How to design a good PowerPoint presentation · PowerPoint is a visual tool, you should make the most of it. Minimize the amount of text on the slides, and combine it with pictures, photos, tables, charts, or diagrams as relevant. · Pay attention to your choice of slide design. You want something that links well to your presentation and is visually appealing, but you don’t want a background that competes against your content. Your instructor has to be able to read your slides. · Also to enhance visual appeal, think about using some features in SmartArt (under the Insert tab of the PowerPoint menu) to organize your content. The AVPs in this course offer examples of SmartArt. · When you use text, don’t include too much information on one slide.

Instead of writing paragraphs, use phrases arranged in bullet points. As a rule, you should not use a font size smaller than 20 for your text. Think about using colors to make important phrases or words stand out. Think of PowerPoint as a detailed outline of what you are going to say. Summarize the key information on your slides, not everything you will say · Do NOT include direct quotes from any sources.

Paraphrase and summarize ideas instead. This will help you control the amount of text in your slides. · Think about the sequencing of your slides. They have to flow smoothly from one to the next. · Be judicious in your use of slide animations (text that appears as you click). Using it helps keep the audience engaged, but too much of it will slow down your presentation. · Preview your presentation using the Slideshow tool before submitting it. Make sure that all your content fits in the slides and your slide animations or transitions work the way you intend them to.

2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis [email protected] :60.1 1/1 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 1/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] .

Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 2/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 1/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission.

Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 2/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis [email protected] :43.7 1/1 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis [email protected] :0.00 1/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] .

Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis [email protected] :0.00 2/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 1/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission.

Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 2/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 1/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 2/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] .

Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. One can clearly see many similarities between the Clinton Healthcare legislation and the Obama Healthcare legislation Why is it that Obama’s Affordable Care Act was successful verses the Clinton attempt to restructure healthcare. One theory of why the Clinton administration attempt to restructure healthcare failed is that of accusations of secret meetings and competing proposals (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015).

These factors were contributed by not those opposed to the Clinton administration in fact it can be traced back to both individuals and groups that supported the administration (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). In fact the task force that was devised to work on what seemed to be poised for success during Clintons first term was reported in a Washing Post article in a negative light (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). Due to the article and public perception a judge ordered the task force meeting to be made public. Once recommendations were developed the task force disbanded. Upon development of a proposal known as the Clinton Health Security (CHS); initially significant support was expressed even though some confusion was noted by the public.

By October 1993 support dropped plummeting approval ratings to 59% (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). Organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) changed their approval of the new healthcare legislation from pressure by Health Insurance Association of America and National Federation of Independent Business. The AMA turned their support to another plan that was actively competing (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). During the time of the CHS proposal there were more than twenty other plans proposed and competing. Other proposals included single-payer bill, which was proposed by the House Democrats, an individual mandate Republican plan, amongst several others (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015).

Although many similarities can be noted between the CHS proposal and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the former was passed whereas the latter was not. Some of the similarities include individual and employer mandates, retention of health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions, and the vast support for health saving account utilization (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). So one must attempt to explain why the CHS failed and the ACA was successful. One area that the two plans differentiated was the ability for the reform to control costs associated with the change. The CHS required that all individuals under the age of 65 obtain insurance from state exchanges.

Limits were also placed on premiums. The ACA did not place limits on premiums and rather than people be made to obtain insurances from state exchanges, the exchanges were created for individuals not on a state level. The success of the ACA can be directly correlated to the unification of the Democratic Party during the Obama administration. All in all several factors were involved when investigation of why the healthcare reform was successful for Obama and not for Clinton. Regardless healthcare reform will always meet opposition and support as it is a major topic of discussion for all involved.

Individuals as well as organizations, healthcare institutions, and businesses all have the perfect plan in their eyes. Somewhere in the middle lies the best resolution. Although some aspects of the most recent healthcare legislation, ACA, are not favorable I feel it is a step in a better direction. As with any change there are going to be things people do not like. However, development of plans to meet most needs is ideal and just as healthcare changes so does the need for changes in healthcare reform.

“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven†(Ecclesiastes 3:1, ESV). Reference McLaughlin, C. P., & McLaughlin, C. D. (2015). Health policy analysis: An interdisciplinary Approach (2nd ed.).

Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett In reviewing the political environment during the Clinton healthcare legislative failure and then comparing it to the Obama healthcare legislative success, one will find some of their experiences quite similar. Both environments were facing many challenges including increased uninsured, pre-existing conditions, rising health care costs, and medical bankruptcies to name just a few (Godfrey, 2014). Both Clinton and Obama made healthcare promises during their campaign trail. When Bill Clinton was in office, he formed a task force on Health Care Reform and had his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton as the chair (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). This task force was not very transparent as it focused on several issues.

They included: · mandating employee coverage through an employer-based system, · providing subsidies for small businesses and low wage employees, · capping annual premiums, · providing payments for the poor to cover premiums and out of pocket expenses, and · creating regional alliances (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). One of the functions of the alliances was to collectively bargain with insurance companies. This was not attractive to insurance companies. As a result, Bill Clinton found one of his biggest opponents the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA). In contrast, when Obama was launching his healthcare campaign, he actually included the health care insurance companies as primary stakeholders (Godfrey, 2014).

One of Obama’s main focuses was to change the way healthcare insurance was regulated. He had a mandate for people who could afford health insurance and they were forced to purchase or pay a penalty. Obama also had a “play or pay†mechanism similar to the Clinton plan that required businesses with 50 or more employees to offer health care coverage to their employees or pay a penalty (Gottlieb, 2015). In addition, both plans set up exchanges. Clinton’s plan had fewer exchanges as it covered multi-states.

Obama’s plan allowed each state to set up their own exchange or have a federally managed system (Gottlieb, 2015). While Clinton appeared to have great support for healthcare change, his plan ended up failing for several reasons. First, the “Health Security Act†had major competition when it went to Congress. There were other healthcare bills from Democrats and Republicans being presented (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). Second, the Republicans were united together in an effort to defeat the Clinton bill.

Third, the Democrats did not have a clear strategy as other Democrat healthcare bills had been proposed. Finally, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was unable to support Clinton’s budget assumption and did not agree that the healthcare plan would be budget neutral. Ultimately, public opinion was lost and the bill died in September 1994. For Obama, the Democratic Party was much more united and they had several interest groups that were unified to support the legislation moving forward. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed with very slim margins in Congress and would be phased in over the next four years (Camillo, 2016).

In reference to the state agencies listed in 10-1 and 10-2, many of these are involved in the healthcare debate each having their own strengths and weaknesses. Their strengths are based on the fact that each agency has a specific area of concern that it addresses. After each agency, I have listed a description of where their strength is focused. For example, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is focused on supporting research that studies outcomes, patient safety, and other qualities of healthcare ("HHS Agencies & Others," 2018). The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) focuses on hazardous substances that may affect quality of life.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has many different roles. One role is to prevent and control diseases and injuries that affect quality of life. A second role is to conduct research and provide leadership training. The CDC is also involved in protecting people from biological and chemical terrorism. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) focuses on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA) is involved in national health programs. It focuses on people living with HIV/AIDS, the underserved, and women and children through different state programs. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are home to our two largest Federal healthcare programs, Medicare and Medicaid. CMS is also involved in other programs such as SCHIP, HIPAA, etc. Indian Health Services (IHS) is the Federal program that supports American Indians and Alaska natives by providing comprehensive health services.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) is our nation’s medical research industry and supports researchers in every state (website HHS offices). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) focuses on prevention, treatment, and rehabilitative services encompassing substance abuse and mental illness. Then there are Federal agencies outside HHS that also have health-related responsibilities. In our text they are listed under Table 10-2. Some examples include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which is focused on protecting our air, water, and soil from pollution ("Non-HHS Agencies and Programs," 2018).

The Federal Bureau of Prisoner’s (BOP) protects citizens by keeping offenders confined. They also work for the Health Services Division to provide physical and mental health services. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) focuses on providing citizens safe, affordable, nutritious supply of food and prevents foodborne illnesses from spreading. The U.S.

Department of Defense (DOD), in addition to providing our military, is also focused on behavioral health and traumatic brain injury. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) focuses on providing safe and secure borders and looks after the well-being of people on U.S. soil. The weaknesses of these organizations centers on the fact that they are government programs supported mostly with our tax dollars. There are three categories of spending: mandatory, discretionary, and interest on debt.

For all the agencies listed, they fall under mandatory and discretionary and account for over 90% of government spending (National Priorities). For example, in 2015 discretionary spending was .11 trillion and mandatory spending was

How To Design A Good Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Is A Visual T

How to design a good PowerPoint presentation · PowerPoint is a visual tool, you should make the most of it. Minimize the amount of text on the slides, and combine it with pictures, photos, tables, charts, or diagrams as relevant. · Pay attention to your choice of slide design. You want something that links well to your presentation and is visually appealing, but you don’t want a background that competes against your content. Your instructor has to be able to read your slides. · Also to enhance visual appeal, think about using some features in SmartArt (under the Insert tab of the PowerPoint menu) to organize your content. The AVPs in this course offer examples of SmartArt. · When you use text, don’t include too much information on one slide.

Instead of writing paragraphs, use phrases arranged in bullet points. As a rule, you should not use a font size smaller than 20 for your text. Think about using colors to make important phrases or words stand out. Think of PowerPoint as a detailed outline of what you are going to say. Summarize the key information on your slides, not everything you will say · Do NOT include direct quotes from any sources.

Paraphrase and summarize ideas instead. This will help you control the amount of text in your slides. · Think about the sequencing of your slides. They have to flow smoothly from one to the next. · Be judicious in your use of slide animations (text that appears as you click). Using it helps keep the audience engaged, but too much of it will slow down your presentation. · Preview your presentation using the Slideshow tool before submitting it. Make sure that all your content fits in the slides and your slide animations or transitions work the way you intend them to.

2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis [email protected] :60.1 1/1 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 1/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] .

Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 2/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 1/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission.

Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 2/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis [email protected] :43.7 1/1 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis [email protected] :0.00 1/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] .

Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis [email protected] :0.00 2/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 1/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission.

Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 2/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 1/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. 2/22/2018 Health Policy Analysis 2/2 PRINTED BY: [email protected] .

Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. One can clearly see many similarities between the Clinton Healthcare legislation and the Obama Healthcare legislation Why is it that Obama’s Affordable Care Act was successful verses the Clinton attempt to restructure healthcare. One theory of why the Clinton administration attempt to restructure healthcare failed is that of accusations of secret meetings and competing proposals (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015).

These factors were contributed by not those opposed to the Clinton administration in fact it can be traced back to both individuals and groups that supported the administration (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). In fact the task force that was devised to work on what seemed to be poised for success during Clintons first term was reported in a Washing Post article in a negative light (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). Due to the article and public perception a judge ordered the task force meeting to be made public. Once recommendations were developed the task force disbanded. Upon development of a proposal known as the Clinton Health Security (CHS); initially significant support was expressed even though some confusion was noted by the public.

By October 1993 support dropped plummeting approval ratings to 59% (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). Organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) changed their approval of the new healthcare legislation from pressure by Health Insurance Association of America and National Federation of Independent Business. The AMA turned their support to another plan that was actively competing (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). During the time of the CHS proposal there were more than twenty other plans proposed and competing. Other proposals included single-payer bill, which was proposed by the House Democrats, an individual mandate Republican plan, amongst several others (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015).

Although many similarities can be noted between the CHS proposal and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the former was passed whereas the latter was not. Some of the similarities include individual and employer mandates, retention of health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions, and the vast support for health saving account utilization (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). So one must attempt to explain why the CHS failed and the ACA was successful. One area that the two plans differentiated was the ability for the reform to control costs associated with the change. The CHS required that all individuals under the age of 65 obtain insurance from state exchanges.

Limits were also placed on premiums. The ACA did not place limits on premiums and rather than people be made to obtain insurances from state exchanges, the exchanges were created for individuals not on a state level. The success of the ACA can be directly correlated to the unification of the Democratic Party during the Obama administration. All in all several factors were involved when investigation of why the healthcare reform was successful for Obama and not for Clinton. Regardless healthcare reform will always meet opposition and support as it is a major topic of discussion for all involved.

Individuals as well as organizations, healthcare institutions, and businesses all have the perfect plan in their eyes. Somewhere in the middle lies the best resolution. Although some aspects of the most recent healthcare legislation, ACA, are not favorable I feel it is a step in a better direction. As with any change there are going to be things people do not like. However, development of plans to meet most needs is ideal and just as healthcare changes so does the need for changes in healthcare reform.

“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven†(Ecclesiastes 3:1, ESV). Reference McLaughlin, C. P., & McLaughlin, C. D. (2015). Health policy analysis: An interdisciplinary Approach (2nd ed.).

Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett In reviewing the political environment during the Clinton healthcare legislative failure and then comparing it to the Obama healthcare legislative success, one will find some of their experiences quite similar. Both environments were facing many challenges including increased uninsured, pre-existing conditions, rising health care costs, and medical bankruptcies to name just a few (Godfrey, 2014). Both Clinton and Obama made healthcare promises during their campaign trail. When Bill Clinton was in office, he formed a task force on Health Care Reform and had his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton as the chair (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). This task force was not very transparent as it focused on several issues.

They included: · mandating employee coverage through an employer-based system, · providing subsidies for small businesses and low wage employees, · capping annual premiums, · providing payments for the poor to cover premiums and out of pocket expenses, and · creating regional alliances (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). One of the functions of the alliances was to collectively bargain with insurance companies. This was not attractive to insurance companies. As a result, Bill Clinton found one of his biggest opponents the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA). In contrast, when Obama was launching his healthcare campaign, he actually included the health care insurance companies as primary stakeholders (Godfrey, 2014).

One of Obama’s main focuses was to change the way healthcare insurance was regulated. He had a mandate for people who could afford health insurance and they were forced to purchase or pay a penalty. Obama also had a “play or pay†mechanism similar to the Clinton plan that required businesses with 50 or more employees to offer health care coverage to their employees or pay a penalty (Gottlieb, 2015). In addition, both plans set up exchanges. Clinton’s plan had fewer exchanges as it covered multi-states.

Obama’s plan allowed each state to set up their own exchange or have a federally managed system (Gottlieb, 2015). While Clinton appeared to have great support for healthcare change, his plan ended up failing for several reasons. First, the “Health Security Act†had major competition when it went to Congress. There were other healthcare bills from Democrats and Republicans being presented (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). Second, the Republicans were united together in an effort to defeat the Clinton bill.

Third, the Democrats did not have a clear strategy as other Democrat healthcare bills had been proposed. Finally, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was unable to support Clinton’s budget assumption and did not agree that the healthcare plan would be budget neutral. Ultimately, public opinion was lost and the bill died in September 1994. For Obama, the Democratic Party was much more united and they had several interest groups that were unified to support the legislation moving forward. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed with very slim margins in Congress and would be phased in over the next four years (Camillo, 2016).

In reference to the state agencies listed in 10-1 and 10-2, many of these are involved in the healthcare debate each having their own strengths and weaknesses. Their strengths are based on the fact that each agency has a specific area of concern that it addresses. After each agency, I have listed a description of where their strength is focused. For example, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is focused on supporting research that studies outcomes, patient safety, and other qualities of healthcare ("HHS Agencies & Others," 2018). The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) focuses on hazardous substances that may affect quality of life.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has many different roles. One role is to prevent and control diseases and injuries that affect quality of life. A second role is to conduct research and provide leadership training. The CDC is also involved in protecting people from biological and chemical terrorism. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) focuses on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA) is involved in national health programs. It focuses on people living with HIV/AIDS, the underserved, and women and children through different state programs. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are home to our two largest Federal healthcare programs, Medicare and Medicaid. CMS is also involved in other programs such as SCHIP, HIPAA, etc. Indian Health Services (IHS) is the Federal program that supports American Indians and Alaska natives by providing comprehensive health services.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) is our nation’s medical research industry and supports researchers in every state (website HHS offices). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) focuses on prevention, treatment, and rehabilitative services encompassing substance abuse and mental illness. Then there are Federal agencies outside HHS that also have health-related responsibilities. In our text they are listed under Table 10-2. Some examples include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which is focused on protecting our air, water, and soil from pollution ("Non-HHS Agencies and Programs," 2018).

The Federal Bureau of Prisoner’s (BOP) protects citizens by keeping offenders confined. They also work for the Health Services Division to provide physical and mental health services. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) focuses on providing citizens safe, affordable, nutritious supply of food and prevents foodborne illnesses from spreading. The U.S.

Department of Defense (DOD), in addition to providing our military, is also focused on behavioral health and traumatic brain injury. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) focuses on providing safe and secure borders and looks after the well-being of people on U.S. soil. The weaknesses of these organizations centers on the fact that they are government programs supported mostly with our tax dollars. There are three categories of spending: mandatory, discretionary, and interest on debt.

For all the agencies listed, they fall under mandatory and discretionary and account for over 90% of government spending (National Priorities). For example, in 2015 discretionary spending was $1.11 trillion and mandatory spending was $2.45 trillion for a total of $3.56 trillion dollars. A majority of our tax revenue is used to fund these federal programs. This to me is a major weakness as much waste occurs within the government. As I write this discussion post, the current U.S. debt is over $20 trillion dollars ("U.S.

Debt Clock," 2018). We have seen our Federal spending increase 138%. One of my favorite bible verses in regards to financial stewardship is “the rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender†Prov 22:7 (English Standard Version). I would prefer to see our country rely less on government support and more on one another. “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ†Gal 6:2 (The Reformation Study Bible).

References Camillo, C. A. (2016). The US healthcare system: Complex and unequal. Global Social Welfare , 3 , . Godfrey, M. (2014).

What is the difference between the health care proposal once advocated by President Clinton (often called “Hillarycareâ€) and the now-enacted Affordable Care Act (often called “Obamacareâ€)? Retrieved from Gottlieb, S. (2015). The clintonian roots of obamacare. Retrieved from HHS agencies & others. (2018). Retrieved from McLaughlin, C.

P., & McLaughlin, C. D. (2015). Health policy analysis (2nd ed.). [VitalSource Bookshelf]. Non-HHS agencies and programs. (2018). Retrieved from U.S. debt clock. (2018).

Retrieved from HLTH 556 Discussion Board Rubric Criteria Levels of Achievement Content 70% Advanced 92-100% (A) Proficient 84-91% (B) Developing 1-83% ( < C ) Not present Demonstrates content mastery and a well-rounded understanding of the issue. 18 points 18- 16.5 points All posts display clear content mastery, and relate precisely to the assigned topic. 16.49- 15.0 points All posts are related to the assigned topic, but do not provide evidence of subject mastery. 14-1 points Posts are loosely related to the assigned topic, and do not effectively contribute to the development of the discussion. 0 points Does not provide evidence of subject mastery.

Articulates a clear position on the topic with academic support. 18 points 18- 16.5 points Posts are balanced in their approach to the topic, but provide evidence of a clear, well-researched position on the topic. 16.49- 15.0 points Posts are mostly balanced, but do not provide evidence of a firm position derived from research or current literature. 14-1 points Posts show a clear bias, or do not provide a discernable position on the issue. Evidence of research is not present.

0 points Does not display evidence of individual thought or topical research. Contributes to the overall discussion through relevant, substantive posts. 17points 17-15.5 points Unique contributions are made to the discussion in both the original thread and two responses. 15-14 points Contributions are made through an initial thread and two responses, but are definitional in nature. 13-1 points Contributions made are minimal, and are derivative in nature.

0 points Contributions to the discussion are nominal. Structure 30% Advanced 92-100% (A) Proficient 84-91% (B) Developing 1-83% ( < C ) Not present Grammar and Spelling 8 points 8-7.4 points Correct spelling and grammar used throughout essay. Posts contain fewer than 2 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. 7.3 – 6.7 points Posts contain fewer than 5 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. 6.6-1 points Posts contain fewer than 8 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content.

0 points Posts contain greater than 8 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. APA Format Compliance 8 points 8-7.4 points Minimal errors (1-2) noted in the interpretation or execution of proper APA format. 7.3 – 6.7 points Few errors (3-4) noted in the interpretation or execution of proper APA format. 6.6-1 points Numerous errors (5+) noted in the interpretation or execution of proper APA format. 0 points Notable absences in required APA formatting.

Assignment Requirements 6 points 6 points Minimum word count of 400 words for the initial thread and 200 words for each response is met or exceeded. Initial post includes one unique, relevant scholarly reference 5 points Minimum word count for each post is within 10% of the requirement. References to outside sources are included, but do not provide unique insight to the overall discussion. 4-1 points Minimum word count for each post is within 20% of the requirement. Sources referenced are not scholarly or relevant.

0 points Word count for each post is not within 20% of the requirement. No outside references are provided.

.45 trillion for a total of