Metaphysics; Plato and Aristotle Essay

a. Introduction As a major assignment for this course, you are to write an essay paper on a topic relating to the subject matter of the course and drawing on course material. This should be a new paper, written by you individually, specifically for this class. You have two options to do this assignment. First option: You can write an essay paper in a rather classic style by selecting one of the listed topics in part b. If you decide to do the first option, you are required to pick one of the listed topics and write a philosophical essay according to the description provided for each topic. Second option: You can conduct a philosophical project and write an essay on the findings of the project. For this option, you need to become an â€Å"undercover philosopher† and interview 5 different people on a philosophical topic given in part c. The final outcome of your project should include the interviews results and your own analysis. Regardless of the option you choose you are required to follow these criteria: You are required to do only one of the mentioned options. But it is better to make decision as soon as possible since it will take time to accomplish either of them. This assignment is due no later than 11:59 p.m. on Monday, April 28. Late papers will only be accepted with an appropriate excuse and a point deduction. Your paper will be submitted via TurnItIn through the Blackboard site for the course. Just so you are aware, TurnItIn automatically checks your paper for plagiarism and will catch it if you try. No email or paper submission will be accepted. You should use the MS Word template file provided in your Blackboard. Papers not prepared in that format will not be graded. The final paper should be named as: Your Last Name_Your EU ID_Your Course Section.DOCX o For example if your last name is Jones and your EU ID is mhj034 and you are in PHIL 1050 section 001 then your file name should be: Jones_mhj034_001.docx. Another example: Ahmadi_kia9801_002.docx for student named Ahmadi with kia9801 as EU ID taking 002 section of the course. There must be â€Å"_† (underline) character between name, EU ID, and class section. o EU ID is the ID you use to login to your Blackboard account. You can find your class section by looking at the title of the course listed in your Blackboard account. Your paper must be no less than 1000 and no more than 1500 words (this is content only; this is not counting name, title, footnotes, bibliography, etc.) Papers with less than 1000 or more than 1500 words will be graded with a point deduction. You may find a PDF copy of Writing Philosophy on Blackboard, it is strongly recommended that you utilize this resource to help you write a good paper. All sources, including assigned readings, must be formally cited according to the Chicago Manual of Style (resources for which can be found online). Use of secondary sources is strongly encouraged but not required. Remember that failure to cite sources technically constitutes plagiarism! For further information, you can review the university’s policy on academic integrity at: http://www.vpaa.unt.edu/academic-integrity.htm. Regarding citations, long quotes of 4 or more lines are not allows and will result in a noticeable point penalty if used. Remember also that not only direct quotes also paraphrasing of another person’s material must be formally cited. All sources must be listed as footnotes. No bibliography or reference list at the end of the paper is required. Further details about citation can be found in the MS Word template file in your Blackboard account. This assignment makes up 25 out of 100 points for your final grade. You will be graded equally on writing, your summary of material, and your own critical response. Beyond these you can lose points for having a paper that is too short, failing to cite sources, or in any other way failing to adhere to the instructions and criteria for the assignment. Grading Criteria: An â€Å"A† paper is one that follows all format requirements, is at the standards of college writing, contains an excellent summary of course material, and  shows careful thinking about the topic. A â€Å"B† or â€Å"C† paper is one that follows most format requirements, is at or near the standards of college writing, contains a summary that shows a good or at least basic understanding of course material, and shows your own thinking about the topic. A â€Å"D† or â€Å"F† paper is one that is well below the paper requirements or the standards of college writing, contains a summary which shows a poor understanding of course material, and/or where any thought of your own on the topic is lacking. And, of course, any paper containing plagiarism will receive an â€Å"F†. Given that this a college course, it is expected that all students are capable of a certain level of writing quality. If you feel that your writing skills are not the best, I would strongly encourage you to seek help from the UNT Writing Lab (http://www.unt.edu/writinglab/). b. First Option: Classic Essay For your essay you may select from a list of topics below. Your topic will involve two aspects. First, you should summarize a theory or set of theories of philosophy that we have learned or discussed in class. Second, you should give your own argument for what is the proper view regarding that topic. Your paper must have both a summary of course material and your own original thinking on the topic, in roughly equal measure. Essay Topics: If you decide to write a classic essay paper you are required to choose one of the following topics. Otherwise you could do the second option described in part c. (1) Metaphysics; Plato and Aristotle: First,  summarize Plato’s theory of the Forms as ultimate reality (â€Å"The Republic†). Then, summarize Aristotle’s theory of the four causes and form/matter as ultimate reality (â€Å"Physics†). The second half of your paper should critically compare and contrast the two, and give your own argument for which you think is more correct, and ultimately state and argue for what you think the true nature of reality is. (2) Knowledge; Descartes and Hume: The first half of your paper will involve summarizing Descartes’ view of knowledge (â€Å"Meditations†), then summarizing Hume’s view of knowledge (â€Å"Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding†). The second half of your paper should critically compare and contrast the two, and give your own argument for which you think is more correct, and ultimately state and argue for how you think we acquire true knowledge and what the limits of knowledge are. (3) Cogito; Argument and Counter-Argument: The first half of your paper involve summarizing Descartes’ arguments in support of Cogito and philosophical implications of it (â€Å"Meditations†), then summarizing an strong counter argument from another philosopher (Modern or Contemporary) against Cogito and its implications. The second half of your paper should critically compare and contrast the two, and give your own argument for which you think is more correct, and ultimately state and argue for the relevance and validity of Cogito argument. (4) Ethics; Aristotle and Kant: The first half of your paper will involve summarizing Aristotle’s virtue ethics (â€Å"Nicomachean Ethics,† books I and II), then summarizing Kant’s deontological ethics (â€Å"Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals†). The second half of your paper should critically compare and contrast the two, and give your own argument for which you think is more correct, and ultimately state and argue for what you think is the proper approach to ethics, including whether ethics should be approached through good character or rules for action. (5) Knowledge and Method; Aristotle and Descartes: The first half of your paper will involve summarizing Aristotle’s view on knowledge and method (â€Å"Physics†), with emphasis on the Empiricist method and his teleological account of nature; and further will involve summarizing Descartes’ view (â€Å"Meditations†), with emphasis on the Rationalist method and Cartesian doubt. The second half of your paper should critically compare and contrast the two, giving the pros and cons of each as well as your own  critical reflection on the proper approach and method for knowledge. c. Second Option: Philosophical Project For this option you are required to interview five different people on a philosophical topic listed below. First you need to understand the topic well in order to conduct your interviews. Then you pick your interviewees and ask the questions. You need to accurately record their answers. Then you summarize each interviewees’ responses in a very concise but clear paragraph. To do this you need to extract the philosophical core implied in the answers. You should not simply write down everything they say, because only philosophical arguments of their responses are important and relevant to this work. You should ask your questions is a way that makes interviewees reveal their principles or assumptions regarding the topic. Then you give your original thinking on those philosophical arguments and principles by comparing, criticizing, and challenging them. Generally speaking, your essay should include at least 8 paragraphs. First paragraph should include the questions you asked in your interviews. Five next paragraphs could be dedicated to the summaries of five interviews, and one paragraph for comparing the philosophical arguments and criticizing them, and one last paragraph for presenting your original thoughts on the issue. You should be creative in your questions and let the interviewees speak in their own voices. However you should guide the interview so that you can grasp the underlying philosophical principles. You should not include the interviewees name or identity in the paper. This is absolutely against UNT regulations for such research. Also you don’t need IRB approval since this is only a class assignment and the results will not be published in any way. Interview Topics: (1) Ethical relativism. The main question is â€Å"is ethics relative or absolute?†. However in addition to this question you should ask more questions to make the interviewees clear about their idea of ethical principles. You should ask interviewees to explain their reasons with examples. Also you can challenge their responses by giving them counter-examples. For example, for a person who thinks ethics is relative, a  counter argument could be â€Å"then everything is correct at the same time† or â€Å"why killing innocent people for fun is always wrong then?† Or for a person who believes that ethical principles are absolute, a counter example is â€Å"what if an ethically wrongdoing (such as lying to a murderer, or torturing a terrorist) is the only way to stop a disaster?† (2) Absolute Truth. The main question is â€Å"is there an absolute truth?† You should ask interviewees to explain their reason. Also you should ask them if absolute truth de pends on human mind or whether or not is attainable by human mind. A challenge to people who believe in absolute truth is â€Å"how exactly they know there is an absolute truth?† or â€Å"how can they justify their position?† On the other hand, if they believe in relativity of truth, then the challenge is â€Å"then everything can be true or false at the same time and this is contradictory (isn’t it?)†. Also you can ask if scientific truths are relative in their opinion or not. In addition, they should make it clear on what parameters truth depends (e.g. social contract, power, culture, personal preference, utility, etc). And also if truth is relative then why do we think we know the physical world better than ancient thinkers (don’t we?) (3) Environmental Ethics. The main question is â€Å"do we have moral duty to nature and environment?† You should ask questions such as â€Å"are we morally responsible for nature and environment?†, â€Å"is there anything morally wrong about destroying nature (intentionally or unintentionally)?†, â€Å"what if destroying nature is necessary for human life?† and â€Å"what makes us responsible for nature?† You can also ask questions about what elements and aspects in nature makes us responsible. For instance, we are responsible because it is useful for us, or because it is beautiful, or because animals and plants are alive (like us), or it is because of the next generations that we are responsible? Or combination of them. You should clarify what sort of ethical relationship each interviewee is assuming between them and nature. Also do they think that human is just a plain member of ecosystem or special member who stands above everything because it is human being? Also â€Å"to what extent we should care for nature?† (4) Existence. The main question is â€Å"what makes our existence valuable?†. You may ask questions such as â€Å"why we are here?†, â€Å"why we should not kill ourselves?†, â€Å"what is the most valuable in human life?†, â€Å"what makes life worthy of living?†, â€Å"what is  valuable about existence?†, â€Å"is the any purpose in human life?† and â€Å"is there any meaning in human existence?†. (5) Being Human. The main question is â€Å"what is human being?† Under this topic you should ask the interviewees to give a very clear and concise definition of human being and then ask them further questions to challenge their definition. For example, if human being is defined as a rational animal, then why we consider mentally impaired humans as human being? The main concern in this topic is to clarify the essence of human being. Also you should ask them to explain how philosophy/science/religion can help us understand the nature of human being. Also you may ask them to clarify whether or not human being has a fixed nature /essence. In this regards you can ask â€Å"do you think human beings have changed in their nature/essence over the course of history?† Also you may ask them how can we grasp the truth about human nature. P

Practice in Using Commas and Semicolons Correctly

Practice in Using Commas and Semicolons Correctly This exercise offers practice in applying the rules for using commas and semicolons correctly. Before attempting the exercise, you may find it helpful to review these three pages: Guidelines for Using Commas EffectivelyHow to Use the SemicolonSemicolons, Colons, and Dashes Throughout the following two paragraphs, you will find a number of empty paired brackets: [ ]. Replace each set of brackets with a comma or a semicolon, keeping in mind that the primary use of a semicolon is to separate two main clauses not joined by a coordinating conjunction. When you are done, compare your work with the correctly punctuated versions of the two paragraphs on page two. Exercise: Pasta Pasta[ ] a large family of shaped[ ] dried wheat pastes[ ] is a basic staple in many countries. Its origins are obscure. Rice pastes were known very early in China[ ] pastes made of wheat were used in India and Arabia long before they were introduced into Europe in the 11th or 12th century. According to legend[ ] Marco Polo brought a pasta recipe with him from Asia in 1295. Pasta quickly became a major element in the Italian diet[ ] and its use spread throughout Europe. Pasta is made from durum wheat flour[ ] which makes a strong[ ] elastic dough. Hard durum wheat has the highest wheat protein value. The flour is mixed with water[ ] kneaded to form a thick paste[ ] and then forced through perforated plates or dies that shape it into one of more than 100 different forms. The macaroni die is a hollow tube with a steel pin in its center[ ] the spaghetti die lacks the steel pin and produces a solid cylinder of paste. Ribbon pasta is made by forcing the paste through thin slits in a die[ ] shells and other curved shapes are produced with more intricate dies. The shaped dough is dried carefully to reduce the moisture content to about 12 percent[ ] and properly dried pasta should remain edible almost indefinitely. Pastas can be colored with spinach or beet juice. The addition of egg produces a richer[ ] yellower pasta that is usually made in noodle form and is often sold undried. When you are done, compare your work with the correctly punctuated versions of the two paragraphs on page two. Here are the two paragraphs that served as the model for the punctuation exercise on page one. Original Paragraphs: Pasta Pasta, a large family of shaped, dried wheat pastes, is a basic staple in many countries. Its origins are obscure. Rice pastes were known very early in China; pastes made of wheat were used in India and Arabia long before they were introduced into Europe in the 11th or 12th century. According to legend, Marco Polo brought a pasta recipe with him from Asia in 1295. Pasta quickly became a major element in the Italian diet, and its use spread throughout Europe. Pasta is made from durum wheat flour, which makes a strong, elastic dough. Hard durum wheat has the highest wheat protein value. The flour is mixed with water, kneaded to form a thick paste, and then forced through perforated plates or dies that shape it into one of more than 100 different forms. The macaroni die is a hollow tube with a steel pin in its center; the spaghetti die lacks the steel pin and produces a solid cylinder of paste. Ribbon pasta is made by forcing the paste through thin slits in a die; shells and other curved shapes are produced with more intricate dies. The shaped dough is dried carefully to reduce the moisture content to about 12 percent, and properly dried pasta should remain edible almost indefinitely. Pastas can be colored with spinach or beet juice. The addition of egg produces a richer, yellower pasta that is usually made in noodle form and is often sold undried.

A New House-Marginal Costs and Marginal Benefits Essay Example

A New House A New House-Marginal Costs and Marginal Benefits Paper A New House-Marginal Costs and Marginal Benefits Paper Purchasing a new home is a major financial decision people make when they are able to. Their ability to make this decision is largely determined by how well the economy is performing. Marginal costs and marginal benefits The strength of an economy can greatly affect the marginal costs of home ownership. This is done by allowing the home buyers to see the amount of home they are able to obtain at various points in the economy. When interest rates are lower, consumers are able to get more house for the same amount of money, as opposed to when they re higher. Marginal benefits are also affected by the strength of the economy since it allows consumers to easily see what they could get by purchasing a home, as opposed to renting. Tax deduction removal If the annual tax deduction on mortgage interest was removed, it could have a great affect on those that finance their homes. Since the amount they are credited with on their taxes can be up to several thousand dollars, it can mean many people are going to be without the potential savings safety net they could have once they file the following year. Despite eventually being able to own the home outright, some buyers may not see a difference with renting since there Is no benefit Involved. Changes in government spending and taxes When the government Introduces or takes away special programs, It makes a difference to those purchasing homes. A good example of that was the recent $8000 tax credit for making a home purchase. This was Introduced to help save the mortgage industry by giving more people the opportunity of homeownership with a government Issued credit. It served as a balance to the stricter loan requirements banks were going by as well.

Barack Obama - Speech to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care Reform (9 September 2009)

Barack Obama Speech to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care Reform delivered 9 September 2009 Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, and the American people:When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is still many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action weve taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink. I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those whove taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation. But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came here to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future and that is the issue of health care. I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session. Our collective failure to meet this challenge year after year, decade after decade has led us to the breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some cant get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and cant afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover. We are the only democracy the only advanced democracy on Earth the only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone. But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, youll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or wont pay the full cost of care. It happens every day. One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadnt reported gallstones that he didnt even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America. Then theres the problem of rising cost. We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we arent any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. Its why so many employers especially small businesses are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. Its why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally like our automakers are at a huge disadvantage. And its why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody elses emergency room and charitable care. Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else. Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how. There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canadas where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own. Ive said I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesnt, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months. During that time, weve seen Washington at its best and at its worst. Weve seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors groups, and even drug companies many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been. But what weve also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, weve seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned. Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care. Now is the time to deliver on health care. The plan Im announcing tonight would meet three basic goals. It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who dont. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. Its a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge not just government, not just insurance companies, but everybody including employers and individuals. And its a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen, from Democrats and Republicans and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election. Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan. First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies because theres no reason we shouldnt be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives. Now, thats what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan more security and more stability. Now, if youre one of the tens of millions of Americans who dont currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or you change your job, youll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, youll be able to get coverage. Well do this by creating a new insurance exchange a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. Its how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And its time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves. Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still cant afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, well provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who cant get insurance today because they have preexisting medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, its a good idea now, and we should all embrace it. Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those especially the young and the healthy who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still dont sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these peoples expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses dont provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions just cant be achieved. And thats why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cant afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cant have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part. And while there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance. And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole. Still, given all the misinformation thats been spread over the past few months, I realize I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I want to address some of the key controversies that are still out there. Some of peoples concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it werent so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms the reforms Im proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina: You lie! President Obama: Its not true. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a government takeover of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare. So let me set the record straight here. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Thats how the market works. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage, and by jacking up rates. Insurance executives dont do this because theyre bad people; they do it because its profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called Wall Streets relentless profit expectations. Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. And the insurance reforms that Ive already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who dont have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up. Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies dont like this idea. They argue that these private companies cant fairly compete with the government. And theyd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they wont be. Ive insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities. Now, it is its worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort Ive proposed tonight. But its impact shouldnt be exaggerated by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldnt be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. The public option the public option is only a means to that end and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. For example For example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans cant find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need. Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public and thats how we pay for this plan. And heres what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that Im serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised dont materialize. Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care. Second, weve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care dont make us any healthier. Thats not my judgment its the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, I want to speak directly to seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue thats been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate. More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. Thats how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. And that is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan. The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies subsidies that do everything to pad their profits but dont improve the care of seniors. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead. Now, these steps will ensure that you Americas seniors get the benefits youve been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pockets for prescription drugs. Thats what this plan will do for you. So dont pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut, especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will not happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare. Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania offer high-quality care at costs below average. So the commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors. Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Now, much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. And this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run. Now, finally, many in this chamber particularly on the Republican side of the aisle have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. Now there you go. There you go. Now, I dont believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but Ive talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs.So Im proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think its a good idea, and Im directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today. Now, add it all up, and the plan Im proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent but spent badly in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year one-tenth of 1 percent it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term. Now, this is the plan Im proposing. Its a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open. But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that its better politics to kill this plan than to improve it. I wont stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent whats in this plan, we will call you out. And I will not and I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now. Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true. That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town halls, in e-mails, and in letters. I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death. In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, his amazing children, who are all here tonight. And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform that great unfinished business of our society, he called it would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that it concerns more than material things. What we face, he wrote, is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country. Ive thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and, yes, sometimes angry debate. Thats our history. For some of Ted Kennedys critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their minds, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government. But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here people of both parties know that what drove him was something more. His friend Orrin Hatch he knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patients Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities. On issues like these, Ted Kennedys passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick. And he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance, what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent, there is something that could make you better, but I just cant afford it. That large-heartedness that concern and regard for the plight of others is not a partisan feeling. Its not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character our ability to stand in other peoples shoes; a recognition that we are all in this together, and when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand; a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise. This has always been the history of our progress. In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism, but the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress Democrats and Republicans did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind. You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter that at that point we dont merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves. That was true then. It remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term. But that is not what the moment calls for. Thats not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when its hard. I still believe I still believe that we can act when its hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet historys test. Because thats who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. Source: WhiteHouse.gov

Use of Digital Media by disabled student for education Essay

Use of Digital Media by disabled student for education - Essay Example Another has been the application of multimedia technologies within official learning situation for academic functions, mainly â€Å"English language literacy† (Davis, p. 48, 2005). A stress on the part of multimedia within ‘special’ schooling is logical, making an allowance for the fragmentary well-politicised competition on whether to teach young deaf and dumb individuals in a bilingual setting by means of a â€Å"signed language† (Council for Exceptional Children, p. 192, 2005). On the other hand, the rising significance of communal as well as participatory media during the free time of Westerners implies that such applications of Web 2.0 are as well worth investigating. These have started to be a little educational reports of the keen implementation of â€Å"v-logging by sign language users† (Council for Exceptional Children, p. 201, 2005). Web 2.0 has been identified by its aptitude to ‘control cooperative aptitude’ by offering prospects for users to make, become accustomed, â€Å"mash up and share text, photos and video† (Friend & Bursuck, p. 93, 2011). In addition to its well-acknowledged participatory potential, its re-prominence on visual (as contrasting to written) communication is of exacting concern for dumb and deaf people. It has been recommended that disabled students are a â€Å"visual variety of the human race† (Friend & Bursuck, p. 124, 2011), and the visually affluent offers fresh prospects for visually affluent types of communication, most significantly by means of signed languages. The main significance of signed languages for disabled people individuality proposes that the visual features of interactive multimedia might put forward prospects of safeguarding, development as well as changes within those individualities. Simultaneously, the visual features of the Web 2.0 are us ually audio-visual, such that the more and more affluent resources of the â€Å"net offer† (Smith et al, p. 193, 2011) prospective obstructions in addition to ways to

Ethic management Discussion Question Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Ethic management Discussion Question - Essay Example Deciding whose life to trade in exchange for who's is inherently an unethical decision to make. It requires placing a higher value on certain lives and lower value on others based on immutable characteristics of those individuals, such as age, gender and station in life. If acting ethically essentially means doing the right thing, there is really no right choice to make in the nuclear fallout shelter exercise. The best one can hope to do in this exercise is to make a utilitarian decision based on who is most likely to live the greatest number of years with greatest quality of life. Yet that basis for a determination is itself unethical because a human life with only a year remaining is arguably no less valuable than one that has just begun. Thus, the exercise presents a true ethical dilemma. Nevertheless, if forced to make a utilitarian determination of who should be allowed into the fallout shelter, a decision in favor of the pregnant college student and the female child seems to be a no-brainer. The pregnant college student gives you a two-for-one benefit, essentially allowing the decision maker to save five people rather than just four. And the child is the only child among the candidates.

Medical ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Medical ethics - Essay Example important form of commission parents) may also be the sufferers of exploitation (Laura M. Purdy). Furthermore, it is argued that there are high-quality reasons for considering that commercial surrogacy is frequently exploitative. Though, even if we believe this, the exploitation quarrel for keeping out (or if not legislatively disappointing) commercial surrogacy leftovers quite weak. One important cause for this is that ban may well backfire and lead to possible surrogates having to do additional things that are more exploitative and/or additional damaging than paid surrogacy. No doubt, it is finished so that those who oppose exploitation be supposed to (rather than attempting to discontinue exacting practices similar to commercial surrogacy) focus on: (a) humanizing the conditions beneath which paid surrogates labor; and (b) changing the backdrop conditions (in exacting, the uneven distribution of power and wealth) which make exploitative relations (Laura M. Purdy). The term autonomy is resultant from the Greek autos, which means self and from the term nomads denotation rule, governance or law. To be autonomous is to be self-determined and to be in control of ones life. In regards to health check care, being autonomous refers to one making a decision concerning personal medical care issues for his or her self. Autonomy focuses on respecting the ability of a person to make health care decisions on their own. It is much more multifaceted than considering who is in charge or who knows best the real matter is which of the basic ethical principals hold advantage in any given situation. "medical paternalism" leads to the burden of coercive life-prolonging measures in a manner insensible to the patient; and it put off dying patients and their families from lasting the touching and financial hardships caused by the continuance of desperate medical and technical intervention; (Dialogue.