Recent orders
The Hispanic community in the US and the relationship of the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) to their health and money in Me
The Hispanic community in the US and the relationship of the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) to their health and money in Medicine
Presented by
Institution
Introduction
Many United States (U.S.) citizens complain of dissatisfaction with the current health care system. The cost of health care in U.S. averages 175 percent and most of the population lack health care insurance while other developed countries offer quality healthcare services. An action by the government to take care of the rising costs of healthcare; improve the quality of healthcare services and effectiveness, and cover more of its people with insurance would help reduce the number of complaints from citizens (Menzel, 2012). The Hispanic community forms one of the minority populations in the U.S., but the government has failed to recognize them as a growing population, and they experience many health care problems. Currently, there are approximately 45 million Hispanics in U.S. (Livingston, Minushkin, & Cohn, 2008). The government should take into account the community’s growing diversity and avail quality health care at their exposure. The following paper discusses the relationship between the Affordable Care Act and the Hispanic community living in U.S.
Discussion
The economic and social-cultural status of the population influences health status and health care services. The United States lowers the status of Hispanics in the country than the status of non-Hispanic whites. In addition, they face many barriers when it comes to receiving high-quality health care services. Challenges faced by Hispanics in U.S. result from low socioeconomic status and the minority nature of the community. In order to cater for the health care barriers faced by the Hispanics and other persons in U.S. President Obama signed a new Affordable Care Act (also known as the Obama Act) that plays an essential role in reforming the U.S. health care sector. The Act gives more Americans access to affordable health insurance, quality health care services, and reduces the money spent in the U.S. health care sector (Davidson, 2013).
The Obama Act favors all U.S. citizens without any discrimination of ethnicity, race, or social-culture. In February 2014, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that eight out of every ten uninsured Hispanics qualify for U.S. Medicaid. Those who benefited from the new health care laws could sign up for health insurance premiums and enroll their siblings at low tax credits. The Obama Act allows approximately 42 million un-insured Latinos living in U.S. access quality health care services. In addition, most of the Hispanics have enrolled to the Health Insurance Marketplace that was closed in March 2014 (Garcia, February 2014). According to Escarce & Kapur (2012), the Hispanic population suffered many effects because of the reduced access to health care. The new Obama Act offers them an opportunity to enjoy a healthy lifestyle in U.S. In addition, the introduction of the Act has saved the community much money spent on medicine in the past. The health insurance premiums charged under the new care are very low compared to the amount of the bill paid directly to health care institutions in the past.
Conclusion
Presence of the Affordable Care Act in U.S. has improved the livelihood of many citizens including minority groups like the Hispanics. The relationship between the Obama Act and the Hispanics in U.S. continues to grow as more people enroll in Health Insurance Marketplace. The move by the President to introduce a health care system affordable to all acts as one of the best approaches that present a growing nation. The health care act demonstrated justice and fairness for all people representing one nation.
References
Davidson, S. M. (2013). A new era in U.S. health care: Critical next steps under the Affordable
Care Act.
Escarce, J. J., & Kapur, K. (2012). Access to and Quality of Health Care. In: National Research
Council (US) Panel on Hispanics in the United States; Tienda M, Mitchell F, editors. Hispanics and the Future of America. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 10. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19910/
Garcia, C. (2014, February 12). Here’s How Uninsured Latino Immigrants Can Still Receive
Health Insurance Under Obamacare. Latin Post RSS. Retrieved September 26, 2014, from
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/7442/20140217/heres-uninsured-latino-immigrants-still-receive-health-insurance-under-obamacare.htm
Livingston, G., Minushkin, S. & Cohn, D. (2008). Hispanics and Health Care in the United
States: Access, Information and Knowledge. Robert Wood Johnston Foundation
Menzel, T. P. (2012). Justice and Fairness: A critical element in U.S. health system reform.
Journal of Law medicine and Ethic, 1. 1: 589-597
Nietzsches Notion of Slave Morality
Nietzsche’s Notion of Slave Morality
Name of the student
Name of the institution
Introduction
Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher, poet and culture critic. He was born in 1844 and died in 1900. During his lifetime, he wrote several texts on science, philosophy, contemporary culture and religion. Among the major tenets of his work, Nietzsche condemned the moral philosophy of his time. He argued that traits such as meekness, kindness, humility and pity are not universal virtues (BookCaps, 2011). According to Nietzsche, such traits are deemed to be universally good in the eyes of the weak in the society. The weak embrace a moral philosophy called “slave morality.” He argued that slave morality is developed and embraced by the weak in their revenge against the noble and the strong. The weak perceive the traits of the noble and strong in the society as evil (BookCaps, 2011). Precisely, the weak perceive traits such as egoism, will to power, independence of thought and aggressiveness to be evil, since they are traits of their masters, who are also their oppressors (Nietzsche, 2006). In reference to the traits associated with the masters in the society, Nietzsche introduced the concept of “master morality.” In particular, master morality is an exact opposite of slave morality (Nietzsche, 2006).
Master morality is embraced by noble men, who only focus on the things that affect them and what they do. They view things that bring profit to be good and things that have a negative impact to be bad. According to Nietzsche, slave morality evolved as the “slaves” established ways of revenge against their masters (Nietzsche, 2006). In the view of Nietzsche, slave morality has succeeded in replacing the master morality that was originally dominant. This paper presents a detailed explanation of Nietzsche’s notion of slave morality. With regard to Nietzsche’s views, the paper explains the reason why people in the contemporary society should only embrace some of the values associated with the slave morality.
Discussion
Historically, Nietzsche argued that slave morality was established by the Jews and later spread to Europe and other parts of the world. According to Nietzsche, Majority of the Jews who loved Jesus were the poor and the weak. This was mainly caused by the fact that the values that Jesus embraced highly resonated with the interests of the weak and the poor. Just as the poor did, Jesus showed hatred for the values associated with the strong and the powerful (Nietzsche, 2003). During his ministries, Jesus taught his followers that they should disregard the earthly wealth and focus on the heavenly life. In addition, the teachings of Jesus seemed to console those who suffered under the hands of their masters, and to despise the acts of the masters. As a result, most of his followers developed a negative attitude towards the virtues of the powerful.
Overall, Christianity has always promoted values such as humility, showing pity, love, harmlessness, kindness and selflessness. At the same time, the powerful are presented as wicked. They are involuntarily required to support the poor and the weak. In this regard, Nietzsche argued that Christianity promotes the incapacitation of the powerful and the exaltation of the weak (Nietzsche, 2003). In other words, Christianity supports the replacement of master morality with slave morality. As Christianity spread to different parts of the world, the values of associated with slave morality were embraced by slaves, the poor and the weak. Since the slaves, the weak and the poor were the majority in many parts of the world, they managed to overcome their masters. Eventually, the masters were forced to embrace the values embraced by slave morality, which were also promoted by Christianity (Nietzsche, 2003).
As mentioned earlier, slave morality is the opposite of the master morality. As such, slave morality opposes what is percieved as good by the master morality. According to Nietzsche, master morality weighs issues in terms of good and bad consequences, whereas the slave morality weighs issues in terms of good and bad intentions. What is valued as good in the perspective of master mortality is regarded as evil by the slave morality (Nietzsche, 2003). Unlike the master morality which perceives power as good, the slave morality perceives lack of power as good. Slave morality was meant to build up the poor, the ugly and the weak, unlike master morality which glorified in privilege, beauty and strength (Nietzsche, 2003). While the master morality is based on active will to power, slave morality is based on reactive will to power. Slave morality is based on the hatred of the strong and the powerful. In other words, slave morality is based on the resentment of the weak and the poor. In their efforts to revenge against the powerful, the poor and the weak tend to revalue everything that is valued by the powerful, including wealth (Nietzsche, 2006). As a result, the slave morality villainizes the powerful.
Slave morality embraces values that have high utility for the community. The weak and the poor perceive good actions as those that are useful to the whole community and not the powerful, a view that Nietzsche found to be contradictory. Nietzsche found that, unfortunately, slave morality does not focus on rising or gaining power than the masters; rather, it aims at enslaving the master as well. Since the weak are greater in number compared to the powerful, the weak use their numbers to weaken the power of the strong (Soccio, 2012). They corrupt the powerful into believing that they are the causes of poverty and slavery. They emphasize that they could have chosen the virtues of the powerful but they decided to reject them because they are evil. They also corrupt the powerful into thinking that adhering to slave morality values such as humility and kindness is voluntary (Soccio, 2012).
Nietzsche criticized the perception of slave morality that the virtues of master morality are evil. According to Nietzsche, the actions of the powerful in the society emanate from their inherent traits, such as strength and independence of thought, and not from any malicious intent. Nietzsche gives an example of the “blond beast” (the lion) and its prey. He argued that it is wrong to hold the blond beast as evil for hunting its prey. It would also be wrong to hold the lion as wrong for resistances and triumphs, since those are natural traits (Soccio, 2012). Similarly, it would be wrong to resent the powerful for their actions since all their actions emanate from inherent traits. Nietzsche noted that the struggle between the two opposing valuations (master morality and slave morality) has lasted for thousands of years, since the war of Judea and Rome. Judea embraced slave morality while Rome embraced master morality (Soccio, 2012).
As Nietzsche argued, people in the contemporary society should not follow all values associated with slave morality. Values such as hated for the powerful, hatred for wealth and enmity that are associated with slave morality should be avoided. As mentioned earlier, slave morality is based on hatred of the strong and the powerful. Everything that is associated with the powerful is seen as evil. Further, slave morality deceives the weak that they are blessed and should be satisfied with their present circumstances. Embracing this notion may affect the ability for people in the contemporary society to work hard and to acquire wealth (Soccio, 2012). The hatred for the values associated with master morality emanates from the feeling of resentment among the weak. In response, the weak set up an imaginary revenge against that powerful (Soccio, 2012). Thus, for the slave morality to be able to sustain itself, it requires enemies. It is wrong to follow values that lead one to form enemies. Such values that have negative impact on the interaction between the weak and the powerful should be avoided. However, there are some values that are associated with slave morality that people in the contemporary society should follow. They include humility, kindness, love and justice. Such values should be embraced since they support positive interaction between the poor and the rich, leaders and their subjects and slaves and masters.
Conclusion
In conclusion, slave morality is the opposite of master morality. It originated from Christianity, which was initially a Jewish religion. As Christianity spread in Europe and other parts of the world, the values associated with slave morality were embraced by the weak, the poor and the slaves. Since the weak, the poor and the slaves were greater in number compared to the powerful, they managed to corrupt the powerful. Slave morality emanates from resentment among the weak in the society and thus, it is a reactive will to power. Despite their efforts, the weak do not aim to transcend the powerful; rather, they aim at enslaving them as well. This is due the fact that they view everything that is associated with the powerful to be evil. The weak embrace values such as justice, love, pity, humility and kindness. Such values are good and they should be embraced by people in the contemporary society since they support positive interaction between individuals from different social classes. However, slave morality also support hatred for anything associated with the powerful, including wealth. They also see the powerful as their enemies. Such negative values associated with slave morality should not be followed. In short, we should only embrace values that support positive interaction between the powerful and the weak in the society.
References
BookCaps. (2011). Friedrich Nietzsche in Plain and Simple English. California, CA: BookCaps
Study Guide
Nietzsche, F. W. (2003).The Genealogy of Morals. New York, NY: Courier Dover Publications
Nietzsche, F. W. (2006). Beyond Good and Evil. New York, NY: Filiquarian Publishing, LLC
Soccio, D. (2012). Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. New York, NY:
Cengage Learning
Published in 1983
Name
Professor’s name
Course
Date
Themes in Caged Bird by Maya Angelou
Introduction
Published in 1983, Maya Angelou’s poem Caged Bird describes two opposing experiences of two birds: one bird suffers in captivity while another bird is free to live as it pleases. To cope with the circumstances, the caged birds result in singing, an indication of freedom. The author employs the metaphor of two birds to paint a picture of oppression that showcases the simultaneous suffering of the birds. Particularly, the poem portrays the experiences of African American communities in society. This text highlights the main themes that are depicted in Caged Bird by Maya Angelou, including oppression, freedom, and resilience.
Oppression
Throughout the poem, the author uses oppression to push the theme of freedom. As opposed to the free bird that has the liberty to soar the currents of wind, the caged bird is held prisoner in its cage with its feet tied and wings clipped. The caged bird is frustrated with the situation but cannot see through the bars of rage (Saputri, 78). The oppressive circumstances limit the bird’s ability to take flights. The birds begin singing freedom songs. The song travels far and transcends airspace where the birds seek to fly. This way, the song serves as both a consequence and defeat of oppression. While the bird is not free to fly, its soul points to the freedom that it years for. The allegory of the poem points to the oppressive circumstances under which caged birds live under-representing the systemic oppression of people of color in America.
Freedom
In the first stanza, the speaker employs imagery to refer to the free bird’s unlimited access to the sky, sun, and wind. In this poem, the theme of foregrounds freedom is the most dominant. As the poem continues, Maya Angelou compares the access to freedom of the free bird with the song of freedom sang by the caged bird. The later lament because of the confinement, and it is clear that he longs to be set free. Angelou juxtaposes the perspectives of the two birds to show that the caged bird appreciates the true value of freedom while the free bird feel entitled to its freedom (Zaini and Mohsin, 23). The caged bird has never experienced freedom but his spirit yearns nothing less. This way, Angelou shows a paradox where the caged bird has better authority on freedom than the already free bird. This is the same way insomniacs have a specific understanding of the worth of sleep.
Resilience
Resilience is another major theme that is encapsulated in the freedom song that the caged bird keeps repeating. The speaker describes the song of freedom sang by the caged animal as a paradox. Despite knowing that they are locked inside a cage, the bird sings about things that were unknown but they still longed for. The speaker realizes the song being snag by the bird is a freedom song in a different form. While the bird is unable to leave his cage physically, his voice travels in the same airspaces where the bird that is free flies through. The speaker interprets those songs as an expression of longing for freedom which his soul craves. Angelou lays emphasis on the beauty of the resilience displayed by the caged bird despite the confinement. Based on the poem’s allegory, the caged bird had the capability to overcome the difficulties represented by African Americans who have steadfast spirits despite going through oppressive material conditions.
Conclusion
In closing, the dominant themes exhibited in Maya Angelou’s Caged Bird include resilience, freedom, and oppression. The speaker uses the theme of freedom to push the theme of oppression. Unlike the free bird, the caged bird has never experienced freedom but his spirit yearns nothing less. Angelou insists on the beauty of the resilience displayed by the caged bird despite the confinement.
Works Cited
Saputri, Gisa Maya. “Racism towards African American community as reflected in maya angelou’si know why the caged bird sings: black aesthetic criticism.” rubikon: Journal of Transnational American Studies 8.2 (2021): 78-90.
Zaini, Qudsia, and Mohsin Hasan Khan. “Maya Angelou’s Battle with Alienation in I know Why the Caged Bird Sings.” AWEJ for Translation & Literary Studies 5.1 (2021).