Have you ever stopped to think that maybe online education is not helping and is instead hurting our mindsets? Although many feel that online education is beneficial, online education is having a tremendously negative effect on students. To further explain, many more students are losing motivation to succeed because the new curriculum they are using has a negative outcome on their grade and they are not being monitored. In today’s society, online education is the utmost concern due to external influencers. To put in perspective, this year every individual has been affected academically due to Covid-19. For example, all students were removed from in-person learning and placed in an online learning platform. Online education has drastically changed the way people are supposed to learn. Students are faced with many difficulties due to the lack of face-to-face learning and more screen time. 

In an article “How Effective Is Online Learning,” by Susanna Loeb she identifies how students lose person to person interaction with others by not being able to socialize. Loeb states, “In comparisons of online and in-person classes, however, online classes aren’t as effective as in-person classes for most students.” Online classes are deemed to be the most harmful and least helpful to students because of the progression of students’ knowledge and the decrease in the communication mindset of the human brain. Many parents when their kids are growing up set a limited amount of screen time, because they do not want their mindsets to adapt to only watching a screen. But as education is changing nowadays all students are now having to adapt to screen time more often because all education is now online. That being said, given that students are watching a screen all day they are losing the traits needed for the real world outside of a screen. By students staring at the screen all day, it has been said that technology can shape the human brain in decreasing the intelligence the brain had from being controlled and being manipulated into a different view. Screen time is changing kids minds into thinking all they will see in their future is a screen and not face to face recognition. Especially the young childrens’ mindsets are being developed into not communicating with others besides family members, which is making more people socially awkward.

Although online education has its flaws, many believe that students are obtaining more information due to self teaching. Self teaching is a way to show the responsibility and independence a student/kid needs to teach and learn their own paths. Brandon Busteed states, “So real-time interactivity, rather than place, seems to be emerging as the defining factor behind student preferences.” A lot of students would rather not have to be told to be in a certain place at a certain time they would rather be in their own place of comfort studying and learning in an environment they feel comfortable and capable to learn in. Dynraski wrote, ”Online courses have the potential to improve instruction at every level of education. Adaptive online courses can allow students to learn at their own pace, with material adjusting to fit the needs of both advanced and remedial learners.”

That being said, online students do have the potential to learn and develop at their own pace, which does help them to learn how to grow in their own way and to challenge themselves to be responsible. But students learning at their own pace does not give them structure. By not having the structure that in-person learning provides, students feel as if they are able to procrastinate their work. Students who procrastinate may not have as much knowledge due to time constraints whereas others test better when they take the time to learn and develop.

Also, many people think that online versus in-person classes are two completely different learning environments and do not teach the same material or have the same effect. Loeb addresses’ in her article, “Most online courses, however, particularly those serving K-12 students, have a format much more similar to in-person courses. The teacher helps to run virtual discussion among the students, assigns homework, and follows up with individual students.” Even though in-person and online courses use the same type of strategy, online courses are not the way to help students develop, but it is the way to hurt their development. This is her point of view on the way the teachers run their classes and the similarities of the way they go after the outcome of it. For both online and in-person learning, the teachers follow a structure that they try to reflect on the students as well through guides themselves. Adair states, “Guidance for faculty to help them translate their teaching expertise into a different learning modality. Institutions that have invested in faculty training for online teaching/design, development of course templates and/or web-enhanced courses will be in a much better position.” Teachers do not teach themselves the curriculum that they are teaching students, they follow guidance given to them through a higher power that will guide the students the same way they are being guided whether it is online or in-person. Although teachers are being more prepared than the students for online education the students receive the best education the teachers can give, but it does not mean the students are retaining the Information. Despite the teachers trying to give them the best education, students are not taking the time to listen and take notes that will help them process more information. Preparing teachers is a good thing, but an even better would be to prepare the students as much as we did for the teachers. I feel as if it is unfair to the students that they did not get the same treatment as teachers did to prepare for what was about to come. Teachers had been mentally, physically, and emotionally prepared for what was about to come and how they expected the outcome for students to be, but they did not expect as many students to not contend with the new learning environment. Teachers and students had been prepared for the same things they had been doing, but what they have received is not in fact what anyone has signed up for. Maybe if students had been prepared more there would have been more of an increase in grades rather than a dramatic decrease.

Even though online learning is not really an option for any student because of the conditions our economy is in right now. Students can adapt a really great strategy in teaching themselves the curriculum. Personally I do not like the new online learning, but I feel it is safer for everyone so that there is less person to person contact. Other than the health of person to person contact the outcome of online learning is substantially worse for the outcome of a students education. Dynarski states, “Online students did substantially worse than students in the same face-to-face course: They earned lower grades, were less likely to succeed in subsequent courses, and more likely to drop out.” A lot of statistics show how students’ grades have decreased due to the new online curriculum showing that the outcome for students’ education will dramatically decrease. The online learning, in my opinion, is not doing well for students trying to learn and develop. I feel as if teachers should hold in person classes every other day with a limited amount of people to each room wearing a mask, 6 feet apart per desk, and sanitizing the desk after each use. The curriculum for students would have a much greater increase in grades if it was held back in-person even though there are alot of risks there would not be as much risk with less people per room or even per day.

A lot of people do not know how unfair it is to students that they have to adapt in the middle of the school year and try to develop into something new. Yes students do not have a choice into how the rest of their academic career is going to go, but the extent it goes to for students can be changed. Meaning the higher up personnel could rethink the new education into a better way for everyone to learn. Another way for teachers to teach could be an A and B day. Which could be an A day for half the students with a limit of 10-15 people per room 6 feet apart with masks on while the other half has a day off, and then the same goes for a B day. From personal experience, I have seen first hand a lot of kids procrastinating their online education. Because most of the online learning classes are videos a lot of students put classes off until later when they feel bored and have nothing to do so they study. I have seen a lot of my friends as well do that because they feel as if they can procrastinate up until it is time to turn something in or have an exam. Since students do not have a structured in-person class where the teacher can see what they are doing and if they are fully attending class they feel as if it is not important to pay attention because there is no one to check and make sure. 

Works Cited:

Loeb, Susanna. “How Effective Is Online Learning? What the Research Does and Doesn’t Tell Us.” Education Week, 1 June 2020, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/03/23/how-effective-is-online-learning-what-the.html. 

Busteed, Brandon. “Online Education: From Good To Better To Best?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 5 Mar. 2019, http://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonbusteed/2019/03/05/online-education-from-good-to-better-to-best/?sh=75b9c06c6912. 

“Inside Higher Ed.” Most Teaching Is Going Remote. Will That Help or Hurt Online Learning?, http://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/03/18/most-teaching-going-remote-will-help-or-hurt-online-learning. 

Ella Burr

Social Media is a platform which provides information, knowledge, and awareness of the latest trends to people all over the world. Social Media has heavily increased over the years, and more people take part in it than ever before. Social Media, accompanied by Google Search, Instant Search, and other forms of internet and technology have implemented into society that information needs to be nearly instantaneous. Not only are industries coming out with social apps, but technology has a whole is immensely modernizing. Technology has been heavily present recently due to the ongoing pandemic, COVID-19. Classes all over the world have been taken over by Zoom, job interviews have been moved to video calls online, and even children as young as kindergarteners are learning through the computer. Electronics and technology of some sort has been around for as long as most can remember and is constantly advancing, seen in the image below. It is easy to say almost everyone is tied to some form of technology each day, but the affects that technology and the media are assumed to be leaving on society creates many conversations among people. Some believe these advances are benefitting our world, and many feel the opposite.

There are many opinions Social Media and new advances in technology are leaving people to feel, but much of our society is grateful for them. Author Jenna Wortham wrote the article “How I Learned to Love Snapchat”, where she discusses her views on communication through a device. Wortham believes phone calls leave an awkward feeling on people, which is why she loves Snapchat, which is an app where you communicate through pictures or texts that disappear after a select amount of time. Wortham states, “Texting freed a generation from the strictures and inconvenience (and awkwardness) of phone calls, while allowing people to be more loosely and constantly connected”.  What Wortham enjoys Is the simplicity and efficiency of a text or a quick post. Jenna Wortham is a woman in her thirties, which I believe has much to do with the light she shines on the media. These advances are new, and the younger generations are the ones who most efficiently pick up the newest trends. Also, Technology has allowed many adults to work from home during our current Pandemic, keeping many young adults and families afloat. Similar to Wortham, Kenneth Goldsmith wrote the article, “Go Ahead: Waste Time on the Internet” where Goldsmith provides information on why and how the internet is important, and the positive impacts it brings to modern day society. In Goldsmiths article, he makes a point in comparison to spending hours watching tv, he says “ Our time spent in front of the computer is a mixed time, a time that reflects our desires as opposed to the time spent sitting in front of the television where we were fed shows we didn’t necessarily enjoy.” This is a great example of advances, because TV has been around longer than many forms of internet supporting his point that on the internet you’re engaging in what you’re actually interested in, instead of spending your time watching television shows you do not care to see. The internet is a way to allow people to freely research and learn about topics they are most interested in. More people are driven by their interests now than ever before because they have access to information on almost any topic you could imagine just at their finger tips. Both authors do a phenomenal job informing their audience with reasons technology is helping us, but of course not all agree.

There are many people in our society that are very against technology and how it’s affecting younger generations. Nicholas Carr wrote the book “The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains” explaining the different ways the internet is negatively affecting our brains. While talking about the advances of the internet, Carr says, “What the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. Whether I’m online or not, my mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski (Carr 139).” What Carr is getting at is the internet and its instant gratification is taking away people’s ability to take their time to find information. His reference “zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski” is another way of him stating reading is turning into skimming, and the information does not last long-term in a person’s memory. Carr creates many of his arguments around the idea of “distraction” that is caused by the interaction with the internet. Carr talks about Google as a company that wants to be able to give information as fast as it can, saying “The last thing the company wants is to encourage leisurely reading or slow concentrated thought (Carr.” Then follows with “Google is, quite literally, in the business of distraction (Carr 157).” Carr wrote this book from the perspective of someone older in society, now experiencing these advances. There has been a negative connotation around technology for as long as most can remember, and has just as many cons as pros, seen below. Before there was social media, it was adults saying television is frying children’s brains. No matter the type of electronic, there is always those who are not in favor of it. I believe many people who are against technology are of an older age and are not quite used to it. The dramatic changes are what makes them “dislike” the media and continue on their ideas of the negative effect being left on society.

Although there are many people who feel social media and technology are helping our society and many who feel it is hurting it, there are also people who lie somewhere in between. Clive Thompson wrote an article called “Smarter than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better” and although this article was written in a positive bias, Thompson says “The one thing that both apocalyptic and utopians understand and agree upon is that every new technology pushes us toward new forms of behavior while nudging us away from older, familiar ones (Thompson 457).” By saying this, Thompson is not implying new technology is neither good nor bad, he is closing in on the idea that as a society we are moving in a different direction. Those who see the cup half full, opposed to half empty are those who see technology as a positive change.

Social media and technology are going to continue advancing and will probably never stop. The issue is not whether social media and technology is “good or bad”, it’s the idea that the world is changing. The ones not in favor of these changes are those who want to keep the world traditional. Younger people are more open to this idea because they come from a society that is far from traditional, and constantly changing. Benjamin Franklin once said “Change is the only constant in life. Ones ability to adapt to those changes will determine your success in life”, the world continues to evolve, leaving no option but to either evolve with it, or sit back and be mad that it is no longer the way it used to be.

WORK CITED

Carr, Nicholas G. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.

Goldsmith, Kenneth. “Op-Ed: Go Ahead: Waste Time on the Internet.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 12 Aug. 2016, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldsmith-wasting-time-internet-20160812-snap-story.html.

Thompson, Clive. “Smarter than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds For the Better” They Say/I Say, with Readings. 4 ed., edited by Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst, W. W. Norton & Company, 2018. Pp. 457

Wortham, Jenna. “How I Learned to Love Snapchat.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 May 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/magazine/how-i-learned-to-love-snapchat.html.

By: Lily Anderson

Today is the day, your twenty-first birthday, the day you have been waiting for since you were introduced to pretty much any social scene ever. The fears of entering a bar, scared that your cheap fake ID won’t work are officially over. Young Americans wait years to be able to finally legally drink without any care in the world, while young Europeans get the pleasure of that three years earlier. America has one of the highest drinking ages in the world but many kids decide to overlook that law and drink well before the age of twenty-one. Scientists want to even raise the legal drinking age to twenty-five after extensive research done on our brains. Many American adults are very against the thought of drinking before twenty one which has caused multiple issues between individuals, their families, and law enforcement. While Americans are struggling to not get caught drinking underaged, citizens in other countries around the world are enjoying their alcoholic drinks before the age of eighteen, due to carefree laws in place. In many countries like Germany, they are even having alcohol served to students at prom. This brings into question, why is America so strict about the legal drinking age? 

Throughout the years, there have been many complaints from underaged teenagers pushing the government to change the legal drinking age back to eighteen after President Ronald Reagan officially changed it to twenty-one in 1984. Many people do not understand how most countries in Europe and many other countries around the world allow eighteen-year-olds to consume alcohol but the American government has such high standards for their citizens. In fact, lowering the drinking age could mean safer consumption of alcohol for individuals. “Lowering the drinking age to 18 would allow 18-to-20-year-olds to consume alcohol safely in regulated environments, with supervision”(Otte, UNEWS). Instead of underaged drinkers hiding around and drinking secretively to themselves, lowering the drinking age would provide young adults with a safer environment. By doing this it would teach individuals how to safely drink with supervision constantly around them, rather than a small group of teens experimenting for the first time when none of them know their own limits. By doing this it would provide young adults with guidance and information from experienced drinkers. This is something they would not receive if they are hiding their underaged drinking. 

The other side though has a different belief though. People believe the drinking age should remain at twenty one because it is irresponsible to allow kids under the age of twenty-one into clubs. Lowering the age restriction would allow young adults into more violent areas. “Neighborhoods with higher densities of bars, nightclubs, and other alcohol-selling locations suffer more frequent assaults and other violent crimes”(ProCon). Neighborhoods with higher densities of bars and clubs experience much higher violence rates and they are trying to keep kids out of there. This seems completely naive to many people though. We send hundreds of thousands of our young adult citizens to fight every year to protect this country from harm. While they are out fighting for their own lives and our lives our government is scared that young adults will be going into more dangerous areas just because there are a couple of bars and clubs in the area. Yes, it can be more dangerous, but when looking at places like Iowa City, which has a huge bar and club population, this does not fit into that stereotype. Many college towns are filled with kids drinking on the weekends and because of that, there need to be safer precautions in place for them. Maybe our country should focus on making safer environments that surround the high bar and club populations instead of trying to keep kids out of them. From the looks of it, our government already does not do a very good job of stopping underage drinking. This is pretty relevant in any college town you will step onto.

At the age of eighteen, we are pronounced legal adults. At this time we are allowed to enlist in the United States Military, buy tobacco and nicotine products(up until this year), make medical decisions for yourself, stand on a jury, and get married. Yet there are still precautions and restrictions to letting American eighteen-year-olds drink. The people on the other side of this argument states, “A person cannot legally purchase a handgun, gamble in a casino (in most states), or adopt a child until age 21, rent a car (for most companies) at age 25, or run for President until age 35”(ProCon). They say that drinking should be restricted because of the responsibility it holds for oneself and others. Yet again, the other side falls short when thinking through this. Nicotine and tobacco products are proven to cause cancer and addiction but we still allow legal adults to get a hold of that. We allow eighteen-year-olds to stand before a doctor and figure out what is wrong with them physically and mentally without the parental guidance they were legally bound to have for eighteen years. We allow them to stand before a court and determine someone’s prison sentence because our government sees fit that at eighteen years old when you legally become an adult, you can make that life-changing decision for someone. Our government allows each United States citizen to make all of these life-changing decisions for themselves and others, yet we still question the aspects of the legal drinking age. I have multiple friends serving in the United States Marines and all of them are rather annoyed at the fact that after a long day’s work serving our country they cannot sit down and enjoy a nice beer. 

 Ronald Reagan changed the legal drinking age to twenty-one to combat the drunk driving issues that were happening during his time as president. Reagan implemented this by threatening states with a ten percent cut on their federal highway funding. After this law was passed, there has been a major decline in young adults drunk driving. From 1988 to 1998 there was about a thirty-six percent decline in traffic fatalities involving alcohol. “The number of young drivers in fatal crashes with a positive BAC dropped 61 percent, from 4,393 in 1982 to 1,714 in 1998”(TrafficTech). No doubt upping the drinking age improved drinking and driving fatalities but it does not just stop there. Many other attributes fall into changing the drinking age, one of them being binge drinking. Researchers found a seven percent decrease in binge drinking among college students from 1988 to 2011. Along with that, there was a thirteen percent decrease in binge drinking among high school students. In current days we do not know how true that is anymore. There is a whole epidemic going around America based on college students drinking. An article published by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reveals that fifty-five percent of college students aged eighteen to twenty-two have admitted to drinking alcohol and thirty-seven percent admitted to binge drinking. Raising the drinking age might have worked in the past for a good amount of time, but college students have become obsessed with the aspects of drinking and partying in their free time that has caused most of them to put the legal drinking age law straight to the back of their minds. 

Both sides of this argument make a very strong case but there’s no denying the holes present when looking at the side that says the drinking age should remain twenty-one. It brings into question, why is America so strict with its drinking age when places like Great Britain are so lenient with it? There is factual evidence that shows lowering the drinking age may be smarter for young adults so they can develop a healthier way of drinking and learning not to binge drink. A big reason scientists do not want to lower the drinking age is because research found that our brains do not develop until age twenty-five. Yet, the drinking age is not even twenty-five and at the age of eighteen U.S. citizens can still purchase nicotine and tobacco products that have a serious effect on the brain. Underaged drinking also costs the U.S. economy twenty-four billion dollars in 2010. By lowering the drinking age, this would significantly decrease the amount of money the U.S. is spending because of underage drinking. There are many aspects that go into changing the legal drinking age, but there is no denying the facts that are included. 

Citations:

https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/traftech/tt261.htm

https://ourcommunitynow.com/lifestyle/things-you-can-legally-do-in-the-u-s-when-you-turn-18

Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age?

People go on a diet for many reasons. To look better or to stay healthy. However, despite the efforts that people put in, in 2020 40 percent of Americans are suffering from obesity, being the highest recorded. According to the Trust for America’s Health article, with COVID-19, the insecurity of food put more Americans at risk for obesity. What caused these high rates of obesity in the US? Is it the fast-food company’s fault for selling unhealthy products? Does one’s surroundings or environment have any impact on their food diet? Through several articles, we will see different perspectives and arguments regarding this issue.

Most cities have scarce access to cheap and healthy food due to large grocery stores being miles away from neighborhoods. So people often find convenience stores to get food quickly. Olga Khazan, author of ‘Why Don’t Convenience Stores Sell Better Food?’, argues that one’s environment has an impact on their food diet. Khazan talks about the connections between obesity and the lack of affordable, easy, and healthy food that people in cities face.

“According to the D.C. Central Kitchen’s calculations, 88 percent of food retailers in the District sell mostly junk food or processed food”. Most small convenience stores and corner stores don’t stock many fruits and vegetables because of the high cost of delivery and refrigeration. So a program called The Healthy Corners, organized by The D.C. Central Kitchen, helped these small convenience stores deliver fresh products with a fleet of trucks they owned. The D.C. Central Kitchen mostly helped stores that didn’t have a full-service grocery store nearby. Through this program, 67 Healthy Corners were in low-income neighborhoods.

However, although these changes were made, overweight and obesity rates weren’t going down. Khazan mentions a study in Health Affairs that was similar to this situation. A new grocery store opened in Philadelphia. While people were consuming more fruits and vegetables, obesity rates were higher than before. Turns out that people were still relying on corner shops for quick snacks and food. The author comes to the conclusion that the goal shouldn’t be reducing obesity, but to give people the option to choose a healthy diet.

What this article highlight is how people don’t have the chance to choose their diet. Olga Khazan first criticized convenience stores for the lack of healthy food available. With the study from Health Affairs, Khazan finds out that reducing obesity shouldn’t be the main focus. People will still look for quick, affordable, and unhealthy food despite having more fruits and vegetables to choose from. What’s important is giving people the opportunity to choose a healthy diet. This article believes that one’s surrounding, such as convenience stores and far way grocery stores, have an impact on the increasing obesity rate. What Olga Khazan further emphasizes is the importance of choice.

The second article called ‘Don’t Blame the Eater’ also doesn’t find the cause in the eaters but the environment and the fast-food companies. David Zinczenko opens his argument with his personal experience. He used to live on a fast-food diet because that was the only affordable meal he could get during that time. His parents split and they were both working long hours. Zinczenko then asks what other alternatives are there for teens. With the high number of fast-food restaurants available and low prices, it is natural for teens to eat fast food frequently.

In addition, Zinczenko points out that there is a lack of information on fast food packaging. Since fast foods aren’t covered under the Food and Drug Administration labeling law, most packaging doesn’t have any information about the calories we are consuming. The author uses a specific chicken salad as an example which states that it is only 150 calories, excluding the information about the addition of 190 calories for the almonds, 560 calories for a packet of dressing containing 2.5 servings, and 450 for coke. This additional information was either listed separately or in small letters at the back of the packaging. People are

This article also believes that one’s surroundings, fast food companies, have an impact on the increasing obesity rate. Zinczenko believes that obesity rates increased since the only food options are the fast-food restaurants that are available around every corner. Through this statement, the author argues that it is not the eater’s fault but how the surrounding factors have led to obesity. Zinczenko also finds another problem with the fast-food restaurants, packaging. What this article highlights is that the eaters are not to blame. It is natural for them to be overweighted because people and their surroundings have led them to be this way.

In the year 2020, a new virus called COVID-19 was found. The rapid spread of COVID-19 has taken lives and changed people’s lifestyle. People are in quarantine and avoiding contact. With this new environment an article by the Trust for America’s Health saw connections with obesity and found results that show with the pandemic obesity has increased.

The article first states how obesity may impact on health including COVID-19 risks. According to the State of Obesity: Better Policies for a Healthier America, the adult obesity rate has increased to 42.4 percent. “Obesity is one of the underlying health conditions associated with the most serious consequences of COVID infection, including hospitalization and death.” This means that 42.4 percents who are obese are at the risk of health impacts from COVID-19. Child obesity are also increasing with 19.3 percent of US young people, ages 2-19, have obesity. In addition, 12 states have adult obesity rate above 35 percent. Also the article states that food insecurity is closely related to obesity. There were high levels of food insecurity during the 2008-2009 financial crisis and COVID-19. According to IS Census Bureau survey, “25 percent of all respondents and 30 percent of respondents with children, reported experiencing food insecurity between April and June of this year.”

What this article shows are statistics and facts from studies and researches. This article shows how the COVID-19, our new environment, has changed our lifestyle along with the rates of obesity. With the data provided it clearly shows that with the increase in spread of COVID-19, obesity rates have increased. These numbers show that this change in environment has made people change their lifestyle and eventually led to higher obesity rates.

The final article called ‘Sedentary lockdowns put kids at risk for obesity. Here’s how to help them stay moving‘ talks about how COVID-19 has made an impact on child obesity. With the spread of COVID-19, schools moved online and more children were stuck at home. Using an observational study as evidence, it has shown that due to the lockdown there is a higher chance of child obesity. The study observed 41 children in Italy and found that they were eating an extra meal per day than usual. Also the hours sitting in front of the computer has increased, reducing any physical activity. The author, Ryan Prior, believes that with the quarantine, it is important for family members to help and keep a healthy and active lifestyle.

This article also deals with the relation between COVID-19 and obesity. Ryan Prior specifically mentions the lockdown that the COVID-19 has led to. Through this lockdown, people were eating more and moving less. Ryan Prior believes that the increasing obesity rate that recent studies show is due to the new lifestyle that COVID-19,a new environment, made.

The first two articles argues that convenience stores and fast-food restaurants have caused an increase in obesity by not giving people a healthy food option. The other two articles talk about obesity and its relation to COVID-19. What these four arguments have in common is that they all find the cause of one’s surround and environment for obesity and not the eater. With different perspectives, these four articles express different values on the same conversation, how does the environment and one’s surroundings affect obesity.

Which healthcare method is more effective? What kind of healthcare systems are there? A lot of questions and opinions come into the conversation of healthcare in the United States. There are many different approaches to healthcare and I’ll be explaining the main ideas of some. I will also talk about their purposes, who is affected, and concerns. In this blog post, I’m going to analyze different methods of healthcare and how they are viewed from different sources.

Free Healthcare

The purpose of free healthcare is that people should not have to pay to receive basic medical care. Ivy Panda’s main idea of this argument, in their essay, is that people would visit the doctors when necessary and follow prescriptions. In regard to ethics, a goal behind this policy is being able to protect people’s personal morals and rights, such as autonomy. This has appeals to an audience who suffer from chronic illnesses or that have long treatment plans. Free healthcare would also value the importance of helping the sizable amount of mental illness in the United States. Since elevated suicide rates may indicate a high burden of mental illness, free healthcare could make a dramatic change to that. This would happen by being able to diagnose, treat, and teach people how they can live with their mental illnesses when they weren’t able to before. Despite the highest spending, Americans experience worse health outcomes than their international peers. Even with the United States’ advances in medicine, it still does not provide a positive outcome for a lot of patients. This could be solved by offering free healthcare and ensure that every patient is evaluated and treated for the best outcome possible. The essay also explains common health issues that need attention. Obesity is a large problem in the United States. Obesity also causes a lot of conditions that can be life threatening if not treated. With the right care and motivation, people will more likely seek help for this condition if they are not charged for treatment. People in poverty or are homeless would now receive the care and the supplies they need take care of themselves when they count before. A lot of these people suffer from malnutrition and that can be solved with certain medical care. Children in foster care that require medical attention would also receive better care now that free healthcare would cover more of their treatment. Immigrants and people traveling from places such as Canada could also receive cheaper or free healthcare with help of this policy. Overall, free healthcare would benefit people who can’t afford or don’t have access to basic healthcare. It would give a chance for every citizen in the United States to improve their quality of life regardless of income or insurance.

Concerns

The author fails to address problems that would arise with this policy. Some concerns of free healthcare may be the funding. There are a lot of factors that play into medical care. Some examples of significant expenses may be hospital stays, ambulance rides, scans, or pharmaceuticals. Another concern is hospital and private practice staffing. With the large increase in patients, places that provide patient care will need a lot more staff. The increase in the number of patients with free healthcare does not bring in the funding to places, so there would be limited ways to pay the extra staff.

Other Healthcare

On the other hand, Michael Winther’s essay explains that paid healthcare values a patient’s right to choose their care, is able to have advanced medical equipment, and to have enough sufficiently paid staff. The idea of this method is without the funding to pay staff, patients will receive less or inadequate care. The funding for free healthcare will most likely come from tax dollars, resulting in higher taxes for everyone no matter how many times an individual visits the doctor. Staff that is not getting paid enough will tend to not be as motivated. He mentions that paid healthcare also limits the access to pharmaceuticals. With free healthcare, an increase in pharmaceuticals is prescribed leading to an excess amount of unused drugs. This could lead to more cases of addiction and reliability on certain drugs. Risky behaviors (such as smoking, drug abuse, and gang membership, to name just a few) result in a heavy burden on our medical care system. This problem would only increase with the surge in new patients. Drug abusers and prostitutes are provided plentiful and free medical care (at taxpayer expense), while many elderly and disabled are denied medical procedures because they are less productive members of society. One of his main appeals of paid healthcare is preventing complications like this from happening. Make no mistake—universal health care makes the health-conscious taxpayer pay for the excessive medical needs of those who choose not to protect their health. Taxes are meant to improve the quality of life for citizens, not to aid in the harmful acts that hurt the economy. With government provided healthcare, patients will be guided to the care they would receive instead of choosing. Even though every type of care is important, with certain situations, patients may need unique treatment. Instead of getting top care treatment, a patient may receive general care. In his essay, Winther concludes that paid healthcare ensures that every patient is getting the right attention and resources.

Concerns

Winther addresses the obvious problem that our current healthcare system is failing to do. Some concerns of paid healthcare is that not everybody may be able to afford or have insurance for healthcare. The people that can not afford care or do not have insurance often have issues that go untreated and become a bigger problem. People that require lifelong treatment for a condition may not be able to get it because of the inability to access medical care. A solution that is commonly brought up is potentially making insurance more available from employers.

Differences and Similarities

The differences between these systems are quite contrasting. One difference is obviously the pricing of medical care. Free healthcare argues for free government provided healthcare with taxes being the contributor of the funding. On the other hand, paid healthcare argues for medical care provided by insurance or out-of-pocket pay. Another difference between the two is that the different methods might give patients different outcomes. For example, a person with free healthcare will be likely to stay longer in a hospital to ensure recovery. On the flip side, every day in the hospital for a patient is more money so they are more likely to leave sooner. Some similarities may include the care for the patient. Every patient would receive the same kind of care regardless of their healthcare policy.

A Different Approach

Eric Dishman is a medical technology specialist. He performed a TED talk about taking a different approach on the healthcare system. He wants more people to be able to treat themselves at home instead of being hospitalized. For example with technology taking a bigger part of our everyday world, it could also have a large impact on our medical care. Eric talks about as a child he was hospitalized and only got sicker the longer he stayed. Another comment he made about his stay was that, “the professionals were miracle workers, but they’re working in a flawed, expensive system that’s set up the wrong way“. He concluded from the experience that care must occur at home as the default model, not in a hospital or clinic. He suggests that devices we use to diagnose our symptoms, such as an ultrasound, can be plugged into smartphones and used at home. The process could be guided through the machine itself or a physician through technology. This decreases the need for hospitalizations and unnecessary spending. Obviously, this routine would not be as effective for certain patients that need special care that can only be provided in a hospital setting. Dishman also introduces the new idea of “care networking”. Often a lot of problems arise because of miscommunication among different specialties in patient care. Care networking is having a team designated to a patient with the same goal and enough educational background to treat all the problems that arise. Patients need consistency with their care in order to prevent miscommunication that lead to mistakes. For example, Eric said himself while he was in the hospital that “three different specialists had prescribed three different versions of the same drug to me.” His main goal is to make health care a team sport. This will normalize people working together not because they have to but because they want to for patients.

All the methods of healthcare have their own goals and concerns. Free healthcare provides care to everyone. Paid healthcare provides medical care without the taxation of other citizens. Team healthcare, while still not developed, would provide a way to treat symptoms and diagnose patients at home with the guided care of a physician, if necessary. The essays and other media I looked over and studied helped me understand the different arguments concerning healthcare policies. Even though these healthcare methods each have very different ways of accomplishing their goal, they all consider the well being of patients. As medicine, patient care, and technology advance, healthcare policies will evolve with it, no matter what approaches are taken.

Works Cited:

Dishman, Eric. “Transcript of ‘Health Care Should Be a Team Sport.’” TED, March 2013, www.ted.com/talks/eric_dishman_health_care_should_be_a_team_sport/transcript?language=en.

IvyPanda “Free Health Care in America.” IvyPanda, 29 May 2020, https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/#ivy-csf-section. Accessed 7 Nov. 2020.

Tikkanen, Roosa, and Melinda K. Abrams. “U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019: Higher Spending, Worse Outcomes?: Commonwealth Fund.” U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019 |Commonwealth Fund, 30 Jan. 2020, www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019. 

Winther, Micheal R. “Healthcare in America.” https://principlestudies.org/essays/health-care-in-america/. Accessed 7 Nov. 2020.

By: David Molfese

America. What does that word mean to you? To some, it means freedom. To others, it may stand as a symbol of hope. To the world, it means “The Land of Opportunity”. It is a place where, if you set foot in this country, your life can be whatever you want it to be. Lately though, America feels like a place where politics drives every major issue in our country. These days a man and a woman need to be on opposing sides of every argument just to be accepted by society. The bias view of the two-party system allows for sides to be taken by gender. It suggests that Republics defend the white male demographic, and that Democrats defend women’s rights. If a woman breaks rank and votes for a republican, then she may be branded as betraying the women’s movement.  In America, the two-party system also divides race. If you are white, you’re automatically supposed to vote Republican, and if you are black, you highly encouraged to vote Democrat. There’s no middle ground anymore. To have your one view heard, you may have to sacrifice another of your views to get it.  Is this what our forefathers fought for? Is this the world they imagined for us? They fought for a land of love, prosperity, and equality for all. They found for a land where all views shall be heard equally so that even the smallest voice can be heard. Sadly, as of late, it seems to not even be a possibility anymore. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”, and as long as this country is divided because of our two-party system, we will fail at any attempt to maintain peace and prosperity.

The main issue in America lies within the political system that we have created. What if an American would like to have more money in their pocket, then they would choose to vote republican, easy. The Republican party’s job is to cut taxes, so they vote for them. Done deal, right? WRONG! What if that same American also likes free healthcare and free college? Well, that’s tricky because, in that instance, they would vote for the Democratic party, but as stated before, they also like low taxes, a Republican issue. Therein lies the problem. You CAN’T vote for both! But why is that?

You see, the American people have been fighting for their right to choose, since the birth of the country in 1776. Even then, we had two main parties. In 1797, the Federalists, such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, fought for a strong central government. The second political party in 1797, more commonly known among the American people today, was the Democratic-Republic Party. Some people involved with this party were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and this party supported a small republic. They were against the idea of a national bank, and viewed the constitution with a strict constructionist view. These two parties started a trend that would eventually lead to this country’s toxic political divide in the next two hundred years. You see because of the creation of these two parties, people were forced to take sides even then. Instead of voting for one man/women’s opinion and his/her good morals, people were forced to choose a candidate based on party lines. First, it was a decision between a large or a small central government, then it    evolved into issues about the national bank. It later evolved into views on slavery between the republican (founded 1854) and democratic (founded 1830s) parties. During this time, republicans were in support for anti-slave movements, while others voted democratic to protect their livelihood as slave owners. During this horrible time in our Country’s history, Abraham Lincoln said this, “a house divided against itself cannot stand“, and neither can this country. Thanks to this two-party political system that has been around for centuries, we are forced to pick sides. From the birth of our nation we were hardwired to yell at each other on opposing views, and if you chose wrong you had the potential to lose everything. You could lose your job, your so-called friends, and even your family might disown you for having different political views. It’s the sad truth. We are forced to choose sides on everything, and that’s what divides us.

But what if we didn’t have a two-party system? Would you be able to vote for one party whose beliefs include things such as free healthcare, free college, while also being against abortion? Actually, YES! With the new multiparty system, these views would be recognized by a brand-new party, and it would allow for an individual’s voice to matter more than it already is. You’d be surprised how many countries actually have a multiparty system. Some major countries on this list include, Belgium (15=# of parties), Norway (9), Hong Kong (20), Ireland (14+), Poland (13), Switzerland (10), Sweden (8), and Spain (13). These are only some of the major countries in our world today that work as good, if not better, than the United States with their multiparty systems. An author by the name of Lee Drutman, winner of the 2016 American Political Science Association’s Robert A Dahl Award, given for “scholarship of the highest quality on the subject of democracy” , discusses the benefits of why we as a country need to establish a multiparty government. He points out that we as Americans do, in theory, want a third-party system. Yet, we find our selves still divided between the good old red and blue because when Americans do go to the polls, they fear if they vote for a third party, then they are going to be wasting their vote. He makes the point, though, that we need to establish a five to six party system, at least, “to represent the true ideological diversity of the country”. He then goes on to say how a two-party system is belittled by the multiparty system for one main reason. That reason is unity. You see when a multiparty system is created it “regularizes cross-partisan compromise and coalition building.” Since multiple parties would need unity to pass bills in the house and senate, it would allow more viewpoints to be acknowledged and considered by other parties. With this logic, he theorizes that voters will be happier with this new system because it regularizes negotiations and allows for government to work towards a common goal. Drutman pretty much gives the United States a step by step plan to allow this system to work flawlessly. You see, he first establishes that we need to implement the Fair Representation Act. This Act would allow states and voters to pick out their first, second, third, fourth, and fifth favorite canadite per election in a process known as rank-choice voting. If your first canadite on your ballot didn’t win the top two majority slots then your vote would go to the next guy/girl on your list. Since he/she was your next choice, your vote isn’t wasted and your voice still matters. This proposal ultimately eliminates the fear of you throwing away your vote. With every vote now meaning more, voter turnout would also be at an all-time high. Then he suggests that we should extend the number of House of Representative seats to seven-hundred. This would allow for a broader representation of people per party. Drutman also suggests that they should “get rid of primary elections, instead letting party leaders nominate their own candidates, as parties in other democracies do.” This proposal seems to be the only logical way to implement this revolutionary system of democracy into our single-minded two-party system that we have had for centuries. Since there is nothing in the constitution that says our government can’t do this right now, it would be an easy transfer into the multiparty system in the House. You see, the senate is a different story, since it specifically states, in the Constitution, that you can only have two senators per state.  There is a loop hole though. By “eliminating primaries and using ranked-choice voting-which doesn’t require constitutional changes-”it would allow for a dissolve to the “zero-sum partisanship alongside a transformed House.” With these new changes, his plan automatically eliminates gerrymandering. This is because gerrymandering only works to establish single member districts, and predictable two-party voting systems, which would be non-existent in this new system. When it came to electing the President, however, Drutman had an interesting take. The candidates would be aiming for the majority popular vote, instead of electoral college votes, and they would have to campaign to governing supermajorities and electoral coalitions. This would allow people in all parties to see the candidates for their views and integrity. Voters would then take their choice rank voting and vote for the best canadite in their opinion. This process would also eliminate a pro or anti-president congress because of how diverse the parties will become. Drutman finishes the piece on how the two-party system has caused us to have “no middle ground”. To the point where we keep tugging on the rope of politics to the point where we forget we aren’t moving the rope at all. We are waiting for our democracy to collapse, and there needs to be a change in our system now.

However, there may be some more draw backs to the multiparty system then we have previously thought. The number one issue, stated by Brandon Gaillie, was that “it eliminates the number of extremists that can be elected.” You see with this two-party, you can’t have an extremist create a party just because they want to take control. It allows for a more balanced way of life. On top of that, it is very easy for the citizens in our country to understand the two parties’ views. With a multiparty system, there are so many views going back and forth that it may confuse the voters on who they really want to vote for. A simple way they could fix this, though, would be by having a specific government website with all the party’s views and specifics on each parties’ leaders, so that voters can always be up to date with that info. Another key thing that Gaillie points out, is that the two-party system is “restrictive enough to ensure that majority receives the exact representation they want in each district.” Which is pretty smart because a small majority could win in the multiparty system. Although, since it would use rank choice voting, you would still be able to pick your next favorite canadite if your first choice didn’t win. One of the main issues Gaillie had with the multiparty system, however, is that it “slows down the process of governing”. What he is saying is that, when there is a multiparty system there would be a need to form ruling coalitions, but with a two-party system, “this allows people to vote for specific candidates that fall outside their party spectrum for certain offices.” This means you, an American, can vote for a republican for president, but also a democrat for governor. These views would still stand in the multiparty system, but maybe not in the way they are used to. There needs to be a balance of power and relatability for the parties. People need to realize that there are issues that they can agree with on both sides of the spectrum. The multiparty system stands for a symbol of hope, that you don’t have to fight for your right to choose the issues you believe in.

Our life experiences determine what sides we take on every issue we vote for. From the families we were raised in, to the schools we went to, to the friends we made along the way, we develop an opinion and we form an educated guess on which two parties we should vote for. Even if we don’t like some of the views of a certain party, it’s still a situation of the good outweighs the bad. We need to create a multiparty system that will allow millions of Americans to vote on different issues that they believe in without being forced to only choose which beliefs they prefer more. At the end of the day, we are the generation of change. It’s up to us, if we want to live in a world of broken pieces that will never fit together, or a world where we can accept our fellow Americans for the differences between us. We are known as the melting pot of the world. A million different opinions, spices, and herbs that creates the best freedom stew you will ever have. We need to learn that we need to listen, accept the other sides views, and hug it out. At the end of the day, we are all Americans, and a House unified, by something as strong as that, can stand against anything.

Work Cited

Admin. “The Democratic Party’s History of Slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK.” Social Justice Survival Guide, Social Justice Survival Guide, 9 Jan. 2018, www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-democratic-partys-history-slavery-jim-crow-kkk/.

Gaille, Brandon. “17 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Two Party System.” BrandonGaille.com, 26 Mar. 2018, brandongaille.com/17-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-the-two-party-system/.

History.com Editors. “Democratic Party.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 4 Apr. 2018, www.history.com/topics/us-politics/democratic-party.

Lee Drutman, leedrutman.org.

Little, Becky. “Why Lincoln’s ‘House Divided’ Speech Was So Important.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 15 June 2018, www.history.com/news/abraham-lincoln-house-divided-speech .

“List of Ruling Political Parties by Country.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Nov. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ruling_political_parties_by_country

Munck, Micah. “American Political Parties from 1776 to Now.” Sutori, https://www.sutori.com/story/american-political-parties-from-1776-to-now–wVx3LsL1QREEGTRek2mfymUV

“Republican Party Founded.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Feb. 2010, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded.

Richardson, Valerie. “Democrats Label Republicans ‘Racist/Bigoted/Sexist’ as Political Divide Intensifies.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 13 Nov. 2018, www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/13/democrats-label-republicans-racist-bigoted-sexist-/.

“U.S. Constitution: Constitution Annotated: Congress.gov: Library of Congress.” Constitution Annotated, constitution.congress.gov/constitution/.