In your opinion, is mobility more or less certain now than at the beginning of the 20th century among new immigrants to the United States? Use examples from the reading to support your answer.
Mobility among Immigrants is less certain than it was at the beginning of the 20th century. This is because the number of immigrants has increased and today they threaten to take away jobs from natives. The congress has formed about forty categories of visa classifications for immigrants. Thus, the terms of employment are confined. This does not allow foreigners to move freely from one employer to another, unless they have new permission. This permission is given only if the rules of compliance are fulfilled. Without this an employee can only be employed by their petitioner- the employer who sponsored their authorisation for employment in the US (Paparelli & Hensel, 2008, para. 9). Currently, in the US there is a rising anti-immigrant sentiment. This has led to negative framing of the immigrants which has led to wider gaps between natives and immigrants. The immigrants find it hard to move across physical and social boundaries. Therefore, moving from one occupation to another is very difficult.
What is meant by declining social organization?
Declining social organization means a society that is losing its perception as a system organized by a unique characteristic pattern that makes it a group of people. These people have a way of doing things, which sets them apart. A socially organized society is an envy of other societies. They have a political and social system that they trust and participate in. In a declining social organization people exhibit a reduced level in person to person social interaction. This reduced social intercourse leads to a weakened social fabric. People lose an interest in civil engagement yet it is necessary for a strong democracy. Thus, people have less interest in politics and duties like voting.
In declining social organization people retreat into themselves and individualism takes center stage. People no longer meet with other people in social circles to share ideas. Putnam used the idea of bowling and he says with less group bowling there are less bowling leagues hence, less social intercourse (2000). Technology is also blamed for promoting individualism for instance some people spend a lot of time playing computer games alone instead of interacting with other people.
What is the umbrella effect? How can it be dangerous to those it encompasses?
In science umbrella effect means the protection that species enjoy by association to other species. When the umbrella species is protected the other species benefit from its conservation (Sherman, 2002, p.280). Hence, the umbrella effect can be said to be the impact a certain species has on others. In health care parents or guardians can be said to be the umbrella effect. When they are able to provide health care for themselves it means they can also provide it for their children. On the other hand, just like an umbrella species would have a negative impact on other species so can human beings. For example, when parents are unable to raise adequate income to feed their families they cannot afford health care for their children. This is because they may not be in a position to take a health insurance to cover their medical needs. Hence, the whole family is left vulnerable to all kinds of illnesses. The umbrella effect could also be a government that does not provide universal health care for all its citizens. Therefore, a big number is left uncovered and they cannot afford primary health care.
Discuss the differences between the widely held ideas about welfare recipients and the facts about them.
Welfare recipients are often immigrants or poor who cannot fend for themselves. There is a misconception that people on welfare are generally lazy or aliens. This would explain why most of the people who deserve welfare fail to claim. This is especially true for immigrants as they do not want to change their status.
Welfare recipients are mostly the female headed households. Most of the women have children that they gave birth to while teens. These kinds of families are more likely to spend longer periods as recipients of welfare and are among the poorest families in the US. The average time on welfare is about 11.6 years. About 70% of the welfare recipients are women and they stay on welfare for a minimum of two years.
Unwed mothers are the highest recipients of welfare and their children grow up lacking ideas about a complete family and find it hard to adjust in the society.
Do you think the United States should adopt a single-payer system, similar to that of Canada? Using evidence from the article by Armstrong, Armstrong, and Fegan, discuss why or why not.
Yes, the United States should adopt a single payer system. The US spends more on healthcare than her counterpart Canada in a percentage of GPD and per-capita basis. Therefore, the US spending on health care was about 23% higher. The life expectancy of Canadians is higher than that of Americans. In addition, the mortality rate in Canada is lower than in the United States. This means that the health care outcomes of Canada are superior. The Canadian health system is funded by the public 70% and private sector 30% and it gives services to all its citizens. Its single payer system is better and both the poor and the rich are able to access the same hospitals. On the other hand, the US spends more than any other country per capita on health care yet, it does not have a universal health care despite being a developed country. If the US adopts the Canadian health system all the Americans will be covered and the wasted money recovered (Pat, Hugh & Fegan, p. 62-89).
In what ways does the privatization of nursing homes compromise patient/resident care?
Privatization of nursing homes compromises the patient care because the homes become profit oriented. The services may be compromised if providing the best is expensive. Therefore, patients may be subjected to poor diets and lack of proper medication, lighting, proper care and so on. Private owned nursing homes may fail to meet the set standard such as adequate number of personnel. With inadequate personnel the service provided will be poor. Yet, when patients go into nursing homes they need more care for example being reminded when to take their medication, food and so on. Some patients may be denied permission to leave on request as the homes would benefit by keeping the patient for a longer time. Therefore, it would not be uncommon to have cases of patients held against their will. A study done in the US showed that investor owned homes had more deficiencies than the non- profit and public owned nursing homes (Harrington, Wool handler, Mullan, Carrillo & Himmelstein, 2001, Results). This is proof of compromised services for patients in private nursing homes.
Reference list
Harrington, C., Wool handler, S., Mullan, J., Carrillo, H. & Himmelstein, U.D. (2001).
Does Investor Ownership of Nursing Homes Compromise the Quality of Care? American Journal of Public Health, 91 (9), 1452-1455.
Pat, A., Hugh, and A. & Fegan, C. (1999).Universal Health Care: What the United States Can Learn from the Canadian Experience. New York: New Press.
Paparelli, A. & Hensel, S.L. (2008). United States: Immigration And Employment Law In 21st Century America.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sherman, David M. (2002). Tending Animals in The Global Village: A Guide To International Veterinary Medicine. England: Blackwell Publishing.