Suchergebnisse

Historically, environmentalism has not served the US long-term objectives and goals to advance its influence and hegemony in the world. From the Post-cold war period onwards, US politics took war interventions as a top security issue and denied the non-traditional threats such as climate change to be a part of its national security agenda. On the other hand, many countries have included the threat of climate change in their national security domain. Meanwhile, in the US, climate action has never been a central part of its national security and foreign policy objective. The first section of this paper aims to critically evaluate the US domestic policies and foreign policy from the Nixon administration to Trump's administration. It shows that the US has a promising start in addressing nontraditional threats but soon became a laggard in the subsequent years. Secondly, this paper tries to answer a very pertinent question that why does the US remain a laggard to consider environmentalism to be part of its national security agenda?

Historically, environmentalism has not served the US long-term objectives and goals to advance its influence and hegemony in the world. From the Post-cold war period onwards, US politics took war interventions as a top security issue and denied the non-traditional threats such as climate change to be a part of its national security agenda. On the other hand, many countries have included the threat of climate change in their national security domain. Meanwhile, in the US, climate action has never been a central part of its national security and foreign policy objective. The first section of this paper aims to critically evaluate the US domestic policies and foreign policy from the Nixon administration to Trump's administration. It shows that the US has a promising start in addressing nontraditional threats but soon became a laggard in the subsequent years. Secondly, this paper tries to answer a very pertinent question that why does the US remain a laggard to consider environmentalism to be part of its national security agenda?

Following the global economic recession, health care systems have experienced intense political pressure to contain costs without compromising quality. One response is to focus on improving the continuity and coordination of care, which is seen as beneficial for both patients and providers. However, cultural and structural barriers have proved difficult to overcome in the quest to provide integrated care for entire populations. By holding groups of providers responsible for the health outcomes of a designated population, in the United States, Accountable Care Organizations are regarded as having the potential to foster collaboration across the continuum of care. They could have a similar role in England's National Health Service. However, it is important to consider the difference in context before implementing a similar model, adapted to suit the system's strengths. Working together, general practice federations and the Academic Health Science Networks could form the basis of accountable care in England.