The Public Good in the US - Term Paper Example

?TERM PAPER: POLITICAL SCIENCE 1001 The public good in the United s is a chief concern of the US government, as it is the primary provider of essential services as part of a political contract with its citizens. The public good is affected by several areas of domestic and foreign policy, including environmental policy, healthcare, economic recovery, and involvement in foreign countries for the betterment of the world. These are all important contributors to the common good because each of them affects American citizens in their individual daily lives as well as in the collective long-term outlook of American quality of life, whether they are at home or traveling abroad. Ensuring the public good is no simple task, but nonetheless with good policy it is very possible to work toward a better future. The public good is essentially defined as the safety, liberty, health, and welfare of the United States. Safety is mentioned because it is in the best interest of Americans to be protected from all dangers. Ensuring the public good would therefore include protection from crime, from disease, from inadvertent accidents, from foreign attacks and invasion, from atmospheric and environmental threats, and any risk to health or life that can be minimized or controlled. Health is a similar issue, and in the case of government responsibility calls for sanitation and prevention of exposure to dangerous materials or illnesses. Thus, this calls for clean air, clean water, and even clean streets. In addition, it calls for regulations of food and other consumable items that may cause illness. Liberty and welfare are both part of a much less physical and concrete realm than safety and health. These two aspects of the public good are largely philosophical, and largely tied to the founding ideals. Americans are familiar with the phrase “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”, as well as the similar “life, liberty and property.” A combination of these two encompasses the overall idea of liberty and welfare. These two can be separated however when taking a paternal view for one and a maternal view for the other. Liberty is generally paternal, and thus is something that the state protects rather than provides. The American government should pursue the concept of an island of constitutionality, where the law applies to small areas here and there within a sea of liberty. A poor alternative to this is having islands of liberty that are afloat upon a sea of legality, where the government regulates almost everything unless specified. The former approach is in the interest of the public good. Welfare is a maternal concept, and involves the government providing for its citizens. Basically, this encompasses the essential services that must be paid for with tax dollars, to include roads, postal service, and the other agencies that basically ensure health and safety. Welfare also includes, beyond health and safety, the opportunity to pursue happiness, and thus provides for equal protection under the law, prohibition of slander and libel, prohibition of fraud, regulation of work hours, and other laws that don’t protect health or physical safety but more the emotional and mental wellbeing of citizens while ensuring that all business is conducted fairly and with equal opportunity. Welfare is therefore the assurance of social fluidity and fairness, and elimination of discrimination and exploitation. If American society therefore provides for safety at home and abroad, keeps the environment and the population clean and healthy, ensures liberty is granted and protected, and also regulates society to guarantee a fair and equal field of play, then the public good has been well served. These issues are those that are most important to Americans and that the government is entrusted with addressing. The first issue on which a recommendation is necessary is on health care. The current state of American health care is well summarized in a report by the American College of Physicians, where the group points out what is lacking and what it suggests. The shortcomings of American healthcare, according to these professionals, essentially are the disappearing availability of employer healthcare, the increasing shortage of primary care physicians, and the overall cost of healthcare. They also point out that during the recession the number of people without health insurance reached an all-time high, and that more Americans than ever actually relied on the federal government’s Medicaid program (Health 1-2). Essentially, the problem in hand is that a great number of Americans simply do not have access to health care and health insurance, and even worse, the problem is growing to a point that may eventually become epidemic. When considering health care legislation, the US government should take lessons in both the positives and negatives from the generally praised health care system of the United Arab Emirates. The UAE has a modern network of clinics and hospitals, and their public health care is run by a government agency at little or no cost to the citizens of the UAE and even many visitors, depending on the case. In life-threatening emergencies, the service is free of charge. However, medical insurance is required for everyone in UAE, including the majority population of foreign nationals. The UAE has had a compulsory health insurance requirement, but lifted it as a response to economic downtown in the past decade. It also does not require employers to provide insurance, but instead offers government health insurance as an alternative to the very successful and popular private health insurance services. Dubai’s aim is to reduce the economic stress of its citizens and foreign workers by providing low-cost health care and encouraging private insurance, while also providing patient-specific care that allows visitors to its health institutions to receive special and personal attention for their issues (Castro). The UAE has a system that the US should use as a model, as UAE healthcare is designed to be locally rooted but also able to provide for foreign nationals. In addition, the UAE has an integrated health care system, where there are both private and public insurance services as well as treatment centers. In the US, the government should strive to provide basic, primary care services at low to no cost and thus encourage the influx and production of health care professionals who practice in this field. Life threatening emergencies should also be treated at public health centers in the US, under government funding, but elective surgeries and other non-essentials should not be as available. The UAE has a similar approach, where private hospitals provide more services based on the patient’s expectations, while public hospitals are more minimal and provide only necessary care and basic services. In the UAE, those with private insurance are also expected to use private hospitals, and those with public insurance are expected to use public hospitals. This division would help lower US healthcare costs by being sure that public insurance meets the public standard, while still allowing the private sector to govern its own insurance and provider prices. In addition, the US should not impose a compulsory health insurance requirement, as it indeed could cause further economic stress. However, the government should encourage employer-provided health insurance, although the UAE does not. Nonetheless, the UAE has an excellent model for the US to study. The UAE has another system that is also of use to American policymakers. This system is the UAE’s network of environmental development and protection agencies, which operate at both a national level as well as in the individual emirates with some degree of autonomy. The UAE attempts to protect the environment at sea and also on land. At sea, the problems it faces listed as “insensitive development, habitat loss, illegal persecution and unsustainable harvesting”. On land, similarly, the UAE faces “grazing pressure from domestic livestock at very high levels and the populations of indigenous ungulates, carnivorous mammals and several species of indigenous birds at a low ebb” (Aspinall 278). The primary problems the UAE faces overall are in protecting wildlife, in regulating agriculture and development, and in ensuring responsible uses of natural resources. These are similar to the problems faced in the US and elsewhere. The UAE apparently places environmental protection high on its agenda, and has a public support for such efforts. The top tier of environmental policy in the UAE is carried out by the emirs who have the power to make executive decisions in their respective emirates, and have historically established protected areas as well as certain bans for the good of the environment or wildlife. The Federal Environment agency is the national institution that makes broader policy, and has published works on its plan for environmental policy and protection in the coming years. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries regulates more marine issues. These institutions altogether affect the national policy in the UAE (Aspinall 289-90). The effectiveness of the UAE’s environmental policy has been discussed by the Environment Agency in Abu Dhabi, who also did regional reports on other countries in determining how well environmental policies have been put into practice. The report specifically asks about the effectiveness of the environmental organizations and their strengths and weaknesses. The report states that the strength is in the use of information technology to spread awareness about environmental issues, as well as in the dedication of leaders and organizations in the UAE to improving the environmental situation. Weaknesses were primarily centered around data sharing, such as the coordination of data and its use between different organizations at the emirate level and the national level. The UAE does not at the time of the report have a summary of the country’s current environmental status. It also cites a lack of nationwide environmental standards, and a focus on organizations achieving individual goals rather than cooperating (United Arab Emirates Report). A separate report on the environmental status of the UAE says that there is a lack of data on the environment and also a lack of awareness, both in regard to the development of the country (Al Amoudi). This suggests that the UAE’s environmental policy, while having purpose and direction, is not yet well-established and does not have a fully effective role in improving the environment. Overall, the decrees made by emirs may be the most effective form of environmental policy in the UAE right now, which reflects the importance of executive power in making and enforcing environmental policies. The US should keep in mind that executive decisions are necessary for the environment and its protection for the public good, and that having multiple organizations—whether it be Congress or the Environmental Protection Agency—can cause a lack of cooperation and a poor management of time, finances, and resources. In the US, there should be an executive model that combines duties into a single agency. A recent article in Time Magazine explored the issues that the world is facing concerning economic recovery after the global recession of the past few years. This article pointed out that both the recession and the recovery have not been equally present in all countries, but rather, each country has had its own unique situation. For example, China and India are seeing their economies continue to grow at a significant rate, while Britain reported a shrink in recent months that was quite unexpected. The US, on the other hand, still has a 10% rate of unemployment, but also has seen a surge in revenue in many large businesses and corporations (Gandel). On the whole, American economic recovery has not necessarily benefitted each individual, just as global economic recovery has not seen every nation share the spoils. As many nations see themselves escaping the recession, others find that they are still vulnerable to it and may be collapsing from within. The growth in the US versus in China shows a great discrepancy, and thus places these economies in competitive positions with a risk of using protectionism to prevent China from outperforming the US on its own soil. This should be avoided as protectionism will overall lead to a long-term shrink in cash flow and much needed business from any nation, whether it is discriminated against or not. Free trade is the wisest policy when seeking a global economic recovery, even at only the national level. Another risky maneuver during this period of economic recovery is the raising of debt ceilings, which allows for a given country to borrow a larger amount of money and thus go further into debt. The US is currently considering raising its own debt ceiling as a solution for budget shortages, which by some parties is perceived as a good strategy for long term economic recovery by using that money to stimulate the economy and fill in the gaps made by lacking tax revenue. On the flip side, this policy would mean that more money is owed, with no real certainty that the country would come out of debt any sooner or faster. Critics and skeptics of raising the debt ceiling have cited European nations as examples of this strategy’s failure. Portugal, Greece, and Ireland are all countries that have found themselves in extreme economic debt, and as a result have required bailouts from the great European Union and specifically the support of wealthier nations within that community. Their decision to raise their debt ceiling and borrow to a point of no return shows that borrowing into further debt is of extreme risk to other countries, and that any risk-averse government should avoid this type of strategy. If the US were to reach a position where only perpetual debt created any hope of escaping debt—that is, paying off loans with loans—it would find that there is no larger community to bail them out. Economic recovery should largely be left to the private sector, as it has already showed capability of expansion and generating revenue. The increasing amount of revenue creates opportunity for more businesses to spend money on outside services, expansion, and hiring. However, the Time Magazine article also mentions a new behavior of successful corporations called “risk on, risk off”. The behavior is characterized by a sort of sporadic alternation between spending money and hiring, then cutting all expenditures when the market presents signs of risk (Gandel). This strategy may work for companies, but at a national, government level should be avoided because it offers no long term plan for positive, secure financial success. The US should be patient and set long-term goals with no additional short term debt being accrued. Current problems in the Middle East are another issue that can sometimes affect the public good of the US, and as a whole US foreign policy in the Middle East is extremely important because it affects public safety, our dependence on Middle Eastern natural resources—and therefore the environment—and it also affects the American economy and prospect for trade. The revolutions currently going on in the Middle East are causing a profound upheaval in the usual economic, political, and social orders of the region, and some say that they warrant action from outside forces and entities. The US is, as in the past, in a position to contribute in some way or other to the current situation in the Middle East whether it is in pledging moral support, giving economic aid, or staging military intervention. All three of these approaches have been taken when considering Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, but there are other cases where little has be done. In the case of Libya, the US should take a more decisive military approach in an attempt to dislodge Muammar al-Gadhafi from power and allow a new regime to dictate its own future—however, this intervention should be extremely limited, with a set timeline for withdrawal and no mission of rebuilding or security that involves anything beyond civilian agencies. Gadhafi has been condemned by the US, and political recognition of the opposition has been accompanied by American intervention from air and sea only, but this is not enough. Libya should be freed from Gadhafi’s grip and allowed to be a full economic partner of the US and Europe. Syria is another case that is currently developing. The US has called Syria’s ruler Bashar al-Assad a reformer. This statement is inaccurate, as he is hardly less violent and dangerous in regards to his own citizens than Gadhafi, and is easily worse than Mubarak of Egypt was. While no military action should be taken in Syria due to the extreme complications of its geographic location as well as ties to neighboring Iran, the US should condemn Assad’s government, place economic constraints on Syria in every way possible, and fund opposition groups. In addition, the US should attempt to form a blockade coalition with Turkey, Israel, Iraq, and Lebanon to keep Syria contained and outcast by its neighbors until the regime changes, as Syria’s revolution needs to succeed in order to bring a real sense of security to the Middle East. In all other situations, the US should continue to support democratic reform and non-violent responses to protests against authoritarian and oppressive governments in the Middle East. In the case of monarchies such as Bahrain, the US should maintain good relations with the ruler but insist that the government transitions to a liberal form of constitutional monarchy. This would allow greater freedom for individual citizens but retain strong international ties between the current government and out own. In any case, the US should recognize democratic movements as justified and should lend assistance, especially political and economic, to the development of such movements as well as the removal of barriers to their existence. This approach to foreign policy would help create a more friendly and fluid global neighborhood, and along with the other policy recommendations would strengthen the current positions of the US government on issues both foreign and domestic. On the whole, American policy to date is far from perfect, but also will always have room for improvement. The aforementioned recommendations suggest ways in which the US can learn from other nations, as well as how it can assist in improving its reputation with our fellow nations to create a better government and a better world. Works Cited Al Amoudi, Ali Awadh. "Status of the Environmental Health Assessment in the UAE." World Health Organization. Apr. 2006. Web. . Aspinall, Simon. "Environmental Development and Protection in the UAE." UAEInteract.com. Ministry of Information and Culture, 2001. Web. . Castro, Jose. "Health Care in Dubai." Expatforum.com. Expat Forum For Expats, 8 Aug. 2009. Web. . Gandel, Stephen. "World Economic Forum: A New Kind of Recovery." Time.com. Time Magazine, 7 Feb. 2011. Web. . "Health Care Coverage, Capacity and Cost: What Does the Future Hold? A Report from America’s Internists on the State of America’s Health Care." American College of Physicians, 27 Jan. 2011. Web. . "United Arab Emirates Report." Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative. Environment Agency Abu Dhabi, Jan. 2005. Web. . Read More