The government often uses eminent domain to seize private property to serve public goods such as building highways and universities with paying fair compensation to the owners. However, whether the government has the right to use eminent domain for non-government purposes, for example, to build up a new pharmaceutical factory, is controversial. Some people consider a new large company as an opportunity to increase taxes and revenues. Nonetheless, in my view, the government should not use eminent domain for non-government use because this action will ruin the private business of the owners, and also lead to inappropriate seizure of private property by powerful politicians and capitalists. The direct damage caused by eminent domain for non-government
Some of the pros of Canada’s health care system is that everyone is uninsured unlike in the United States and administrative cost is significantly lower than the United States. Facts like these will help me prove that a single payer health care system like Canada is superior to the United States’ privately owned health care system. What I would have liked Johnson to add would have been more numbers and statistics to prove his claims. He stated that the Americans would save money on health care if they paid taxes instead of paying premiums to private health insurance. Numbers that show exactly how much money Americans would save would have been excellent.
Afterall, healthcare is for making people well to return back to society, not to let them be pampered with luxury at our expense. There is no end to cost of luxuries and pampering all done to boost the bottomline. One easy way cut the cost of private healthcare is to regulate the cost of treatment in private hospitals. Just as you can regulate doctors’ fees ( although you should not ), you should also regulate cost of staying in hospital to get well. It is possible to detail how much a CT scan should cost?, how much an
Question 6 a. Nero’s management has a substantial ownership interest in the company, but not enough to block a merger. If Nero’s managers want to keep the firm independent, what are some actions they could take to discourage potential suitors? Answer: Nero’s management may consider to employ staggered board, Supermajority voting provision for merger, Golden parachute and Fair price amendments etc. as defence strategies’ pre-offer. Post offer, Nero may consider Pac man defence or Litigation, Leveraged recapitalisation, Share repurchase to stop being acquired.
Great job! I like the way you answer #2, it’s easy to understand and your conclusion extremely concise. I concur, Obamacare’s high deductibles is causing a problem to health entities and patients. However, doctor’s office must try to collect cash in the begin of the cycle to minimize a loss. Hospital also offer charity programs for patient’s that meet financial criteria.
Unfortunately, the ACA will be finance in part by reducing payments to hospitals and any other healthcare practitioners, according to Shi, L., & Singh, D. (2012). Therefore, cost-shifting practices will continue, leading private insurance to pay for the short revenue of hospitals and health
I think it’s wrong for the government to penalize physicians for not meeting compliance standards. However, It’s a great opportunity for the government to aim at small practices because this is where physicians are self-employed. These types of physicians have numerous clinic or health care facilities and are most likely to commit fraud. This seems kind of biased, but it’s true. According to, Ornstein, the most common sanctions are against physicians who have odd Medicare billing reputations (2014, title).
He believes that by having a mixed health care system, citizens can bring out just the positives of each individual system. The basis of citizen III’s argument is consumer options. His argument suggest that health care can still be provided to all individuals but consumers would be able to have the option of paying additional to get treatments faster in private clinics or pay for extra layer of protection not funded by the universal health care system. I disagree with citizen III’s statement because as long as at the end of the day, you receive medical services you required, then that is all that matters. The time needed to wait for a medical service is a want and not a need.
The modern corporate lobby sought to control space to maximize profit by disregarding the direct impacts on landowners and the cultural impact that railroads would eventually have on society. For example, “state legislation aided the railroad construction by allowing the exercise of eminent domain” (Steiner, 2006). Eminent domain allowed the railway to be built without prior permission to the landowner; they would however, be compensated for the cost of land and any other damages associated with the railway in their property. Regardless of the impact that the construction of the railroad had on the landowner, the opportunity cost that would maximize the corporates’ profit was much
With universal health care the U.S. government would be in control they would regulate prices for medication and medical services. This then eliminates privatized health insurers doctors and hospitals will now only deal with the government agency. This would benefit the poor populations because doctors would be forces to offer their services at a low price point. As of now health care providers offer expensive services and pay doctors more. They try to compete by targeting the wealthy leaving the impoverished with huge medical big unable to pay.
Light in “Introduction: Ironies of Success” examines how health and capitalism are interwoven in the U.S.: “the professionally driven health care system was a capitalist’s dream” (Light, 12). Medical monopolies came into formation to stop the decrease in medical salaries due to the increase in medical professionals. Elitist medical professionals marginalized alternative medical doctors and midwives and began prioritizing developing new medical technology over patients being able to afford medical care. In conjunction, private insurance companies offer low premiums for low-risk patients so that they are less likely to have to pay for their clients’ medical needs. This means that non-profit insurances, like Blue Cross and Blue Shield, endure more high-risk patients: “Risk-related private insurance left the Blues with an ever higher-risk profile left in their community-rated pools” (Light, 14).
Argumentative Case With the upcoming election health care seems to be in talks again, just like with every election year, left sided candidates tend to lean towards a more equalized single paying system, where as the right wing candidates like to keep “America great” with it’s current marketplace system allowing more choice for Americans. Some might argue that a health care system for all would be costlier on tax payers; however, many studies show that a two-tier system would save American’s costs in a lot of ways. The argument will point out that the choices made in the health care marketplace only come at a cost for American taxpayers and federal and state governments (Munro, 2013). This argument will begin with the harm the current system
People still remained uninsured due to the high costs of insurance coverage. Now, Americans will be able to pay for the costs, “The new law opens the door to the healthcare system for these uninsured Americans and ushers them inside with financial assistance so that they can get basic coverage, either through Medicaid...or subsidized health insurance via exchanges” (Tate 13). It is important that Americans will be able to get financial assistance with the ACA because they are able to get at the least basic coverage, which will then decrease the amount of uninsured Americans across the nation. If Americans are still not uninsured and cannot afford health insurance, they are able to get covered through Medicaid. The Affordable Care Act has worked on the eligibility of Medicaid, which has filled in the gaps for the poorest Americans by creating a minimum Medicaid income eligibility level across the nation.
In fact it’s quite the opposite. Planned Parenthood uses a combination of government funding and the proceeds from abortions paid for by the patient to decrease the cost of their healthcare services like cancer screenings. It’s easy for those who are more fortunate to say that doctors and hospitals could offer those screenings as well; however, 75% of Planned Parenthood’s clientele are below 150% of the poverty level leaving them no other option but to use this government funded, low cost service (Klasing, 2017). Without Planned Parenthood, these men and women would lack an affordable option to receive equal healthcare