Policy analysis - Coursework Example

Article The first article proposes the policies set to prevent meningitis disease from spreading, in the sense that they make no distinction between graduate and undergraduate in signing the waiver if it applies to them. The vaccination is compulsory besides religious or medical reasons, which I find necessary. And this is not just a spontaneous effort to make such arrangements, such measures had already been put in New York and now Atlanta needs to follow the foot steps to protect its children, this only indicates Kingdon’s Policy Change stream escorting the policy change.

Prevention of contagious disease is mandatory plus if such measures are being taken in a crowded place like the university or the dorms then there shouldn’t be any argument against it. In my opinion there should be fine or some sort of penalty on students that decline to be vaccinated. The reasons should be that they have already been vaccinated or no other. It is about their own safety plus the safety of others. If they are not getting vaccine for any reason, they are putting their own life in danger plus others who can catch the disease from coughing or kissing.

Article 2Nursing homes cheering limitation on lawsuits is another form of civil liberty. Governments and their regulations are formulated for the protection of civilian rights but this is always a double ended sword that cuts both ways which is why the policy in place required the two sides to be present indicating the Dye’s Group Theory. Now everyone knows that lawyers love court judgments and trials, case is their business, the more they are the more cash they will pocket. Now there is a bill passed that says that there should be limit on lawsuits against nursing homes.

Which is a very good move because in case someone has a genuine claim will only take the step forward and pursue it, rather than lawyers and their clients trying to get some leverage out of it.Article 3Quite an old article and in fact, it is one of the plans that have eaten away the fabric of US economy to this very day, and that is why I think that this is only the elite theory being implemented in this policy making. The opening of the article would seem biased as the author describes that Bush is throwing away all the hard work being put in the economic engine of this country to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor by putting a burden of $1.

46 trillion dollars by allowing the private sector to grow, in his own vision of a better America. Now the thing is that not everyone owns a business in the US, most people work on salaries and wages, and run very small businesses that are not even listed on the stock market, so cutting a slack on taxes in dividends and interest earnings, does not really help the population in general. Yes the economists would argue that as the economy lifts up, it will provide more jobs for the poor but that is just the happy side of the picture, the fact of the matter is, the private businesses will keep on getting richer and the gap will only get stronger between the rich and the poor.

Response to ClassmateIn regards with article 3, I understand the trouble my classmate had when deciding which theory drove that policy, but labeling it ‘rationalism’ will only be masking the evil. This view will only be shown to the public, and words like ‘the wiser interest of the nation’ would suffice the judgments, policies and actions of the government. However the truth is that public is just the fuel that needs to run corporate engines. The tax cuts for dividends, interest earnings will only benefit the rich and friends of the government.

I’m sure that many politicians would have their own interests in the companies that will benefit from these arrangements. Regarding article 1 and 2, I absolutely agree with categorizing the first as Kingdon’s Policy Change and the second as Dye’s Group theory.