Research a health care organization or a network that spans several states within the U.S. (Example: United Healthcare, Vanguard, Banner Healthcare, etc.). Review attached ″Singapore Airlines Case Study.″ Prepare a 1,000-1250-word paper that focuses on the organization or network you have selected. Your essay should include a case study of assessing the readiness of the health care organization or network in addressing the health care needs of citizens in the next decade, and include case study in the strategic plan that addresses issues pertaining to network growth, case study in the strategic plan of nurse staffing, case study in the strategic plan in resource management, and case study that includes strategic plan in patient satisfaction. Provide a comparison to the health care organization or network and the Singapore Airlines. Include any cultural issues that may influence the practices listed above.
As indicated by John Stuart Mill “The condition of nature that goes before human advancement is the place innovation lives”  and “the general public leaves its people to their own gadgets as long as they don’t hurt others.”  But what truly is the condition of nature? In addition, why this thought as it was displayed by the scholars never assumed its genuine part by and by? Was the condition of nature that tumultuous that individuals have a prevalent, instead of being free from any obstructions? Were individuals apprehensive of their kindred people as Hobbes implies? I am chipping away at the subject of the condition of nature in the cutting edge society, since I need to see whether there is as yet a condition of nature in the 21st century, for instance in the indigenous social orders, or that is some sort of social contract or political agitation. I am doing this so as to see how individuals today live and if the fundamental human rights, similar to one side of life, the privilege to freedom and security, the privilege of flexibility and so forth., regarded in those social orders. In this paper, I will endeavor to dissect why regardless of the general specialized and mechanical advance, the social improvement, the equitable qualities that we remain for and the globalization of the nations on the planet, yet in a few sections of Planet Earth we can meet the remainders of what Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke call ‘the condition of nature’. These social orders living in the condition of nature are endeavoring to reveal to us that not generally control of law is required; not generally individuals require government to live legitimate and in peace. The world never was, and never will be without number of individuals living in that express, the condition of nature. In the event that we just take a gander at the cases of numerous Indigenous individuals round the Globe, we can see that individuals can live without lawfully settled government, without constitution and without laws, and still regard each other and live in peace. This is in opposition to Hobbes’ claims that individuals in the condition of nature can’t live in light of the fact that homo homini lupus est.  So the requirement for social contract isn’t generally a need. We can watch that occasionally the human instinct is vain, wolfish and covetous: what is mine will be mine, and what is yours I need to be mine. That is a consequence of populace development, the confinement of the assets, the advancement of certain class of individuals and the developments and improvement of the world. In spite of this, that isn’t the circumstance in numerous undeveloped African clans, as I will demonstrate later in the paper. In the primary section of this paper, I will uncover the fundamental thoughts of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau and their photo of the condition of nature. Following, in the second and last part, I will attempt to see whether there is a condition of nature in the 21st century. For instance, I will take the Indigenous people groups and their structure of society and their advancement. Moreover, I will examine the essentialness of the human rights that these individuals have and the way they figure out how to practice them on the planet they live in. There is a considerable measure to state on this theme and there are significantly more cases regarding this matter, however because of constrained time and assets, I will keep my examination and my investigation short and inside these edges. My exploration is contained for the most part from research of the principle speculations or Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, important articles concerning the condition of nature, articles concerning the life and the general public of the indigenous people groups (essential and optional sources). 1. WHAT IS STATE OF NATURE? There are numerous definitions on what is “condition of nature”. As per Hobbes: “The condition of nature is a condition of relentless common misuse, all people trying to command each other and to secure respect and benefit (notoriety and fortune)”.  Many reference books consider the condition of nature as “graceless and uncultured condition”,  a “wild crude state immaculate by human progress”.  State of nature is portrayed additionally as a condition before the presentation of the run of law, and as a state where there are no rights however just opportunities. In such an existence where there are no laws, government, control, the general population are in a characteristic state of mankind. By and by, the condition of nature in its actual frame  never existed in human culture. Maybe as a condition of nature we can take the cases of the development of human culture when man was savage and lived in crowds. The human by then of advancement didn’t know about anything, with the exception of vocation and survival. Individuals acted free from all limitations and weights. They demonstrated their actual presence and the craving to possess satisfaction. As animals of that kind, all individuals were and are equivalent by their tendency. At that stage, “all individuals without confinement have a tendency to safeguard and upgrade their own particular satisfaction, at that point this boundless rivalry prompt a condition of finish vulnerability and risk.”  Moreover, “they see themselves as imperative for the end of this inclination to set up a condition of security and peace by entering in a common society.”  Many of the Enlightenment scholars guarantee that the condition of nature existed in the human culture, however man left that state since he feared alternate people,  considering that in the condition of nature overwhelms social disarray and keeping in mind the end goal to ensure himself the human was obliged to close the “social contract”. With this agreement person’s flexibility of self-satisfaction was limited, so singular opportunity of all can exist together. “Everybody surrenders their boundless right, acknowledges impediments and with that acknowledge the security and the peace in concurrence.”  Everyone has the normal right of individual satisfaction. This privilege of individual satisfaction “can’t be annulled in light of the fact that it would mean the decimation of vocation.”  However, it might be limited and in that way can exist in parallel with the other basic privileges surprisingly. The confinements are arranged in enactments. Following, these limitations were the premise of the tenets of the Enlightenment masterminds Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume.  They made “‘the laicism’ of representing and new political authenticity of any reasonable decision – to be separated from the social relations and in light of regard of human’s rights.”  1.1. Condition of nature as indicated by Thomas Hobbes Hobbes trusted that individuals in the condition of nature would carry on “gravely” towards each other.  He trusted that such a condition would prompt a “war of each man against each man”  and make life “singular, poor, frightful, brutish, and short.”  He was entirely against the condition of nature on the grounds that as he stated, there can be nothing more terrible than an existence without the security of the State,  particularly since in this state there is no equity in light of the fact that there is no law. Hobbes contended that there are no human rights in the condition of nature.  People have regular appropriate to successfully safeguard their own particular freedom or wellbeing, and by this suggests they act viciously to each other by endeavoring to save their own particular life. This is exceptionally questionable these days. Each human basically by simply being human is entitled with rights when conceived, regardless of on what level of advancement he is in, or in the event that he knows about the presence of human rights. For Hobbes, normal right is simply the human flexibility to oversee in connection to issues of his own self – conservation. The man, in this limit has an unavoidable nobility, since “he is an objective for himself and a sort of ‘total esteem’ (man as imago dei)”.  This term has its underlying foundations in Genesis 1:27, wherein “God made man in his own picture. . .”,  which does not imply that God is in human shape, but instead, that people are in pictures of God in their ethical, profound, and scholarly nature.  “The ethical ramifications of the principle of imago dei are evident in the way that if people are to love God, at that point people must love different people, as each is an outflow of God”.  This implies individuals are committed to regard each other, yet as indicated by Hobbes toward the end the ‘wolfish idea of people’s  overwhelms. Hobbes builds up the exit from the condition of nature into common government by shared social contracts. Just by finishing up the social contract man can spare himself and turn out to be simply (in this State there is no space for the out of line). He says that “exclusive the dread of death can prompt the production of a State”.  This expression in the cutting edge world was an explanation behind numerous wars. Numerous rulers, despots, dictators, for instance as Hitler did with Germany in the Second World War, were guided by Hobbes’ thoughts that the man is dutiful of the State and should assign his rights to the Sovereign in light of the fact that the Sovereign is blameless and just, consequently has “the boundless forces of control and discipline.”  The ruler’s will characterize great and malevolence for his subjects. The ruler can’t take the blame no matter what, on the grounds that “legal and unlawful, great and fiendishness, are articulation of the will of the ruler”.  Hobbes offers approval to the ruler to murder everybody who resists this will. As such, the ruler is constantly right, since he has inherent rights and is dispatcher of God, so in the event that somebody does any wrong (which will mean inverse to the ruler’s desires) he will lose his life. This repudiates with one of the fundamental human rights  – the privilege to life. It isn’t that there ought to be no State guidelines and controls and that individuals should live in all out turmoil, however decides that are in accordance with individuals’ rights, wishes and wants, for instance directions brought due submission, which is a genuine articulation of individuals’ will and vote based system. In this way, Hobbes, in spite of the ‘lovely’ picture he has as a primary concern of individuals being protected by finishing up the social contract, is ignoring the fundamental human rights.  Moreover, Hobbes’ social contract was agreeable to the ruler, not the general population. 1.2. Condition of nature as indicated by John Locke Locke holds diverse position contrasted with Hobbes. He trusts that individuals could live in a condition of nature, and life would be pos>