Effect of Playing in a Childs Life :: essays research papers

What effects does play have on a child’,s life? Does it give a big role to a child’,s life? Play benefits a child mentally, emotionally, and socially as it helps the child’,s development during the childhood stage. A child develops mental skills through play by language, infants learn words through friends and hearing words spoken. They can use words to point out favorite toys and activities. They can also use words to express their feelings and emotions. The second one is the ability to learn shapes, infants and toddlers can be introduced with puzzle shapes and pictures for it will help them to identify all the things around them. And the third one is colors for a child can learn colors through coloring, picture books, puzzles, and paints, that adds up the creativeness and the artistic nature of a child. A child develops emotional skills is first by means of having fun cause for a child to express happiness and pleasure in an activity is a start for a healthy life. There is a need for any child to express themselves with school or at home. They learn to play by themselves or with special people in their life. The second is playing with others. A child learns to play with friends, relatives, or parents to bond with other children their age. Third is expressing feelings. To express how they feel through sadness, anger through role-play. And in terms of Developing Social Skills the first is taking Turns and Sharing. In this learning take turns with blocks or colors or by sharing toys at home or in school. Learning to share is a big step with little ones. The next one is cooperating, learning to cooperate by working with teachers and friends. Cooperating with parents at home.

Eliot Spitzer Case Essay

Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York Investment Protection Bureau, was the leading regulator who changed the way many Wall Street firms do business. What he accomplished was nothing short of extraordinary – he has not only stood up for the investors against Wall Street giants, but he did so in such an aggressive but rightful manner that required much courage and sophistication. Many criticized Spitzer for his overly aggressive indictments and actions against Wall Street firms, which consisted releasing the Merrill Lynch’s incriminating emails on the national television as well as releasing firms’ civil charges to public before the court ruled on the case. However, his rationale behind it was that many Wall Street firms have taken shelters under legal settlements – usually led by SEC or other government regulation agencies – that would withhold the scandalous details of their charges and only require firms to pay some fines. These firms’ reputations would remain intact and the public would not have any awareness of the â€Å"corrupt business models† that many of these firms have been practicing. That is why many firms continue to make fraudulent, deceitful deals that would rip off their clients, and drive up their profitability, knowing that the worst case scenario is them getting caught and having a pay some type of fine to settle the case. Therefore, Spitzer releasing the incriminating details of Wall Street firms to the public, though a bit unorthodox, is fair in my opinion. He did so for a rightful reason – to use the power of publicity to implant fears of committing frauds into Wall Street executives’ minds. He wanted to build a stronger deterrent against Wall Street firms’ ill practices. In addition to that, Spitzer’s actions are also legitimized by a rarely known New York State law called Martin Act. This Act, once invoked by attorney general, can prohibit a firm from continuing its allegedly fraudulent practices. Attorney generals can then immediately expose the situation to the public while continue their investigation and gather more information until they are ready to file suit – which can be civil or criminally – against the firm. The act itself is designed to prevent fraud and deceitful practices. Spitzer used the Martin Act as his strongest vehicles to punish the di shonest Wall Street firms. Of course, no firms are â€Å"corrupt† by nature. Matter in fact, most of the Wall Street firms have Code of Ethics and Control systems in place to prevent their employees to practice fraudulently. However, the main problem is that although these policies are well-written in form, not much effort is spent by the firms to actually implement these policies and codes. For example, Merrill Lynch had policies requiring equities analysts to be totally objective, and yet most of its investment bankers acted as salesperson by manipulating reports on stock to attract and keep clients. Most of the fraudulent transactions were able to take place in these sophisticated, well-built Wall Street firms because these firms lacked strong internal control. The high incentive to generate revenue at all costs, the lack of transparency and information flow, and confusing ethical standard all contributed to the interest-conflicting corporate culture that many Wall Street firms have but refuse to ack nowledge. To have a strong internal control, the utmost important component is the â€Å"tone at the top† – a solid corporate governance. Strong corporate governance leads to a healthy control environment, which can really define the way a company functions and whether employees act on behalf of the best interest of the shareholders and clients. Aside from setting the mission statements, the top management should emphasize and enforce the values in professional integrity and ethical standard. Firms should set up proper Human Resource (HR) policies and training to make sure they have hired the right people who will do the right things. One of the major weaknesses in many Wall Street firms is their compensation structures. Many, if not all, Wall Street employees are rewarded by how much revenue they generate for the firm instead of the quality of service they provide to the customers. That is why investment bankers and stock analysts do not feel bad when they sold â€Å"junk† stocks to unsophisticated buyers as they are receiving multi-million dollars for doing so. Nonetheless, it is this form of distorted incentive that has pressured many to do unethical things even when they did not want to. Henry Blodget of Merrill’s Internal Research Group awarded InfoSpace highest recommended stock rating because Merrill’s Investment Banking (IB) division had an affiliation with an internet company that InfoSpace was going to acquire. He was pressured by the IB division, and eventually cooperated despite disagreeing because he was â€Å"paid to do so†. For â€Å"contributing† to Merrill’s IB operations, Henry’s annual â€Å"guaranteed† minimum cash bonus drastically increased from $3 million in 1999 to $12 million in 2001. HR should make more commitment to employee competence and evaluate them on the basis of the service quality instead of the profit-driven criteria. A better performance evaluation procedure can definitely enforce more ethical behaviors and due diligence within the firms. For many of these fraudulent practices to take place undetected and undeterred, it is clear that Wall Street firms also lacked check and balance. Have they properly enforced segregation of duties, authorization procedure, and documentation, it would make it much harder for these fraudulent transactions to go through. Analysts would review each other’s work to make sure trades are fairly assessed and authorized by the right senior personnel. Documentations are made so it would be easy for the manager to follow and back track the trade. Also more than one group of people would be working on the trade so they can all take responsibility for it if anything goes wrong. With proper check and balance, people would have less leeway to make ill-advised deals to the investors knowing that there are extra sets of eyes watching over them. These internal controls would have detected and prevented fraudulent transactions before they even had a chance to proceed. Wall Street firms would not have to worry about getting caught by the external parties – such as Spitzer’s and his crew – and face charges and public humiliation. In the 60 minute video we watched last class, Henry Markopolous complained about relative lack of action by SEC in moving to stop the Madoff scandal in its tracks. This point was reiterated again in this case as SEC played a rather passive role in the Merrill scandal as well as other fraud investigations Spitzer was involved in. It just seems that because SEC does an enormous number of investigations, it sets the limit of what it can do in terms investigation scope and response time to the fraud. Therefore, it made a strong enforcers like Spitzer even more if an important role for the public investors. Comparing to SEC’s long, formal procedure that requires committee voting to even issue a subpoena, Spitzer’s attorney generals’ office was a much more flexible, agile place where they can file suit with the court to take actions against fraud in a very short period of time. Spitzer’s use of publicity, although triggers criticisms such as â€Å"subverts due process to release undigested investigative files to the media before charges are filed†, was Spitzer’s way to show public the â€Å"shocking betrayal of trust† of some trusted Wall Street firms and allow the public to know what was going on. Given the authority by the Martin Act, Spitzer was able to sue the firms criminally as well, which means death sentence to any corporation. Nonetheless, Spitzer has never done so because his ultimate goal was not to â€Å"kill† the firm, but to rather remove the â€Å"tainted spots† from the firm, whether it is its CEO or any other executive position, so the firms can learn their lesson and become better corporate citizens – a result that ordinary settlements often fail to achieve. Therefore, I would conclude that Eliot Spitzer’s actions regarding Wall Street regulation were appropriate. Despite his sometime s extreme measures, no firms bankrupted and no employees lost their jobs. His greatest accomplishment came when he pushed Wall Street to its greatest reform since the Great Depression. On 2002, SEC, regulators, and the ten largest Wall Street firms agreed in principle to revise firms’ compensation plan to avoid conflicts of interest that have affected the research analysts’ independence and objectivity. The â€Å"Global Settlement† in 2003 has brought Wall Street giants – such as Credit Suisse First Boston, Merrill Lynch, and Salomon Smith Barney – to their knees with fraudulent charges which required a total of $1.4 billion fine to resolve the case. Spitzer has done the right thing to reform the Wall Street into a much more trustworthy business environment that would enhance the wellbeing of both investors and employees. It is clear that who is on the right side. Eliot did the right thing, given this authority by the Martin Act, to show It is a duty of a voter. And he used the authority for a good cause, which pushed Wall Street as SEC, Spitzer, I think Spitzer’s practices are fair because although he has the authority to He never did so because, but to rather allow the firms to learn their lesson –The Wall Street was successfully pushed to a reformation with his effort, and made it The problem with SEC is its conservative approach toward fraudsters. They are slow at reacting to frauds. Has too many investigations SEC has to handle. SEC has a formal procedures requiring the staff to vote from the five-member commission first to issue subpoenas and then to file suit. The enforcement and regulations were separate divisions in SEC: enforcers tended to focus on individual cases of wrongdoing while regulators looked at the overall pictures. Compare to SEC, Spitzer looked at both, and the attorney general’s office was a flexible, agile place where they can file an affidavit with the court at a very short time.

Should the United States Have Universal Health Care

Universal Health Care being enforced in the United States has been a debate topic for decades. Though there are issues regarding universal health care, there are more benefits involving all American citizens. The United States should have Universal Health Care. The denizens of countries who have universal health care have higher life expectancies compared to the United States, even though we Americans pay more for medical related expenses; the cost for universal health care has been greatly exaggerated; and Americans are dying prematurely due to lack of insurance. Beneficially, the economy will boost because universal health care will increase the amount of small businesses. First of all, a study has shown that Americans have a lower life expectancy rate than those living in countries that have universal health care, even though the United States pay more for health care (Mahon, Weymouth, â€Å"U.S. Spends Far†). According to a study by the Commonwealth Fund, in 2009, the U.S . spent about 8,000 dollars per capita on health care (Mahon, Weymouth, â€Å"U.S. Spends Far†). Other countries, like Japan and New Zealand, spent one-third as much, or like Norway and Switzerland, spent two-thirds as much. A separate study by Global Research has shown that in 2007, among seventeen countries examined, U.S. ranked dead last in life expectancy for males (seventy-five years) and second to last for females (eighty years) (Randall, â€Å"U.S. Life Expectancy†). The same study shows that women in Japan, aShow MoreRelatedHealth Care Of The United States Essay1706 Words   |  7 Pages Health Care in the United States Matthew Glennon Ivy Tech Community College Abstract The aim of this paper was to gather and find information over universal health care. Research will demonstrate the varying ideas on universal health care. The goal of the paper for the reader is to inform them well enough on the topic to be able to pick a side and make a solid argument. The reader will be informed on different ideas that surround universal health care. The combinedRead MoreThe United States And Universal Health Care1582 Words   |  7 PagesThe United States and Universal Health Care: Should the U.S. Make the Switch? The United States has one of the largest, most complex health care systems in the world. Although the U.S. is among the wealthiest nations in the world, it is far from the healthiest and falls behind other developed nations in terms of healthcare. Mexico and the United States are the only members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which has 34 members in total, which do not have universalRead MoreUniversal Healthcare in America710 Words   |  3 PagesThe United States having universal healthcare Michelle Garbarino Eng 122 James Meetze February. 25, 2013 Should the United States have Universal Healthcare? The question of Universal Healthcare in the United States has valid and non valid arguments with supporters on both sides of the issue. Millions of Americans do not have affordable health care insurance. The main question is who is responsible to provide this? Is it feasible for government to pay for the lack of health care by taxpayer’sRead MoreWhat Universal Health Care Really Means1445 Words   |  6 PagesWhat Universal Health Care Really Means Throughout history, it has been debated that a universal health care system should be offered to the United State’s people by their government. Universal Health Care means that every legal citizen in the designated region will receive coverage regardless or health, income, race, gender, wealth, etc. The purpose of this is to provide everyone the quality care they need without the highly expensive costs. Ideally, the government would provide this coverageRead MoreAmerica s A Free Universal Health Care Plan955 Words   |  4 PagesUniversally, health care is known as the maintenance and restoration of health by the treatment and prevention of disease through trained and licensed physicians. As a twenty-year-old, full-time college student, I have not had an actual health care plan since I was in high school. I also make less than $7,000 a year as a part-time substitute teacher. When I get sick, I cannot go to the doctor because I simply cannot afford the cost to be seen by a physician. I do not know what I will do if IRead MoreHealthcare reform Essay1289 Words   |  6 Pagesï » ¿ The United States should have Universal Health Care Comp II The United States should have Universal Health Care Virtually 50 million Americans are presently without any health insurance, and a great number of them with health insurance are struggling to pay for their medical bills. Everybody concurs that healthcare must be accessible to all citizens, but the debate on whether the United States should adopt a universal health system still rages. AccordingRead MoreHealth Inequalities And Universal Health Care1259 Words   |  6 PagesPetrovic 02 Dec, 2014 Health Inequalities in US and Universal Health Care as a Solution Health inequality is one of the social inequalities that may cost the lives of people unless backed by corrective policies. Universal health care is one of those tools by which we correct disparities in health care utilization and insure the health of the fellow citizens. World health Organization (WHO) defined Universal health care, also universal health coverage as â€Å"a specific type of health care coverage of all peopleRead MoreThe United States And Universal Health Care1403 Words   |  6 PagesNation by nation, state by state, from the poor to the wealthy, Universal Health Care is an idea and public policy that is quickly becoming the norm. The United States however, remains almost exclusively the only country that does not provide Universal Health Care for its citizens. With our newly elected government attempting to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, our attempt in providing affordable health insurance for all, a public policy with high approval from both parties, this co uld be our goldenRead MoreThe United States Should Provide Universal Health Care For All Of Its Citizens857 Words   |  4 Pagesa whole (The Institute of Medicine). II. Today I will provide arguments showing you why the United States should provide a Universal Health Care for all of its citizens. III. After conducting thorough research on this topic, I am here to share this information with you today. Tie to the audience: Am sure that there is someone that you know that might need health care and cannot afford it or even you have found yourselves in this same place while in between jobs. IV. Today I’d like to talk to youRead MoreThe New Healthcare Reform Essay919 Words   |  4 PagesThe United States healthcare system has failed Americans because the government has treated it as though only the wealthy should be taken care of. Universal Healthcare has benefited industrialized countries like Sweden, France, and Canada because they recognize the fact that healthcare should be a human right, and not a privilege. The debate continues over whether the reform will benefit the people and not put the government into greater debt while politicians are raising the constitutional flag