they would remind us. In a system based on the survival of the fittest, the financially unfit don't survive--and don't deserve to.

Of course, this application of the law of the jungle to human society is not new. It reigned supreme in the 1800s when the "robber barons" of business were free to exploit the world's resources and workers for their own enrichment. Poverty and hunger were rampant then, too. But the first three-quarters of the 20th century saw the emergence of governments and unions committed to alleviating human misery. Gradually, through most of the century, the lives of most people were improved by the introduction of a wide range of social programs--programs that were largely funded through progressive legislation, a fair tax system, and strong, government-supported unions.

It seemed for a while, especially in the first three decades after World War II, that corporate leaders and investors were resigned to these constraints on their greed. But in fact they always resented the "social contract" that had been imposed on them, and were determined to break loose from it whenever they could. That opportunity came in the mid-1970s with the simultaneous launch of globalized "free trade" and the development of new computer and communications technologies. Corporations were able to escape from national limits and boundaries--and from any compulsion to keep sharing their profits with society's less fortunate.

With their enormous increase in wealth came more power and influence, including the power to buy and control most politicians. Governments were transformed from agents of wealth redistribution into the legislative branches of big business, devoted to helping the rich become richer at the expense of everyone else.

The labour unions, bereft of government backing and facing employers free to relocate to low-wage regions, were seriously weakened. Some still manage to extract more in wages and benefits than a company is willing to concede, but the unions certainly cannot be expected to compensate for the massive withdrawal of governments from their responsibility to redistribute income from the rich to the poor.

The upshot is that the function of helping the poor, the hungry and the homeless is now mainly taking the form of charity. Thousands of charitable organizations beg the corporations and the high- and middle-income earners to share some of their affluence with the needy. Food banks feed hundreds of thousands of the ingdigent. Appeals for charitable donations clog the mails, the airwaves, and the telephone lines. Motorists encounter children at busy intersections begging for loonies to help save school programs threatened by government cutbacks.

All of the causes championed by charities are worthwhile. All of the hungry and destitute they help are deserving. But their growing dependence on handouts has two major flaws: it perpetuates--perhaps even institutionalizes--a system built on avarice and inequity; and it ensures that the problems of poverty and hunger will persist and even get worse because the proceeds of charity alone will never be enough to eliminate them.

Social activists are striving mightily--and with some success-- against the many manifestations of corporate power and economic injustice: against industrial pollution, free trade, genetically modified foods, pesticides, war-mongering, the AIDS epidemic, the IMF and World Bank, privatization--it's a long list. As we fight these battles, however, it's important always to keep in mind that they are all aspects of the same overarching problem, and that they all have a common solution.

The problem is an unfair distribution of wealth, and the solution--however it may be achieved--is a fair distribution of wealth. Any strategies that ignore that simple truth waste our time, squander our resources, and undermine our efforts to create a better world.

Ans c. Following the Inequality Policy Brief, here are ways to minimize the rising economic inequality prevalent in the United States. Haas Institute Director john a. powell discusses why these policies will work in slowing the growth in inequality.

Increase the minimum wage : Research shows that higher wages for the lowest-paid workers has the potential to help nearly 4.6 million people out of poverty and add approximately $2 billion to the nation's overall real income. Additionally, increasing the minimum wage does not hurt employment nor does it retard economic growth.

Expand the Earned Income Tax. : In recent years, the EITC has been shown to have a positive impact on families, lifting roughly 4.7 million children above the poverty line on an annual basis. Increases in the EITC can pull more children out of poverty while providing more economic support for the working poor, especially single parents entering the workforce.

Build assets for working families : Policies that encourage higher savings rates and lower the cost of building assets for working and middle class households can provide better economic security for struggling families. New programs that automatically enroll workers in retirement plans and provide a savings credit or a federal match for retirement savings accounts could help lower-income households build wealth. Access to fair, low-cost financial services and home ownership are also important pathways to wealth.

End residential segregation : Higher levels of racial residential segregation within a metropolitan region are strongly correlated with significantly reduced levels of intergenerational upward mobility for all residents of that area. Segregation by income, particularly the isolation of low-income households, also correlates with significantly reduced levels of upward mobility. Eliminating residential segregation by income and race can boost economic mobility for all.