As a Learning Team, create an 8- to 10-slide Microsoft® PowerPoint® presentation with detailed speaker notes on the topic you selected as a team in Week 2. This presentation will require a deeper examination of your chosen topic as it is an emerging issue/trend in today’s health care industry. Your presentation should:
Identify and describe the topic of consideration.
Identify and discuss the emerging issues and trends surrounding the policy.
Describe areas of opportunity involved with this policy.
Describe challenges that were faced while implementing the policy.
Describe issues that may arise as health care reform continues to evolve.
Sample Solution
additional fees for non-nationals fell within the scope of Article 18 on the basis that secondary law provisions provided support to Member States under Article 166 TFEU which allowed the court to apply Art. 18 TFEU . The requirement of 5 years of residency in the UK amounts to indirect discrimination to nationality in this case. This requirement largely impacts those citizens who move from other Member States which is also a fundamental freedom of EU citizens. The ESC, in my opinion, must refer questions about the local authorityâs refusal to grant Bjarne a school place to the Court of Justice of the European Union as legally, it is requirement to receive and have an education until the age of 18 in London. The authorityâs refusal of this has not only breached this legal requirement but it has also breached Bjarneâs Article 18 TFEU rights as well which include protection from discrimination of nationality. The fact that Bjarne has special needs means that his schooling options are already limited and the requirement of 6 years residency in the UK is purely discriminatory to any EU citizens who move to another Member State. The freedom to move and reside freely in another Member State is one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU and the authority here are clearly breaching it. The reason the ESC must refer the questions about the local authorityâs actions is because the residency requirement is a direct breach of his rights and it should be brought to the Court of Justice that such requirements in order to attend a special needs school should be abolished in all Member States. Especially because Bjarne is still a child and its within his rights to be in full time education at his age anyway. He should have been attending school from a much younger age. Under Article 24 (1) of the Directive 2004/38 he also has the right to equal treatment of the nationals of the host Member State which he is not receiving. This area of law is not developed enough as the scope of EU law suggests that students should be treated equally, however, it doesnât specify the difference between ânormalâ and disabled students either. If the Court of Justice looked at this issue as well as the questions which arose from the authorityâs refusal to grant Bjarne a place, it could reform and adapt EU law provisions related to this topic and prevent situations like Bjarnes arising in the future in any Member State.>
additional fees for non-nationals fell within the scope of Article 18 on the basis that secondary law provisions provided support to Member States under Article 166 TFEU which allowed the court to apply Art. 18 TFEU . The requirement of 5 years of residency in the UK amounts to indirect discrimination to nationality in this case. This requirement largely impacts those citizens who move from other Member States which is also a fundamental freedom of EU citizens. The ESC, in my opinion, must refer questions about the local authorityâs refusal to grant Bjarne a school place to the Court of Justice of the European Union as legally, it is requirement to receive and have an education until the age of 18 in London. The authorityâs refusal of this has not only breached this legal requirement but it has also breached Bjarneâs Article 18 TFEU rights as well which include protection from discrimination of nationality. The fact that Bjarne has special needs means that his schooling options are already limited and the requirement of 6 years residency in the UK is purely discriminatory to any EU citizens who move to another Member State. The freedom to move and reside freely in another Member State is one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU and the authority here are clearly breaching it. The reason the ESC must refer the questions about the local authorityâs actions is because the residency requirement is a direct breach of his rights and it should be brought to the Court of Justice that such requirements in order to attend a special needs school should be abolished in all Member States. Especially because Bjarne is still a child and its within his rights to be in full time education at his age anyway. He should have been attending school from a much younger age. Under Article 24 (1) of the Directive 2004/38 he also has the right to equal treatment of the nationals of the host Member State which he is not receiving. This area of law is not developed enough as the scope of EU law suggests that students should be treated equally, however, it doesnât specify the difference between ânormalâ and disabled students either. If the Court of Justice looked at this issue as well as the questions which arose from the authorityâs refusal to grant Bjarne a place, it could reform and adapt EU law provisions related to this topic and prevent situations like Bjarnes arising in the future in any Member State.>
Is this question part of your Assignment?
We can help
Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals
Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples