Petrecca, L. (2012). 'Supersized' drinks on the way out in NYC. Accessed From http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012/09/13/supersized-drinks-on-the-way-out-in-nyc/57775970/1
This form of law is almost impossible to regulate on individuals considering that even if the supersized drinks are reduced to the 16-ounce cap, consumers still have the choice to consume more than one cup. A person may also opt to buy sugary drinks from the grocery and convenience stores which would not be affected by such law. To drink or not to drink is solely a personal choice. As such, a law seeking to reduce the quantity of supersized drinks as a way to improve health is myopic. Instead the government should endeavor to change the mentality of the consumers through educative programs.
Even if the government was to regulate each individual, which is next to impossible, the issue of infringement of individual rights could arise. The right to choose is inherent and the government cannot purport to usurp that right in the pretext of knowing what is best for everyone. The very fact that the a person has a free will to choose a man or a woman as his/her companion or to choose whether to abort or not then the same should apply to drinks or food of their choice and the quantity.
Laws are supposed to be of general application. While the intention may be good, such legislation promotes partisanship since it seeks to regulate only beverages that are not sold in grocery stores despite the fact that they are similar and also sugary. Such law would create a dreadful precedent and a precursor for blatant exclusion of certain things to disenfranchise a section of citizens. Where could the legislator stop? Such law is discriminatory and would be a recipe for chaos.
NBC News Investigations. (2013). Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance. Accessed From http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
There are various advantages and disadvantages of a government agency running a healthcare. With regard to advantages, a government agency is able to incorporate every citizen into its health policies considering that every citizen has a stake in such programs by virtue of being financiers through taxes. As such, healthcare policies of a government agency are fully financed through the public coffers hence promote greater accountability and has a duty to ensure healthcare services are available to every citizen.
There are also disadvantages. In reference to the Affordable Care Act, when government policies make services unaffordable to a considerable number of the citizens even though the government is supposed to promote every citizen’s welfare then the policies become discriminative. This is apparent from the article as it points out the fact that the government knew that the Affordable Care Act was not going to benefit a large number of people yet officials went ahead to support the enact the law. From the article, it is clear that the said law has led to loss of insurance covers because owners they are unable to afford new propositions in line with the Act from the insurers.
A further disadvantage of healthcare run by a government agency is the use of policies as a political tool. When healthcare policies are used for political purposes, there is lack of objectivity in the debates and information regarding such policies is distorted to suit one or the other political divide. As such, a healthcare run by a government agency is prone to manipulation through political opinions rather than facts as political adversaries aim to vindicate government policies and criticize the opposition and vice versa.
Wessel, D. (2012). Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The Budget* *But Were Afraid to Ask. Crown Business/Random House. Accessed From http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444330904577538910083734248
Every year policymakers make decisions on how federal budget should be expended. According to Wessel programs such as healthcare and social security devour the highest percentage of the federal budget. As big as the American economy is, the government results into borrowing. It is notable that government expenditure is highly lopsided. It is also understandable that without security the economic prospect of any nation is greatly affected. The skewed expenditure leads to lack of funds to drive other government policies thereby leaving the government with no option but to raise funds through borrowing leading to more economic anxieties.
It is time for policymakers and technical experts in the treasury to reevaluate ways to replenish the economy without borrowing. This could be done by cutting budgetary allocations on defense and rechanneling the funds to other investments and programs focused on the future. Reduction of defense allocations can be achieved through reforming and adopting effective less costly military strategies such as changing the military procurement practices. It is only through an overhaul in budgetary spending that would facilitate the reduction of the deficit.
