Daybook Entry: Brainstorming for Round Table Paper

The purpose of this essay is ultimately to reflect on and analyze what youve discovered and then share
that with other readers and researchers. In other words, it is to demonstrate your growing understanding
of the conversation and various perspectives regarding your research. (Youve now considered: Who is
at your round table? Who are the participants in your conversation and which of those voices seem to be
dominating the conversation?)

Now
Use the excerpt below to start brainstorming how you will define, describe and explain each of the 3
voices you want to introduce your readers to. In your Daybook, try to write out (in your own words) how
you would answer EACH of these questions for EACH one of the voices or factions of people youve
chosen.
You should be able to get roughly TWO DEVELOPED PARAGRAPHS writing for EACH voice. You will
be sharing these responses with your peers when you get to class. Participation in this will count
toward your participation points for the assignment.

Excerpt From Assignment Sheet:
Write. For each voice youve chosen, describe that viewpoint to your audience. Essentially, you
are introducing us to your round table, helping us as outsiders understand the conversation
that is taking place. You should address the following items, keeping in mind that your audience
for this assignment is our classroom community, so we probably wont know much about your
topic:
(1) Who holds the viewpoint? Explain/define the group.
(2) What is the viewpoint, exactly?
(3) Why does this group have this viewpoint?



Government Officials/Committee who moderate and make decisions regarding the ACA
Government officials, or committees of officials, are responsible for the administration of
information regarding the ACA, as well as any additional policies relating to it. By this standard,
they put out information that is largely in-line with possible benefits of the policy, as well as
concerns, but overall look to see that the policy itself succeeds. This group of individuals will
typically include any ruling body that acts on portions of the policy (i.e. the House, Senate,
Social committees), as well as specific sub-committees designated to reflect upon the policy.
The general viewpoint shared by this group is a positive, if not somewhat critical,
outlook, that seeks to improve the functionality of the policy. This viewpoint comes about as a
direct result of their professional obligations; however, there is an underlying impetus for officials
to see the policy succeed because additions involve a great deal more work than revisions.
Additionally, it is still within the realm of their personal interest for the ACA to succeed because
it is something that their government (and possibly themselves) have ruled upon to be
favourable.

Hospital personnel
Hospital administrators, budgeters, or overseers of any sort comprise this group, as they
are responsible for the regulatory processes governing a hospital. This group is affected by the
policy changes that come with the ACA, in that different regulatory requisites must be met in
order for the hospital to receive tax exemptions, and other benefits previously afforded to them
(Sharamitaro, 1-2). This group is additionally inclusive of hospital personnel because they are
indirectly affected by managerial decisions on a system-level, even though they themselves are
not independents who must deal with the policies as part of their profession.
The general viewpoint of hospital administrators and personnel is a slightly unfavourable
one, due to the extra burden of responsibility placed upon them. Many hospitals will have to
meet additional criteria in order to satisfy government scrutiny in order to retain tax exemptions
and funding. The system of assurance is designed to ensure that patients receive good health
outcomes, and that doctors are being paid for health outcomes, as opposed to just a per
operation basis in order to promote good work by doctors, and not reward complications.
However, the additional burden placed upon the hospital by these changes creates pressure for
doctors, which trickles down to nurses, and all other facets of employment within the hospital,
effectively creating financial or anxietal burden for the entire establishment which has potential
negatives that may be unforeseen at the given time.

Immigrants or immigrant-family members who don't have insurance
This viewpoint includes immigrants, naturalized or illegal, and family members; although,
it may be possible to consider close associates with these individuals in the same group due to
the impact that the aforementioned group may have on the latter. Immigrants are grouped with
family and social relations in mind; if even one is unable to receive care, there is a major impact
felt, should something happen, in the rest of the family. Additionally, in areas near or with high
amounts of geographics immigrancy, the number of individuals affected by poor health
outcomes due to policies regarding immigrants will be greater, and so these individuals may
actually be inclusive of this viewpoint.
The viewpoint held by immigrants in this particular case is a somewhat disparaging one
because of the system-level changes enacted by the policy, that deny nearly all illegal
immigrants coverage, and deny many benefits to ones that are here legally. Generally, those
immigrants who have recently transitioned to the U.S. will be unable to obtain insurance for up
to 5 years, and courtesy of coverage is only extended women who are pregnant or children. and
illegal immigrants will only receive care as a result of an emergency. Overall, the impact of the
policy on the health of the immigrant population is a largely negative one because it does not
cater to the possibilities of a majority immigrant population in the least, and only serves those
which have lived in the U.S. for an extended period of time at best. In states with large
immigrant populations, the restrictions are the cause of much outrage.


http://www.healthcapital.com/hcc/newsletter/1_11/aca.pdf

3/26/14

Concern 1: My main first concern is probably how to relate each voice with specificity to each's
standpoint (i.e. factions within factions).

Concern 2: My second concern is how to deal with conflicting opinions within a speciic group.