Course readings:
● Bergstrom, John C. and Alan Randall, Resource Economics: An Economic Approach to
Natural Resource and Environmental Policy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
Publishing. ISBN: 9781784717940.
● Kingdon, John W., Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. London: Pearson, 2010.
ISBN: 9780205000869.
● Taylor, Steve L., Matthew S. Shugart, Aprend Lijphart, Bernard Grofman., A Different
Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. ISBN: 9780300198089.
● Reisman, David. Health Policy: Choice, Equality, and Cost. Edward Elgar Publishing.
2016. It is available in both paperback and e-book formats, ISBN: 9781785365225.
● Moran, Michael, Martin Rein and Robert E. Goodin, The Oxford Handbook of Public
Policy. London: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Week 1 Assignments are as follows:
● Reading:
● Moran, et al.: Chapters: 1, 11.
● Taylor, et al.: Chapters: 1, 2, and 4.
● Kingdon: Chapters: 1, 2, and 3.
5.18.23
Domestic policy by definition are those administrative decisions that government makes
or fails to make which are directly related to all issues and activity within a nation's
borders. Discuss the broad range of influences on the political spectrum that affects
Domestic Policy. Use clear examples and quotes to support your argument (s).
Remember, this is not an opinion piece, this is an objective scholarly policy analysis
piece.
The political spectrum is a vast, complex landscape riddled with various influences. These
influences emerge leading to the diverse range of ideologies that impact domestic policy. The
influencing factors are the catalyst that political parties and politicians use to shape the priorities
of legislation, and having an understanding of the broad range of influences is imperative to be
able to comprehend the dynamics of domestic policy. The main influences of domestic policy
are historical, socioeconomic, cultural, and institutional factors.
Historical context is the first influencing factor which plays a part in shaping the political
spectrum (Moran, Rein, & Goodin, 2008). Historical context are events like wars, terrorist
attacks, and social movements which leave a lasting imprint on a country’s political landscape.
One example of this is after World War II there was a rise of welfare states across Europe; this
was the result of the desire for social justice and economic security. Another example of this is
after 9-11 there was changes in legislation regarding privacy rights in the United States. Each of
these examples show that legislation can be created and influenced based on the trauma
response of an event.
Socioeconomic factors are the second influencing factor that contribute to the political spectrum.
Economic factors like income inequality and unemployment rates impact the direction of political
conversation and shape policy decisions (Taylor, Shugart, Lijphart, & Grofman, 2014).
Socioeconomic factors like economic inequality, labor movements/ unions, globalization, and
industry regulation help and are shaped by the various political ideologies. One example of this
is conservatives who typically favor free-market principles with limited government intervention;
on the other side, progressives generally advocate for more government regulation and social
welfare programs like Medicare and Medicade.
Cultural influences are the third influencing factor that plays a role in shaping the political
spectrum. Cultural values, religious beliefs, and societal norms influence policy decisions on
many issues; these issues include topics like immigration, healthcare, and social justice. An
example of cultural influences impacting domestic policy are conservatives. Their position on
many cultural and other policies are based on the ideal of traditional family values. This has led
to their stance on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. On the opposite end, there are
progressives base their positions on social inclusivity and equality.
Institutional factors are the fourth influencing factor; institutional factors are the structure of
government and electoral systems. Different systems of governing structure influence the
political spectrum because dependent upon the structure political parties are able to obtain and
retain power. This leads to the political priority of that party being approved and implemented.
(Kingdon, 2010).
The last influencing factor is public opinion/ interest groups. They play a significant role in
influencing the political spectrum. Public opinion is shaped by media (television, social media,
radio, etc), a person’s education, and individual experiences, and the push from those
influences can shift political priorities, choices, and the whole direction of domestic policy.
Interest groups represent various stakeholders like labor unions and business, etc each play a
role in shaping domestic policy.
In conclusion, the political spectrum is a product of a myriad of influences, both historical and
contemporary, that shape domestic policy. Understanding this broad range of influences is
crucial for comprehending the diverse ideologies and policy preferences that emerge within a
society. Historical, socioeconomic, cultural, institutional, and public opinion factors all contribute
to the formation of the political spectrum and influence the direction of domestic policy-making.
By acknowledging and analyzing these influences, we can gain a deeper insight into the
complexities of the political landscape and foster a more informed and inclusive political
discourse.
References:
Kingdon, John W., Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. London: Pearson, 2010. ISBN:
9780205000869.
Moran, Michael, Martin Rein and Robert E. Goodin, The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy.
London: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Taylor, Steve L., Matthew S. Shugart, Aprend Lijphart, Bernard Grofman., A Different
Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. ISBN: 9780300198089.
5.18 responses:
Hey Camryn,
I hope you are doing well. I truly enjoyed your discussion response; the part that stood out to me
was your biblical integration. One of my favorite scriptures is John 14:6, and it is one of the
scriptures that is discussed a lot in the Children’s and Teens’ Sunday School at my church. It is
a scripture that I love to break down; however, I do not think that is the best scripture to hone in
your point. John 14:6 when you breakdown the scripture “I am the way” signifies that Jesus is
the only way that people can have a relationship with God. In the old testament, people had to
go through the preacher/minister to hear messages and have a relationship with God; however,
Jesus is saying that is no longer the case. When Jesus says “and the truth”, he is saying that he
is the source of divine wisdom and through him you can find guidance, enlightenment, and
understanding. When Jesus says, “and the light”, he is references his role and the giver and
sustainer of life, and when people have faith, they then unlock the gift of eternal life. Ultimately, I
think this scripture more unveils the transition because old testament relationship with God
verses the new testament relationship. He refers to the new covenant with God and how people
are able to have their own personal relationship which can also be seen in Philippians 2:12
which states “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only,
but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (King
James Version Bible, 2022). I think a scripture that you can use to better hone in your point of
people needing the truth of Christ and people needing to be ready to portray the Gospel is 2
Timothy 3:16-17 which states “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped
for every good work” (King James Version Bible, 2022).
References:
King James Version Bible. (2022). King James Bible Online. Retrieved May 18, 2023 from
kingjamesbibleonline.org.
Hey Kellie,
I hope you are doing well. I really enjoyed your discussion response. I like how you brought up
that sometimes circumstances impact and change the direction of policy. Sometimes people
forget that Presidents, even when it is not their intention or desire, have to respond to situations
outside of the control. The example that you brought up of President Bush’s response to 9/11 is
one example, but it is not the first time it has happened in the country. Another example if
President Roosevelt during WW2.
During this time, the United States had adopted a policy of neutrality in regard to the war;
however, with the attack of the naval base at Pearl Harbor on December 7 by the Japanese, this
forced the country to have a dramatic shift in policy. According to historian Michael Beschloss
(2001), President Roosevelt's reaction to the attack was “swift and decisive”, and in his speech
to Congress on December 8, 1941, he requested a declaration of war against Japan, stating
that the attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of "infamy." This was the shift; it was the
abandonment the policy of neutrality and “embrace a policy of active engagement and
intervention in the global conflict” (Beschloss, 2001; Milkis, 2019). President Roosevelt
implemented emergency measures, mobilized the military, and initiated war production efforts
as part of the response to Pearl Harbor. President Roosevelt also worked to create alliances
with other nations specifically the Allied Powers (Milkis, 2019). This event was a pivotal moment
in U.S. history, and it is another example of domestic policy having to change to specific
circumstances.
References:
Beschloss, M. (2001). The Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman, and the Destruction of Hitler's
Germany, 1941-1945. Simon & Schuster.
Milkis, S. M. (2019). The American Presidency: Origins and Development, 1776-2018. CQ
Press.
5.25 discussion post
Political conflict in the United States today is a complex phenomenon because it is created by
multiple factors. Two of the sources of political conflict in the United States are the electoral
system and social divisions. The first source of political conflict in the United States is the all or
nothing, winner take all, electoral system (Taylor, Shugart, Lijphart & Grofman, 2014). The
electoral system often ignores the interest of the minority, and it does not allow for diverse
perspectives in politics. This can be seen by the structure of political parties. In the United
States, there are only two major parties: democrat and republican, and it many races (states,
local, etc.), individuals who are affiliated with third parties have to gain preliminary votes and
double digit percentages to be included on the ballot. This limits the focus of those majority
populations which side with the third parties. The winter take all mentality behind the political
system also adds to conflict because it leads individuals to act in unethical ways in order to
ensure political advantages and wins. These actions can include limiting access to early voting,
closing polling locations, and more (Janda, Berry, & Goldman, 2016). The desire to win and be
the party in power adds to the complexity of the political conflict in the United States.
Another source of political conflict is the various social divisions that are heavily pervasive in
American society. These divisions are created by a multitude of factors such as race, ethnicity,
religion, socio-economic status, and sexual orientation, and these factors also play a role in
shaping political identities. The various social divisions leads to a plethora of different groups
with distinct interests and values, and having different groups of various interests and priorities
leads to conflict because every group is trying to live and structure their community around their
beliefs, and this does not always work, especially when the groups do not agree (Hout, Brooks
& Manza, 2011). An example of conflict that is created by social divisions is the issue of
immigration. People from differing ethnicity, original nationality, religions, socio-economic status,
each have their own person thoughts and beliefs on immigration, and the concept of
immigration is often debated as a ethical, philosophical concept due to its primary social nature.
References:
Hout, M., Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (Eds.). (2011). The Oxford Handbook of American Public
Opinion and the Media. Oxford University Press.
Janda, K., Berry, J. M., & Goldman, J. (2016). The Challenge of Democracy (13th ed.). Boston:
Cengage Learning.
Taylor, Steve L., Matthew S. Shugart, Aprend Lijphart, Bernard Grofman., A Different
Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. ISBN: 9780300198089.
Responses:
Hey Brittani,
I hope you are doing well, and I enjoyed your post. I enjoyed the sources of political conflict in
the United States that you chose to highlight, specifically ideological polarization, partisan
media, and identity politics. Each of these factors significantly contributes to the current state of
political discord in the country. However, one thing that I think it important to take into
consideration is that it is crucial to analyze and consider the counterpoints to each source gain a
better understanding of the complexities involved.
The first source of political conflict you mentioned is ideological polariztion, and while ideological
polarization has undeniably widened the gap between liberals and conservatives, it is important
to recognize that there have been some instances of bipartisan cooperation in policymaking.
Despite the increasing political divergence, lawmakers have come together on certain issues,
such as criminal justice reform and infrastructure investment, indicating that it is possible for
shared interests to overcome ideological differences. A specific example of this is the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was passed in 2021. Republicans were invested in
securing funding for traditional infrastructure projects which include roads, bridges, etc; while,
Democrats were interested in investments for renewable energy projects and expanded
broadband access (Congressional Research Service, 2021). All of these interests were included
in the final act which showcased the legislatures ability to work despite the increase in
ideological polarization. I think that it is necessary to acknowledge these instances to avoid an
unjustly pessimistic view of political conflict and to ensure that ideological polarization is not
being blamed when other influences are at work.
Regarding the second source of political conflict in the United States: partisan media, it is
undoubtably true that there are media outlets with clear political biases, and they use their use
their biases to increase polarization by reinforcing specific viewpoints. Now, their intention may
not be to increase polization, but it is the outcome of their actions. Even with this, it is essential
to note that media consumption is a choice made by individuals, and those individuals also have
the responsibility to seek out various perspectives and properly evaluate information they
receive from those sources. Only by doing that can people create constructive and effective
communication because they have escaped the self confining echo chamber.
Identity politics is the third source of political conflict in the U.S., and it is known to create
divisions, but it is also important to understand and take into consideration the historical context
which caused this problem. Identity politics often emerges as a result of systemic injustices
against marginalized groups such as people of color, people in poverty, etc. Identity politics
strives to bring attention to their concerns and advocate for equitable treatment by highlighting
the struggles they face. This in theory is not problematic; however, only when one perspective
or when someone is trying to hold the policymaking process hostage over a singular element
does it cause a problem. One way to aid in the problem is by engaging in conversations that
address these concerns while recognizing the importance of the well-being of the masses.
References
Congressional Research Service. (2021). The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021:
Policy, Funding, and Key Provisions (Report No. R46856).
Hey Michael,
I hope you are going well. In your discussion post, you highlighted several sources of political
conflict in the United States: parisan animosity, group politics, growing racial & ethnic diversity,
increase use of social media, and the decline of journalistic responsibility. While each these
factors contributes to some level to the political conflict, it is important to expand the
examination as to why and analyze the counterpoints as well. I am only going to focus on three
of your points: group politics (economic inequality), increase of social media, and the decline of
journalistic responsibility.
Group politics is one of the first sources of political conflict that you mention, and one of the
aspects that in regularly brought up in group politics is income and economic inequality. It is
important to take into consideration the role of economic inequality in furthering political conflict.
Economic disparities have drastically widened in the United States, and this has lead to social
divisions and an overwhelming sense of frustration among different groups throughout the
country (Putnam & Garrett, 2016). This economic divide can also intensify the issue of partisan
animosity, especially when individuals from different economic backgrounds hold varying
opinion on policy preferences and perspectives on social issues like “entitlements” and social
programs. Economic inequality is a difficult issue to tackle; however, addressing it by inclusive
policies and social welfare programs could potentially solve political conflicts, group politics and
partisan animosity, which are regularly rooted in economic inequality.
The increased and problematic use of social media platforms is another source of political
conflict you brought up, and it can be classified as a contributor to partisan animosity. Social
media usage is not entirely problematic; it can serve as tool for civic engagement and
education. Social media has created “online activism” by providing a outlet for “marginalized
groups use their voices, advocate for their rights, and challenge existing power structures”
(Tufekci, 2017). It is important to recognize the positive potential of social media, even though
social media may also contribute to polarization, but it important to note that social media itself
is not the issue; however, it is improper use by users who are not critically analyzing the
information they receive or are not truthfully and thoroughly conveying information.
The decline of journalistic responsibility is another source of political conflict that you brought
up, and it is crucial to acknowledge that their is a presence of reputable news organizations and
journalists who uphold journalistic ethics and produce quality reporting, but there is also an
emerging landscape of more private blogs, journals, podcasts, commissioned based news sites
(Gillmor, 2016). The landscape has changed, and with the expansion it has led to challenges
such as fake news and biased reporting. To help combat this issue, it is important to encourage
media literacy and support reliable news sources when they are reporting facts even when they
report something that you do not like, agree with, or support. (side note: That is one of the main
challenges because the lack of wanting to accept the truth has allowed the avenue for bias
media to exists.)
References
Gillmor, D. (2016). Media literacy in a digital age: Teaching critical thinking in the age of
misinformation. Columbia University Press.
Putnam, R. D., & Garrett, A. B. (2016). The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century
Ago and How We Can Do It Again. Simon & Schuster.
Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. Yale
University Press.
________________________________________________________________________
FALL 2023
Domestic policy by definition are those administrative decisions that government makes or
fails to make which are directly related to all issues and activity within a nation's borders.
Discuss the broad range of influences on the political spectrum that affects Domestic Policy.
Use clear examples and quotes to support your argument (s). Remember, this is not an opinion
piece, this is an objective scholarly policy analysis piece.
Domestic policy is like a maze with many loops, turns, and barriers in the process, and with the
process being complicated to maneuver, it is important to understand the different influences at
play. The political spectrum is impacted by the diversity of ideological beliefs, political parties,
interest groups, public opinion, and historical context. By examining the impact of these factors,
it becomes evident that domestic policy is shaped through a complex process that reflects the
values, priorities, and power dynamics within a society as a whole.
Political parties play a central role in shaping domestic policy. The ideology of a party serves as
a guiding framework for their actions and policy formulation. Their ideology is reflected by their
stance on issues such as taxation, healthcare, and education. An example is the Republican
Party's emphasis on limited government intervention. This belief is showcased in their support
for lower taxes and deregulation, and their support was manifested in the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act of 2017. On the other side, the Democratic Party's advocates for social welfare programs,
and that was reflected in policies like the Affordable Care Act.
Interest groups are another factor that have influence on domestic policy because of their
actions of advocating for specific policy outcomes that align with their objectives. These groups
leverage their resources and organizational strength to shape policy decisions. An example of
interest groups influence is the National Rifle Association and their efforts to resist gun control
legislation. Their lobbying activities have greatly contributed to shaping the conversation and
debate on gun rights.
Historical context is another significant influence on domestic policy. Policies are often created
in response to past events and the community response to said event. An example of this is the
New Deal in the 1930s which was a response to the Great Depression; it was established to lay
a framework for government intervention in economic matters to help avoid the calamity that
ensued due to the crises. Another example is the USA PATRIOT Act which was a response to
9/11 which created fear and a desire for increased security measures.
8.31 discussion post:
Within the United States, political conflict is an ever present occurrence. Everywhere you turn,
whether on the television, radio, or even in your own neighborhood, sources of political conflict
are either hiding in plain sight or glaringly obvious. Three of the sources of political conflict in the
United States are ideological differences, the electoral system,and economic inequality. The
first source of political conflict in the United States are the ideological differences held
throughout the country. The United States was founded on the belief that people have the right
to have their own beliefs, whether religious, etc; however, the drastic dichotomy of differences
have created conflict among the people (Seliger, 2019). For example, differences between
conservatives and liberals have showcased conflict on almost every policy possible: taxation,
healthcare, immigration and more. This conflict impacts the ability to pass and properly
implement legislation.
Another source of political conflict in the United States is the structure of the electoral system
(Taylor et al., 2014). The winner-takes-all structure of the electoral system is a breeding ground
for conflict because it often ignores the interest and priorities of the minority which does not
allow for diverse perspectives in politics. This can be seen by the lack of political parties
involved in the electoral process, especially with the major parties, Republican and Democrat,
going farther to the right and left, respectively, individuals who are more moderate, centrist are
not truly being represented in the process. Also individuals affiliated with third parties have to
gain preliminary votes and double digit percentages to be included on the ballot which hinders
their right to be genuinely in the electoral process. The structure only allows the voices of the
majority to be heard, and the focus to win can begin to blur moral and ethical lines. Some
parties have begun to use ways to enhance their chances of winning such as limiting access to
early voting, closing polling locations, and more (Janda et al., 2016). This has only increased
political conflict in the United States.
Another source of political conflict in the United States is economic inequality. The constantly
widening economic gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population has become a major
source of political conflict. This has led to disagreements over policies aimed at reducing
economic inequalities like raising the federal minimum wage, implementing and increasing
social welfare programs, and establishing progressive taxes for the wealthy (Ritter and Solt,
2019). While some argue for trickle-down economics, otherwise known as Reaganomics, and
fewer regulations to promote job growth, others advocate for wealth redistribution and stronger
worker protections which highlights the debate regarding the effectiveness of the differing
approaches to addressing economic disparities.
References
● Janda, K., Berry, J. M., & Goldman, J. (2016). The Challenge of Democracy (13th ed.).
Boston: Cengage Learning.
● Ritter, M., & Solt, F. (2019). Economic inequality and campaign participation. Social
Science Quarterly, 100(3), 678-688.
● Seliger, M. (2019). Ideology and politics. Routledge.
● Taylor, Steve L., Matthew S. Shugart, Aprend Lijphart, Bernard Grofman., A Different
Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. ISBN: 9780300198089.
**Economic Inequality:**
The widening economic gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population has become a
major source of political conflict. Disagreements emerge over policies aimed at reducing
economic inequality, such as raising the minimum wage, implementing progressive taxation,
and enhancing social safety nets. While some argue for trickle-down economics and fewer
regulations to promote job growth, others advocate for wealth redistribution and stronger
worker protections, sparking debates that highlight differing approaches to addressing
economic disparities.
8.31 discussion board replies
Hey Zachary,
I hope you are doing well. I enjoyed your analysis of the numerous sources of political conflict in
our society. Your post provides substantial emphasis on the impact of the conflict between
major political parties which is a concern that holds significant implications for the future of this
nation. You also provided great insight on the impact of various media. The impact of social
media and the immediate access to news indeed has drastically amplified the echo chambers
where people receive and disseminate information. This has further enhanced the phenomenon
of the self-isolating cycle which you had explained. People are reinforcing their own biases and
diminishing exposure to opposing viewpoints which showcases the problem's core. The
resulting lack of understanding between parties further fuels the extensive polarization that we
are currently witnesses in our political climate (Freelon et al., 2020).
I also thoroughly found your analysis of the growth of political activism an extremely refreshing
perspective. The fact that only a small fraction of registered voters are actively engaged, and yet
politicians disproportionately cater to this segment, is a discouraging revelation. Your insight into
how this dynamic skews the perception of majority representation toward the extremes
resonates with me deeply. I have personal experience with this as someone who people deem
should be “extremely liberal” but in actuality holds majority centrist and sometimes right-winged
beliefs. This skewed representation contributes to the growing divide and underscores the
significance of bridging the gap between these extremes in order to find solutions that would
benefit the majority of individuals (Zhuravskaya et al., 2020).
Your exploration of the misperception and attack of the opposing party as a central issue is
another point that I found interesting. This concept is directly tied to the dangerous concept of
identity politics. People have begun to strongly tie their perception of themselves to their political
ideology, and this has shaped politics into a deeply personal thing (Maggi & Ossa, 2021). This
has a benefit because it encourages people to engage in the process; however, the negatives
are truly damaging. People have lost the ability to separate themselves from choices and beliefs
of others. If someone disagrees or does not hold the fervency in beliefs, it has become a
personal attack to people. This then shifts the focus of the issues from policy to personal which
only emphasizes the strife and decreases efficiency in the political process.
References
● Freelon, D., Marwick, A., & Kreiss, D. (2020). False equivalencies: Online activism from
left to right. Science, 369(6508), 1197-1201.
● Maggi, G., & Ossa, R. (2021). The political economy of deep integration. Annual Review
of Economics, 13, 19-38.
● Zhuravskaya, E., Petrova, M., & Enikolopov, R. (2020). Political effects of the internet
and social media. Annual review of economics, 12, 415-438.
Hey Victoria,
I hope you are doing well. I genuinely enjoyed your analysis on the sources of political conflict. I
specifically enjoyed how you address how many times conflict arises due to groups seeking to
advance their interests which is often at the expense of opposing groups. An example of this in
our current political landscape are elected officials who are entrusted with implementing the
ideas and beliefs of their constituents; however, when these politicians fail to deliver on their
promises, it destroys the trust in the political system and can lead to consequences during re-
elections, such as low voter turnout and politicians losing races (Wilson et al., 2020). Politicians
and constituents alike have forgotten the option of centrality when representing citizens'
interests, in favor of ever increasing polarization. This only perpetuates the conflicts that can
undermine the political system's productivity, growth, and security.
The partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans is another source that contributes
significantly to political conflict. Their differing policy priorities, with Democrats focusing on
issues like the environment and social welfare and Republicans on national security, crime, and
terrorism have created constant political battles which seem to have no ends (Isengard, 2019).
This ideological divergence has led to a significant divide in the United States, and the lack of a
significant third-party presence further solidifies this polarization. Although, it is important to note
the lack of a third-party presence is perpetuated by the two major parties as they have and
continue to create barriers for third-party participation in the political process.
References
● Iyengar, S. (2019). Affective polarization or hostility across the party divide: An overview.
New directions in public opinion, 99-117.
● Wilson, A. E., Parker, V. A., & Feinberg, M. (2020). Polarization in the contemporary
political and media landscape. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 223-228.
9.21. Discussion Post
The relationship between individual environmental values and policy is a complex intertwining occurance
that shapes the form of environmental action. On one hand, individual values influence environmental
policy by determining the priorities and preferences of the public, and this, in turn, shapes the agendas of
political leaders and parties. Individual environmental values are often influenced by personal
experiences, cultural backgrounds, socioeconomic status and education. These values can drive
individuals to support policies that align with their beliefs. For example, someone who values clean air
and water due to personal experiences of living near a polluted river or oil dig site may be more likely to
support stricter environmental regulations. Rachel Carson, marine biologist and author, states "the more
clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe about us, the less taste we
shall have for destruction" (1962). Her statement emphasizes the idea that personal values are rooted in an
appreciation for nature, and this rush of inspiration should empower people to advocate for policies that
protect the environment.
On the other hand, policy tools like regulation, taxation, laws, and incentives also have a significant
impact on shaping individual environmental values. Tax incentives for renewable energy is one example
of a policy tool that can encourage people to adopt environmentally friendly practices, and it can instill a
sense of environmental responsibility (Yang et al., 2019). An example is the Investment Tax Credit in the
United States has played a crucial role in promoting solar energy adoption by making it financially
appealing for individuals. Policies can raise awareness and educate the public about environmental issues.
An example are laws requiring labeling of products with information about their environmental impact
can inform consumers and lead to more environmentally conscious choices. Individual values and
environmental policy do not have a straightforward relationship. Political ideologies, economic interests,
and lobbying also have influence over policy decisions. This somethimes is in alignment with the public’s
values; however, sometimes corporate interests leads to the creation of policies that prioritize profit over
environmental protection (Broadstock et al., 2020), even when the majority of individuals value
sustainability.
References
● Broadstock, D. C., Matousek, R., Meyer, M., & Tzeremes, N. G. (2020). Does corporate social
responsibility impact firms' innovation capacity? The indirect link between environmental &
social governance implementation and innovation performance. Journal of Business Research,
119, 99-110.
● Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin.
● Yang, X., He, L., Xia, Y., & Chen, Y. (2019). Effect of government subsidies on renewable
energy investments: The threshold effect. Energy Policy, 132, 156-166.
9.28
Discussion Thread: Describe, discuss, and support your discussion, why it is so difficult to formulate a
“Healthcare Policy” that will serve all citizens. Use clear examples and quotes to support your
argument(s). Remember, this is not an opinion piece, this is an objective scholarly policy analysis piece.
Respond to at least two of your fellow student’s posts.
Formulating a comprehensive healthcare policy that can effectively serve all citizens is a complex and
challenging endeavor, primarily due to the multifaceted nature of healthcare needs, diverse populations,
and the intricate healthcare system itself. To appreciate the intricacy of this task, let's delve into several
key reasons why this is such a formidable undertaking, supported by examples and quotes.
Firstly, the diversity of healthcare needs and preferences among citizens poses a significant hurdle. As
healthcare economist Uwe Reinhardt once noted, "Trying to design a one-size-fits-all health care system
in a country as large and diverse as the United States is a daunting task." Different individuals require
varying levels of care, preventive measures, and specialized treatments. For instance, policies aimed at
supporting pediatric care will differ substantially from those designed for the elderly or individuals with
chronic conditions.
Secondly, funding healthcare on a national level is a contentious issue. Dr. Donald Berwick, former
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, highlighted this challenge when he said,
"The pluralism of American health care is really extreme." Public versus private insurance, fee-for-
service versus value-based care, and differing state policies create a complex landscape. The Affordable
Care Act (ACA) is a prime example of this challenge, with ongoing debates about its merits and
drawbacks, particularly related to its impact on insurance premiums and government spending.
Thirdly, healthcare policy is often influenced by political ideologies and interests. As former Senator Max
Baucus remarked, "Health care is complicated; it’s inherently political." Partisan divides can hinder the
creation of bipartisan policies that effectively address healthcare disparities. The fight over expanding
Medicaid under the ACA is a testament to how political ideology can affect healthcare policy, leaving
millions of low-income individuals without access to affordable healthcare in states that chose not to
expand.
Fourthly, there's the issue of cost control. The United States spends significantly more on healthcare per
capita than most other developed nations, yet doesn't consistently achieve better health outcomes. Health
economist Austin Frakt noted, "We have overspending and underperformance at the same time."
Balancing cost containment while ensuring quality care is a delicate task. Policies that attempt to reduce
costs, such as negotiating drug prices or implementing cost-sharing mechanisms, often face fierce
opposition from stakeholders in the healthcare industry.
In conclusion, formulating a healthcare policy that caters to all citizens is a formidable challenge due to
the diversity of healthcare needs, the complex funding landscape, the influence of political ideologies, and
the need for cost control. The intricacies of healthcare policy are reflected in the ongoing debates, the
evolving nature of legislation like the ACA, and the continuous struggle to strike a balance between
accessibility, affordability, and quality. While it is a daunting task, addressing these challenges is crucial
to ensure that healthcare becomes a fundamental right for all citizens, as it is in many other developed
nations.
Formulating healthcare policy, especially legislation that is able to adequately serve all citizens is
an insanely difficult tasks that verges on the side of impossible. Like all types of legislation, healthcare
policy faces considerable challenges in its process of creation and implementation. However, what sets
healthcare policy apart from other types of legislation is the myriad of potential issues that add to the
difficulty of its formulation and implementation. There are two main difficulties in creating healthcare
policy that able to adequately serve all people. These difficulties are the wide range of healthcare needs
amongst the population and the complex funding structure that is needed to implement this kind of
healthcare policy.
The diversity in healthcare needs amongst the population is the first difficulty that is faced when
formulating healthcare policy. Individuals have a wide range of care needs, ranging from preventive care
to highly specialized treatments. This diversity makes it difficult to create a universal policy that can
effectively cater to the unique health needs of all citizens. For example, policies designed to support
pediatric care significantly differ from those needed for the elderly or individuals with chronic conditions
(Kojima et al., 2019). Finding the balance that accommodates this while ensuring equitable access to
quality healthcare remains a complex and ongoing endeavor in healthcare policy.
The second difficulty that is faced when attempting to formulate healthcare policy that serves all
citizens is overcoming the complex funding structure. Both public and private insurance work, whether to
use fee-for-service or value-based care, and the different rules in each state all contribute to the confusion
of healthcare funding (Dieleman et al., 2020), and having to take all of these into consideration coming up
with a consistent national plan is practically impossible.
When attempting to understand the world around us, the Bible is says in Ecclesiastes 1:9 that
there is nothing new under the sun. Keeping this in mind, there are scriptures and biblical principles that
help us navigate the plethora of issues that we face on a daily basis, and that is the same with the issue of
healthcare policy formulation. One biblical principles there is applicable to the situation is stewardship,
specifically stewardship over people. The Bible tells us on multiple occasions, and in James 1:27, that we
are to take care of each other including those who cannot look out for themselves. This principle is made
even clearer by Matthew 20:26-27 which states “But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be
great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your
servant" (King James Bible, 2022). This scripture emphasizes that leadership involves putting the needs
of the people over personal interest. Leaders should show a genuine commitment to the people under their
rule because they are responsible ot the welfare and growth of the people. This is the same with
legislators responsible for healthcare policy. This should put the interest of the people, not pacs, not
interest groups, not companies, but the general people, those that need them the most, above all else.
References
● Dieleman, J. L., Cao, J., Chapin, A., Chen, C., Li, Z., Liu, A., ... & Murray, C. J. (2020). US
health care spending by payer and health condition, 1996-2016. Jama, 323(9), 863-884.
● King James Version Bible. (2022). King James Bible Online. Retrieved September 26, 2023 from
kingjamesbibleonline.org
● Kojima, G., Liljas, A. E., & Iliffe, S. (2019). Frailty syndrome: implications and challenges for
health care policy. Risk management and healthcare policy, 23-30.
Hey Victoria,
I hope you are doing well. I enjoyed your post especially how you raised an important question
about the challenges of formulating a healthcare policy. I also enjoyed how you provided a historical
overview of healthcare reform attempts in the United States because it provided valuable context. It is
extremely important that you incorporated that information because it allows for a holistic approach to be
taken because there is an understanding of past actions and outcomes (Ellis, 2021).
I also agree that the intricate web of stakeholders involved, hospitals, doctors, insurance
companies, pharmaceutical companies, patients, etc add to the challenges of creating healthcare. Each
group has its interests and concerns which makes it difficult to find common ground (Franco-Trigo et al.,
2020). Your mention of the issue of public trust in government involvement in healthcare is beneficial to
the conversation. Many individuals are cautious and nervous of government intervention becaus they fear
restrictions on their choices and potential tax increases. Balancing individual freedoms with the need for
accessible healthcare is a constant struggle.
Your reference to the Bible's principle and lessons on caring for one's body and helping those in
need is a compelling perspective that I had not taken notice of. It highlights the moral and ethical
dimensions of healthcare policy which are often get lost in political debates. Another principle to take
notice of is the concept of integrity. Many scriptures like Proverbs 10:9 which state "He that walketh
uprightly walketh surely: but he that perverteth his ways shall be known" (King James Bible, 2022). This
scritupre emphasizes that living a life of integrity not only leads to security, and it also highlights the
negative consequences of dishonesty and deceit. It shows the importance of maintaining honesty and
moral uprightness in a individual’s actions and dealings. This is the same in relation to healthcare policy;
our leaders should be working to the betterment of people and not organizations that fund their
campaigns.
References
● Ellis, P. E. (2021). An Analysis of the History of Healthcare Reform and an Evaluation of
Current and Potential Economic, Social, and Fiscal Effects of Healthcare Policy Modifications in
the State of Louisiana (Doctoral dissertation, Southern University and Agricultural and
Mechanical College).
● Franco-Trigo, L., Fernandez-Llimos, F., Martínez-Martínez, F., Benrimoj, S. I., & Sabater-
Hernández, D. (2020). Stakeholder analysis in health innovation planning processes: a systematic
scoping review. Health Policy, 124(10), 1083-1099.
● King James Version Bible. (2022). King James Bible Online. Retrieved September 26, 2023 from
kingjamesbibleonline.org
Hey Zachary,
I hope you are doing well. I truly enjoyed your post; I specifically enjoyed that you provided a
comprehensive overview of the divisive nature of healthcare policy in America. It is true that the debate
surrounding healthcare often hinges on fundamental questions about the government's role, the cost of
care, and access for all citizens (Rizvi et al., 2020). I appreciate your mention of the 50 million uninsured
individuals in the United States because it highlights the pressing issue of healthcare accessibility
especially in lower-income communities. Often times people get caught up on the theoretically, and they
forget that there are actual people and lives dependent upon the discussion being made. I also appreciated
how you touched upon the ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats regarding
universal healthcare. The statistic that 71% of Republicans believe in healthcare for everyone, albeit
through private means demonstrates that there is common ground to explore. Working within the
common ground will lay the foundation for progress and further conversations in the future. Only by
finding solutions that bridge these ideological gaps will there be progress in healthcare policy.
Your analysis of Biblical principles is thought-provoking. While the Bible may not prescribe specific
healthcare policies, it does emphasize values like compassion, love for neighbors, and caring for those in
need. These principles can guide Christians in advocating for policies that prioritize the well-being of all
individuals, including equitable access to healthcare. Another biblical principle to add to the list is the
concept of stewardship. When thinking of compassion, love, and care, people often associate them with
emotions, and emotions are fickle because people are often swayed by them (Brenner-Idan, 2022).
However, stewardship stands apart because it is a job that people are appointed to. People are mandated to
do this, and being mandated to the takeover the lives of people in an area as personal as healthcare is
another challenging task. This can be seen by Luke 12:42 which states "And the Lord said, Who then is
that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their
portion of meat in due season?" (King James Bible, 2022). This scripture talk about the importance of
responsibility, and this is something that lawmakers need to do in regards to healthcare policy. They need
to work effectively and efficiently to ensure legislation is passed that will help the masses.
References
● Brenner-Idan, A. (2022). Bible, Theology, and Politics in Times of Pandemics. Svensk Exegetisk
Årsbok, 87, 28-44.
● King James Version Bible. (2022). King James Bible Online. Retrieved September 26, 2023 from
kingjamesbibleonline.org
● Rizvi, S. S., Douglas, R., Williams, O. D., & Hill, P. S. (2020). The political economy of
universal health coverage: a systematic narrative review. Health policy and planning, 35(3), 364-
372.
