Networking Highlights from the USA International Conference!

The USA International Conference brought together professionals from around the world to discuss the latest trends and developments in networking. With exciting presentations, engaging workshops, and insightful discussions, attendees were able to learn, connect, and collaborate with industry experts. From cutting-edge technologies to innovative strategies, Conference in USA provided a platform for networking professionals to share their knowledge and expertise. Here are some highlights from this year’s event that showcase the best and brightest in the networking industry.

Keynote Speakers: Learn from industry experts and thought leaders who shared their insights and expertise during the conference.

Panel Discussions: Engage in discussions on trending topics and issues with panels of experts from various sectors.

Workshops and Training Sessions: Participate in hands-on workshops and training sessions to enhance your skills and knowledge in your field.

Networking Opportunities: Connect with professionals from around the world and build valuable relationships for future collaborations and partnerships.

Product Demonstrations: Explore the latest technologies and innovations through product demonstrations from leading companies in the industry.

Awards Ceremony: Celebrate the achievements of individuals and organizations making a significant impact in their respective fields.

Networking Dinners and Social Events: Enjoy networking dinners and social events to further connect with peers in a more relaxed setting.

Closing Remarks: Reflect on the highlights of the conference and take away key learnings to implement in your own professional endeavors.

USA International Conference was a valuable opportunity for networking and learning. Attendees had the chance to connect with professionals from around the world, share ideas, and gain new insights into their respective fields. The conference provided a platform for collaboration and growth, with many key takeaways that will undoubtedly have a positive impact on the attendees’ careers. Overall, the networking highlights from the USA International Conference showcased the power of building relationships and expanding one’s professional network in order to thrive in today’s global economy.

Verifying the variance

Variance shows the change from a particular period to another which can be in months, quarters, or years. According to Garrison, Noreen, and Brewer (2003), variance analysis is necessary when evaluating the financial statements and departmental level budgets for the overall financial health of an organization or department. The calculation of variance helps to establish whether an organization is growing or not and at what rate. Variance analysis provides the management team with concrete information on how to make business decisions that would strengthen the financial position of an organization (Garrison, Noreen & Brewer, 2003). The Northeast Health System appears stable in various financial aspects but with normal changes between 2010 and 2011. The health system income statement shows that there was a decrease in the total unrestricted revenue and support in 2011 as compared to 2010 though the total expenses reduced from 2010 to 2011. However, the changes in unrestricted net assets show that year 2011 ended with negative (-) changes as compared to 2010 probably due to huge pension and post-retirement remittances in 2011.

From the variances data obtained, the major positive variances between 2010 and 2011 are observed in cash and cash equivalents (41.3), excess of revenue and gains over expenses (223), net assets from restrictions of purchase of property (68.3), and pension and post-retirement related adjustments (390.3). The significant negative variances are observed in prepaid expenses and other current assets (-87.9), non-operating gains (-197.4), change in net unrealized gains and losses on investments (-170.9), total other changes in unrestricted net assets (-578.1), and a decrease in unrestricted net assets (-283.6). The variances show that there were significant differences in particular aspects of the financials of Northeast Health System both positive and negative.

According to the proportional allocation analysis data, the most significant positive proportions are net patient service revenue for both 2010 and 2011[98.0 (2011); 97.7 (2010], income from operations in 2011 (211.9), change in net unrealized gains and losses on investments in 2011 (167.1), and decrease in unrestricted net assets in 2011 (158.1). The most significant negative proportions from the analysis data are non-operating gains in 2011 (-111.8), and pension and post-retirement related adjustments in 2011 (-76.4).

Most of the financial aspects of Northeast Health System are not heading in the right direction since most of the variances are negative. It shows that the financial health of the firm in 2010 was better than that of 2011. However, the variances in pension and post-retirement related adjustments and excess of revenue and gains over expenses shows that there were more expenses on the two items in 2011 than 2010. Regarding the firm liabilities, the changes were not significant that showed a level of stability. The firm’s assets appear to be on a downfall trend which reveals of some losses or depreciation. For the proportion allocation analysis, it is evident that unrestricted revenues and support decreased in 2011 as compared to 2010, total expenses also reduced in 2011 thereby making the gains over expenses to increase in 2011 as compared to 2010. The major problem experienced in 2011 was the increase in pension and postretirement adjustments as well as fluctuations in unrealized gains and losses on investments.

I would recommend certain actions to the Northeast Health System regarding decreasing or increasing the significant variances and proportional allocations. First is to reduce the accrued wages and vacation payable, the accrued pension liability, and professional liability reserves. The Health facility ought to diversify on the mechanisms of revenue generation to ensure there is an increase in cash flow. The allocations for pension and post-retirement adjustments ought to be controlled to avoid the rapid changes in unrestricted net assets.

Bottle Water vs.Tap Water

Introduction
The fact that it is critical to keep the body extremely hydrated at all times goes without any debate. However, which is the best water to consume? Traditionally, tap water had been the norm in many offices, homes, and schools. However, bottled water has become popular with the increased notion that the water is purer and cleaner than tap water. On the other hand, bottle water can be contaminated thus leaving tap water as the best alternative. The decision to consume tap or bottled water is a personal choice that is supported by numerous factors. Tap water is, however, a better alternative than bottled water as even most of the bottled water are collected from taps and not springs or glaciers.

Body

People with a preference for bottled water believe that the water is purer than tap water. Water manufacturing companies have been able to convince their consumers that their water is collected from pure an unpolluted areas such as spring water and glaciers. Therefore, water from the glaciers and springs is purer than tap water since tap water has to pass through underground pipes and systems thus increasing the risk of contamination (Brebbia, 2015). For instance, the risk of having traces of lead in tap water increases if the water system has aging pipes. Unfortunately, the perception of pure and unpolluted water cannot be validated as unscrupulous water manufacturers can also label and packaged tap water and deceive consumers that the water is pure.

The preference for bottled water over tap water also arises due to the taste. A majority of people who consume bottled water argue that the water tastes better than tap water. Bottled water passes through a series of purification processes thus the minimal risk of experiencing tastes and odors. In contrast, tap water is in an almost natural form thus the risk of experiencing an “earthy” taste. Moreover, there is a risk of rusting of the water pipes thus increasing the occurrence of a “taste” in the water. Bottled water is processed and tested before it is released to the consumers. A guarantee of quality is therefore assured.

The preference for bottled over tap water has also been due to concerns over the safety of the tapped water. A majority of community water systems fail to meet the standards of the safe drinking water Act thus increased the risk of exposure to unsafe water. Moreover, there are concerns that tap water may be more at risk of exposure to germs than bottled water. Water running from taps comes through an underground water system thus the risk of contamination especially in the case of breakages (Gleick, 2010).

On the other hand, proponents of tap water argue that bottled water is an unnecessary expense. Water is a basic necessity for survival thus there is no need for the commodity to be expensive and unaffordable to many consumers. The cost of bottled water is high as the manufacturers have to factor in production and transportation costs. Some manufacturers also strive to make quick profits thus over price their bottled water. In contrast, the cost of tap water is quite low thus making the crucial commodity affordable and accessible to everyone.

Tap water is also a better alternative to bottled water because it has the least negative impact. For bottled water, the manufacturers have to mass produce bottles. Therefore, millions of plastic bottles are then released to the consumers. Without a proper recycling system, the millions of plastic bottles end up as non-biodegradable waste which subsequently increases pollution. Moreover, the production of the plastic bottled also involves the burning of oil which results in the emission of carbon dioxide that in turn affects the ecological system. Water bottles are made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) that releases toxic chemicals including ethylene oxide and benzene (Vesilind, & DiStefano, 2006). In contrast, tap water does not pollute the environment since the water is available directly from the taps and faucets.

Personally, I know tap water is a better option that bottled water. The fact that water is from a bottle does not make it safer. The bottled water could have fetched at a tap and sealed as bottled water thus exposing the drinker to a higher risk of contamination than tap water. Tap water is monitored and regulated for contamination thus ensuring minimal risk to drinkers. The water is also readily available to all and thus can be provided in schools in limitless and affordable supplies. In contrast, bottled water is unnecessarily expensive, yet tap water is just a fraction of that cost (Mackey, & Boulos, 2004). It is true that there are concerns over the quality of tap water and the risk of contamination. However, tap water can be monitored and tested regularly to ensure they are up to the expected standards.

Conclusion

Water is an essential health commodity that is critical for survival. The question of whether to consume bottled or tap water lies on factors related to the risk of contamination, the cost of the water and the sustainability of the water. Bottled water manufacturers promise their consumers that their bottled water is from springs and or glaciers thus it is bottled at its purest form. The reality, however, is that most bottled water comes from tap water; thus manufacturers dupe consumers with false advertisements. Bottled water is also unnecessarily expensive, yet tap water is affordable and accessible to many. Tap water also guarantees the sustainability of the environment as the production of the water does not undergo numerous process. In contrast, bottled water results to millions of plastic bottles that are non-degradable and choke the environment.