Privatization Of Public Assets For New Public Infrastructure Projects

Private Health Insurance (PHI) is an important component in the funding of healthcare services in Australia, supplementing free universal public hospital access available through the Government’s Medicare system by providing coverage for treatment as a private patient in hospitals and for ancillary items such as dental, physiotherapy, ambulance and other services. From an insurance perspective, PHI differs significantly to general and life insurance in a community rating rather than individual risk underwriting applies. In 1976, The Australian Government established Medibank Private as a not-for-profit private health insurer, as an operating division of a statutory authority (the Health Insurance Commission). Medibank Private proved a success,

The Canadian health care system is funded majorly by the public, with very few private donations. Over the past few decades acts of large-scale philanthropy by wealthy private donors have started to increase, due to the investments in social programs and infrastructure from the government declining. Without the aid of private donors and large sources of income from outside of the public (government) the infrastructure of all hospitals, clinics, and the totality of western healthcare systems would collapse and ultimately fail as the system is set up presently. There is an opportunity of keeping a healthy and happy society sustained by public funds, as long as the government is able to step up and provide the healthcare system with enough funds, making the donations from philanthropists an excess instead of a necessity.

Medicare and Medicaid have cause a great deal of damage to the American society. "Years of scandal have shown the waste, fraud and abuse that is rampant in Medicare and Medicaid." (Fallen Guardians of Justice: How the Supreme Court is

Most Canadians are very proud of their health care because it provides citizens universal coverage on the basis of need. However, in the recent decade, Canadians have observed obvious deterioration in the quality of the system in regards to waiting times, availability of the best technology, and adequate numbers of doctors and nurses. The apparent decline within the system has made many Canadians more open to a variety of options than they were a decade ago, provided that the core elements of the system are preserved and that these changes lead to tangible improvements in quality without damaging accessibility. In the article Canadians’ Thoughts on Their Health Care System: Preserving the Canadian Model through Innovation by Matthew Mendelsohn, he stated that 1/3 of Canadians support the two-tiered healthcare system, which offers its citizens an option of public or private health care. Canada will benefit from a two-tier health care system because it will shorten waiting times, other countries with two-tier healthcare have proven to be successful, will encourage doctors to return and stay in Canada, introduce competition and give citizens freedom to choose.

About one third of all hospital beds in Australia are provided by Private Hospitals. Although half of all Australians have private health insurance, the Government is seeking to achieve an even higher balance of Australians with private cover, while preserving Medicare as the universal safety net. An example of how the private system works is; if a private patient was admitted to either a private or public hospital, they would have a choice of doctor to treat them. Medicare would pay 75% of the Medicare

Although the financial constraint was one of the initial triggers that made government to move toward privatization of health care, the argument of those who oppose to privatization remains at the prediction of future damages to the health care system caused by the privatization, not about the resolution of financial crisis. (Barkun, 2008; CBC, 2006; CNA, 2013; Deber, 2013; McDonald & McIntyre, 2014; ONA,

Long before the 1990s when Ms. Clinton fought for a Universal Healthcare system in America, the issue of America’s healthcare had been a political quandary. The enactment of the Republican administration’s Health Management Organization Act of 1973 was a weapon meant to address that crisis, yet, it did little to fix the problem. While the liberal Democrats are fighting for Universal Healthcare coverage for all Americans, the conservative Republicans are fighting to maintain the current private health insurance, however, with some revamping of the system, which preserves the capitalistic element of the status quo. The reason for the two opposing views stems from their differences in political ideologies, which theoretically is like pitting socialism against capitalism. While the liberal Democrats’ endorsement of Universal Healthcare system is socialistic in practice, the conservative Republicans’ fight to retain the private or market based plan is unarguably in support of their pro-capitalism stance. The truth, however, is that, though almost every American believes in capitalism, yet, almost none would vote to disband the Medicare and the Medicaid programs, both of which are socialistic. In that light, the argument of a pro-capitalist nation is negated, as we do already have a socialized healthcare program for the seniors and the poor. Extending that concept to include

In the past what has hindered health care reform plans from being enacted were the issues surrounding how they were to be funded. When comparing the attempts of the Clinton administration, the current legislation developed by both the House and the Senate, and Britain’s National Health Service, it is in my opinion that my optimal health care reform plan be funded through taxes, cost-sharing, and fees. In order for this plan to be successful it must be economically feasible and be able to reduce overall health care costs.

Since 1965, Medicare has been attempting to provide low cost, guaranteed access to much needed healthcare for senior citizens over the age of 65 and other age groups that suffer from disabilities and terminal diseases. These people represent some of the most vulnerable population groups in the United States. Most do not work, and rely on Medicare to provide them the access to healthcare they need. Unlike privatized health insurance companies, Medicare is a social insurance program that is paid for through federal mandates and tax payer funds. Billions of dollars are spent annually on over 50 million Americans in need (Alonso-Zaldivar 1). The care structure itself is broken into several main parts: Medicare Part A covers hospital costs, Part B cover most outpatient care costs, and Part C and D cover prescription drug costs through dealing with other private insurance. Yet, the upcoming election in November is threatening to change and alter the structure. Each candidate has his own plan to deal with Medicare; both are trying to reign in the costs of operating Medicare, but with some elements being obviously more beneficial for Medicare recipients than others.

In Canada, there appears to be a publicly funded health care system whose main role is to help create healthier communities. However, how healthcare is being funded is very crucial to the Canadian system because they have been controversies over how health policy is dispersed between the levels of government. The Canadian health care system gives an advantage to those who have equitable access to necessary physician and hospital, without the ability for an individual to pay for services. This ideal is tremendously great because access and services are ensured to patients who have the same opportunity and medical conditions. This essay is going to explicate on how privatization will be detrimental to the health care system, and why publicly funded health care is the best criteria that should be associated with the Canadian system.

It was as leader of the NDP that he advocated for a national health-care system. Although interestingly, while most Canadians would regard Douglas as the ‘Father of Medicare’ and the CBC designated ‘Greatest Canadian’, it was actually ‘his forgotten successor’ who legislated it’. (Reynolds)

Throughout history there have been many great Canadians who have changed Canada in a positive way. Lester Bowles Pearson (see figure 1) was a Toronto professor, a historian, and the 14th Prime Minister of Canada. Lester Pearson was in office from 1963-1968 and was considered a great leader. Through his many important decisions and accomplishments, he made a significant positive impact in developing Canada’s history. Lester B. Pearson was born in Toronto in 1897 and died in 1972.

The proposed solution from current Alberta government would see the health care system incorporate the private sector. The government Most of all the government is looking to decrease cost, increase accessibility and efficiency. *****

In the article, “Parting at the Crossroads: The Development of Health Insurance in Canada and the United States” the author Antonia Maioni argues various points as to why Canada and the United States of America have such different approaches to targeting the healthcare system. The topics covered by Maioni included, “Health Reform in Canada: The Role of the CCF-NDP”. Here Maioni discuses in great detail, the historical background to how Canada got to where they are in the health system through the ups and downs that occurred in Parliament due to “the public demand for action on medical insurance” which was influenced by the highly successful medical insurance program that existed in Saskatchewan post-world war. It goes to show, that the passing

f Health Care in Canada focuses on how the health care system in Canada was once viewed and how it is viewed today. Medicare was transformed throughout the years and this article describes what has gone wrong in the system. The author explains the culture of the Canadian health care system and how it is divided between two governments: the federal government and the provincial government. The author explains the issue of privatization in the Canadian health care system and details the three factors that have contributed to the issue. These factors include: the ethical basis, the extensive government reinvestments have not helped the system, and the increase in new forms of privatization. The article debates whether new forms of privatization are improving or worsening the current Medicare system and summarizes what the future of Medicare holds for the Canadian health care system.