Referendum and Brexit

In my view the decision that was taken with the Brexit referendum shows that some issues should not be decided by a direct public referendum. Certainly, in some cases, a referendum might be helpful to reflect public opinion on a certain issue, e.g. if a community needs to renew a bridge financed with tax money or if a new transmission mast should be built in the neighborhood. However, these decisions are made on a small democratic scale that directly influence only that specific community. Generally, for decisions at a larger scale, I believe, that in democracies elected parties or representatives, have to take responsibility for their political stands which they have been elected for. Hence, the representatives are in charge to take responsible decisions that might influence domestic and foreign policy.

Certainly, it may be possible to improve the integration of communities and personal opinions into large scale political processes, but people need training to make these participative measures effective. It is essential to have a fundamental basis which supports taking a democratic decision. Evidently, what Brexit has proven is that demographic gaps, between generations, of cultural nature, from north to south, and London to rural Britain, exist in the British society which cannot be fixed just by having a public referendum. In addition, I strongly believe, that it was irresponsible of parliamentarians to let people decide on an issue without being given a clear fundament to base their decisions on.

Traditional Journalism in today's Media Environment

Nowadays, social media is everywhere and people can hardly resist on the functionality of social networks such as Facebook, Twitter or Snapchat. While most people use those sites to connect with friends or family, social media caused a change in journalism and reporting, as well. For instance, there is a remarkable increase in online news-feeds which use striking headlines and pictures to get clicks, notably Buzzfeed or Facebook.

Unlike traditional newspapers these sites often use specific algorithms to arrange and present their news to the reader. Those news which depend on requests from friends or colleagues are likely to loose the reliability of traditional newspapers.

Nevertheless the increase of people who refer to that specific and modern way of reporting is tremendous.

Facebook, for example, features traditional newspapers, indeed. But whenever someone wants to read a specific article they do not open the original source but remain on Facebook. Therefore, Facebook is still in control of the data and the content of the article. The quality paper depends on the company “Facebook Inc.” and its algorithm, which often provides trashy articles with striking headlines instead of informative and serious news. It creates a vicious circle in which people use social media, read recommended articles, remain on the page and read another trashy article. To receive reliable news people had to search on their own. But that takes effort, people are not willing to take in our fast time.

It definitely is a profitable development for all social media companies, because it brings them users, data and money.

The losers are the traditional newspapers and the people who do not have to but do rely on coverage from social networks instead of professional reporting.

It changes the view towards important subjects and might illustrate sensitive topics in an exaggerated and hence negligent way.

Traditional journalism is in danger, especially if sites like Buzzfeed or Facebook gain thousands or millions of users every day.

Facebook needs to change his policy and algorithm in favor of reliable news, or traditional journalism has to play by the same rules Facebook does.

But that would cause the end of independent and free journalism as we know it.

Aaron's Edit:

Nowadays, social media is everywhere and people can hardly resist (on) [no prep] the functionality of social networks such as Facebook, Twitter [P, St - ^,] or Snapchat. While most people use those sites to connect with friends or family, social media [T/Asp - ^ has] caused a change in journalism and reporting(,) [Gr,P] as well. For instance, there (is) [has been] a remarkable increase in online (news-feeds) [Sp,St - ^ news feeds] which use striking headlines and pictures to get clicks, notably Buzzfeed or Facebook. [Gr,St - run back text; no half paragraphs) Unlike traditional newspapers [P - ^,] these sites often use specific algorithms to arrange and present their news to the reader. Those news [foc - ^stories] which depend on (requests) [W - ^posts] from friends or colleagues [foc,M - ^in order to be disemminated] are likely to loose the [foc,M - ^aura of] reliability (of traditional newspapers) [M,W+,E - that traditional newspapers have]. [Gr,St - run back text; no half paragraphs) Nevertheless the increase of people who refer to that specific and modern way of reporting is tremendous. 

Facebook, for example, features traditional newspapers, indeed. But whenever someone wants to read a specific article they do not open the original source but remain on Facebook. Therefore, Facebook is still in control of the data and the content of the article. The quality paper depends on the company “Facebook Inc.” and its algorithm, which often provides trashy articles with striking headlines instead of informative and serious news. It creates a vicious circle in which people use social media, read recommended articles, remain on the page and read another trashy article. To receive reliable news people had to search on their own. But that takes effort, people are not willing to take in our fast time.

It definitely is a profitable development for all social media companies, because it brings them users, data and money. 

The losers are the traditional newspapers and the people who do not have to but do rely on coverage from social networks instead of professional reporting. 

It changes the view towards important subjects and might illustrate sensitive topics in an exaggerated and hence negligent way. 

Traditional journalism is in danger, especially if sites like Buzzfeed or Facebook gain thousands or millions of users every day. 

Facebook needs to change his policy and algorithm in favor of reliable news, or traditional journalism has to play by the same rules Facebook does. 

But that would cause the end of independent and free journalism as we know it.

Health reform of the century

Access to affordable and high-quality health services is of paramount importance in life of society. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), otherwise known as Obamacare, is intended to improve the healthcare system in the United States.

First, it is aimed at expanding health insurance coverage to a wider American population, i.e. it is supposed to provide easier access to adequate medical services that were once predominantly available to “wealthy white males” (Mauk and Oakland 2014), who should have checked their white (cisgender) male privilege a long time ago anyway. The reform is unprecedented in its scale and caters to other Americans as well, or more precisely, discriminated and marginalized groups, such as females, non-whites, and people with pre-existing conditions. Second, the PPACA also tries to reduce insurance costs for every single person by requiring more people to take part in the system and fining those who refuse to chip in for the common good. Third, the Act ensures an extension of Medicaid eligibility to the poorest individuals, unless they are too unlucky to live in a state that does not participate in the program. Finally, low-income families are able to enjoy federal subsidies to buy their own coverage.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is thus a major milestone for the whole nation. Its implementation is, however, a long and difficult process so it is going to take some time before all of its provisions come into force throughout the country. Both proponents and opponents of the reform are trying to remain optimistic.

Aaron's Edit:
Access to affordable and high-quality health services is of paramount importance (in life) [prep;get;WF - ^to the lives] of [foc,M;det - ^the citizens in any] society. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), otherwise known as Obamacare, is intended to improve the healthcare system in the United States.

First, it is aimed at expanding health insurance coverage to a wider American population, i.e. it is supposed to provide easier access to adequate medical services that were once predominantly available to “wealthy white males” (Mauk and Oakland 2014), who should have checked their white (cisgender) male privilege a long time ago anyway.* The reform is unprecedented in its scale and caters to other Americans as well, or more precisely, discriminated and marginalized groups, such as females, non-whites, and people with pre-existing conditions. Second, the PPACA also tries to reduce insurance costs for every single person by requiring more people to take part in the system and fining those who refuse to chip in for the common good. Third, the Act ensures an extension of Medicaid eligibility to the poorest individuals, unless they are too unlucky to live in a state that does not participate in the program. Finally, low-income families are able to enjoy federal subsidies to buy their own coverage.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is thus a major milestone for the whole nation. Its implementation is, however, a long and difficult process [P - ^,] so it is going to take some time before all of its provisions come into force throughout the country. Both proponents and opponents of the reform are trying to remain optimistic.

[* Wow, Andreas, you just dropped a serious "Woke" bomb!  For those students who are unaware of what "checking one's privilege" means, here is a Guardian article on 2013's greatest contribution to political dialogue. And "cisgender(ed)," for that matter.

The free enterprise system

For centuries, people have been in search of an effective economic system. The world has seen two major economic concepts put into practice, namely a market economy and a planned economy. An example of the former would be the American “free enterprise” system.

“Free enterprise” is a term that refers to a system in which private businesses are able to compete with each other freely without any interference. Competition, albeit a natural driving force propelling human progress, can cause havoc if it gets out of hand. In pursuit of financial gains, companies may resort to unethical and dangerous business practices often referred to as “cut-throat competition”. Despite that, many people can arguably function better under pressure and feel more rewarded if they outperform the guy next door. This helps the system to never run out of motivated workforce and keep everyone busy minding their own business and yet give them a feeling of being free and in control of their life. People also know that the government is always there to protect them from free enterprise by passing laws and regulations to slow down evil corporations on their way to world hegemony.

The idea of free enterprise, although good on paper, turns out to be flawed when it comes to real-world scenarios. However, one can argue that the system is perfect. It is the people who always mess it up.

Aaron's Edit:

For centuries, people have been in search of an effective economic system. The world has seen two major economic concepts put into practice, namely a market economy and a planned economy. An example of the former would be the American “free enterprise” system.

“Free enterprise” is a term that refers to a system in which private businesses are able to compete with each other freely without any interference. Competition, albeit a natural driving force propelling human progress, can cause havoc if it gets out of hand. In pursuit of financial gains, companies may resort to unethical and dangerous business practices often referred to as “cut-throat competition(”.) [St- ^,"] Despite that, many people can arguably function better under pressure and feel more rewarded if they outperform the guy next door. This helps the system to never run out of motivated  [W,Gr-noncountable - ^ people in the] workforce and keep everyone busy* minding their own business and yet give them a feeling of being free and in control of their life. People also know that the government is always there to protect them from free enterprise by passing laws and regulations to slow down (evil) [Reg, St . . . and really just good rhetorical and civic manners!] corporations on their way to world hegemony.

The idea of free enterprise, although good on paper, turns out to be flawed when it comes to real-world scenarios. However, one can argue that the system is perfect. It is the people who always mess it up.†

[* You did this correctly, Andreas, but I wanted to point out when one should and shouldn't use commas before participial phrases. Here's Grammar Girl, Mignon Fogarty, on the subject.

† One could indeed make this argument. And you've done an excellent job creating an enticing ending that leaves the reader thinking about the further implications of what you've written! Great job. My only critique is that you haven't made this specific argument in your text. All of your evidence points to systemic problems rather "user failure," as it were. You really need to come by your ending honestly. That's part of academic and journalistic honesty.]

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) installed in 2014 is the most influential change in the American healthcare system since the beginning of governmental involvement with the subject. First of all, the goal is to provide health insurance for most Americans. In other words, PPACA is intended to drastically reduce the total of 50 million uninsured people and have them covered by health insurance by 2027.

The idea of PPACA consists in the fact that the overall costs of healthcare can be reduced if most people pay into an insurance system. Therefore, PPACA requires almost all US citizens and legal residents to buy insurance. Second, it is setting out ways to provide subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance as well as giving incentives for companies to provide health cover. Health insurance exchanges, then, are installed as a means to help individuals find the right plan for their situation. Finally, PPACA means that individuals, companies and insurers who do not comply with the Act will be fined.

The implementation of PPACA, also known as Obamacare, has already seen a rise in insured people. Mainly young people, but also those who were previously denied coverage for pre-existing medical conditions were able to eventually get covered. But of course, there are critical voices that claim that the reforms made the federal government overstep its bounds. How much of the reforms persist once the new government is in place, remains to be seen.

Aaron's Edit:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) installed in 2014 is the most influential change [prep - ^to]  the American healthcare system since the beginning of governmental involvement with the subject. First of all, the goal is to provide health insurance for most Americans. In other words, PPACA is intended to drastically reduce the total of 50 million uninsured people and have them covered by health insurance by 2027.

The (idea) [reg - ^intention] of [det - ^the] PPACA (consists in the fact that) [foc,coh,M - ^is to reduce] the overall costs of healthcare (can be reduced if) [s.a - ^ by having] most people pay into an insurance system. Therefore, PPACA requires almost all US citizens and legal residents to buy insurance. Second, it (is setting out) [T/Asp - ^sets out]  ways to provide subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance as well as (giving) [s.a. - ^give] incentives for companies to provide health (cover) [WF - ^coverage]. Health insurance exchanges, then, are installed as a means to help individuals find the right plan for their situation. Finally, PPACA means that individuals, companies and insurers who do not comply with the Act will be fined.

The implementation of PPACA, also known as Obamacare, has already seen a rise in insured people. Mainly young people, but also those who were previously denied coverage for pre-existing medical conditions were able to eventually get covered. But of course, there are critical voices that claim that the reforms made the federal government overstep its bounds. How much of the reforms persist once the new government is in place, remains to be seen.

Brexit proves that some issues should not be decided by referendum

On the one hand, it is safe to say that democracy is a good thing. In contrast to many countries all over the world, Britain remains a democracy and the fact that important national issues are decided by referendum is a prove for a vivid, fair society. To illustrate the importance of free votes, one needs to only imagine what would have happened if the government had just decided on their own. Surely, they would have lost all their people’s support who would have felt left out. And that feeling would have been justified, considering that, in a democracy, all voices are supposed to count.

On the other hand, there are also risks in deciding by referendum. Many people don’t inform themselves enough to know what consequences their votes might bring with them. In case of the Brexit, surveys have proven that is were mainly the older people who voted to leave the EU as opposed to the younger generation who was in favor of staying. As a result, many votes were lost and those who voted against the Brexit were taken off many opportunities. So, uninformed people have the same rights as informed people which might lead to injustices.

On top of that, it also needs to be taken into consideration that some issues not only have national but also global importance. The Brexit doesn’t only have consequences for Britain but will also affect the rest of the EU. Issues such as politics and economics will change a lot in the future. Saying this might be a risk, but personally I think that, even though it was only up to the British to vote, the rest of the EU should have maybe had a little bit of right to take part in that decision.