Choose a health care law or policy for this week’s assignment and create a proposal or presentation for continued funding of a related program.
Create two separate proposals, one that addresses liberal viewpoints and one that addresses conservative viewpoints.
Convince each group that continued funding is essential to the well being of its recipients.
The health care law or public health policy chosen for this assignment can be either an existing, pending, or proposed law or policy.
Once you choose a law or policy, you will need to describe each party platform in general (i.e. conservative and liberal party platforms). Then, you will need to present a persuasive discussion to each party for why the program you are presenting (i.e. a public health program that funds vaccines) should continue, appealing to each party (“how the program advances the party agenda”). The “data related to the target population outcomes”, can be statistics for or against your chosen program.
Provide at least 3 current, scholarly references
Such a journey must undermine the unbridled idea that PMCs are stalwarts whose sole expectation is to con their way into subverting worldwide security. Increasingly genuine understudies of universal security by differentiation have been progressively mindful and quick to recognize the multifaceted nature that is engaged with surveying the idea of PMCs. From a carefully pragmatist perspective, which accept the guideline of states as levelheaded unitary entertainers, with their own security at their bleeding edge of their pecking order of necessities, the assignment of capacity to contractual workers likens to surrendering power fundamentally, and in this sense political specialists of this school of thought would presume that PMCs negatively affect universal security. Most clearly this point of view shows itself in precedents where feeble states, "shook by inward savagery", have neglected to "convey positive political products to their populace" (Rotberg, 2003, 1), which is the motivation behind why they may need to turn to the administrations of PMCs. Ordinarily this would mean PMCs would bargain security. However the privatization of barrier and security, it has been contended, can really assume a positive job in nations which need structures and specialized mastery to accomplish soundness (Arnold, 1990, 170). By differentiation to frail states' customary dependence on capricious warlords, it is called attention to, remote military firms can, truth be told, give reasonable and powerful administrations to states on a low spending plan. Without the danger of further disturbing political and social harmony, PMCs would go about as reasonable members in struggle influenced less by enthusiastic contentions than by the restrictive need to reestablish security. Such an idealistic examination of PMCs is received by the principal authority on them, Peter Singer, who trusts that feeble states would profit by their association with military organizations. Reacting to analysis that PMCs would be a channel on the host state's assets, Singer asserts that PMCs these days don't have to verify a precious stone mine or an oil field to guarantee their activities – as hired soldiers of old had maybe done. In many occasions, an increasingly worthwhile market is given in any case by global crises where alliances of states, substantial NGOs or worldwide establishments would pay attractive prizes for their administrations (Singer, 2002, 190). Such a feeling is resounded by Jonas Hagmann and Moncef Kartas who comment that "the move from government to administration, the pattern far from state-driven arrangement for open administrations, for example, security and towards system and private segment driven arrangement, enables universal associations to assume a job in the guideline of security>GET ANSWER