It centers on one central task: Present two competing solutions to a major healthcare problem that can be implemented by government, preferably at the federal level. Then show why one is better, and to be recommended.
This all sounds simple, but not to a lot of people over the last couple of years, so I figure that I’d better give you some preemptive advice. First of all, concentrate on those two solutions. Everything else is secondary. Many students never get beyond the analysis state, and while their analysis might be excellent, what they need is prescription, and that doesn’t quite show up. Secondly, some students concentrate so much on their primary, preferred solution that they don’t get to the also-ran second best. Some too just infer that “Don’t do this” is a policy option, and thus their less-preferred solution doesn’t quite show up, not even as a full-bodied apparition.
With a greater focus on the real tasks at hand, your esay can be shorter. I’ve gotten a bunch, ten to twelve pages, that are more like big time, end of course paprs. You don’t have to do that, and probably shouldn’t, in order to be effective and successful. Aim for half that length.
Bear in mind too that this is a research papr, not a “thought papr.” You have to do research through at least four sources and cite them throughout the papr for everything that isn’t common knowledge. Don’t just cite quotes. As well, stick with a valid, accepted, academically-viable format. It can be MLA, Chicago/Turabian or APA, whichever you’re comfortable using, and use in other classes.