The Federal Government And Health Care Essay

The Australian health care system is not a very complicated one, it is solely based on two main sectors which are the ‘public’ and ‘private’. The public sector allows one to claim health care benefits and payments through the universal health coverage developed by the Australian government, called Medicare. Medicare is completely free and paid by the government through income tax received to help pay for medical, optical and hospital care (Humanservicesgovau, 2016). It also has a sub-division called the ‘Medicare safety net’ which is more so given to those on significantly low incomes to aid in financial distress. Similarly, the private sector is made up of different companies entitling different benefits, usually consisting of two plans, ‘hospital’ and ‘generic’ (Privatehealthgovau, 2016). The private health care system is more so for people who need immediate attention as the public health system has a waiting list for many different types of operations. Private health system is also customisable in circumstances such as

Health care has been an area of discussion for some time now. In the United States, the current health care system is a private system that allows individuals to choose their own method of care. Despite the freedom that comes with the independent nature of this type of health care system, the true disposition creates more problems than it solves. The privacy of the health care institutions has caused affordability and access to become serious issues with this system. Additionally, those with lower socioeconomic status fall short of the ability to access the same pool of resources as everyone else. Due to the issues with affordability, access, and the poor infrastructure of the health care system, a universal health

as defensive medicine practice, new technology, malpractice lawsuit and the uninsured. New technology is the biggest factor of the rising cost of healthcare to treated patient of their illness. New technologies have seemed to be the driving force of high healthcare cost in America. The technology accounts for 38 to 65 percent of healthcare spending in America (Johnson, 2011). The annual spending of health care increased from 75 billion in 1970 to 2.0 trillion in 2005 and is estimated to reach 4.0 trillion in 2015 (Kaiser Foundation, 2013). U.S. citizens spent 5,267 per capita for health care in 2002- 53 percent more than any other country” (2005). “America spent 5267 per capita and in Switzerland they spent 3074 per capita” about 1821 cheaper than ours (Starfield, B 2010). Controlling the technology isn’t easy thing to do because of technology prices are set by manufacturing and the installer of the new medical equipment’s. However, there other way

For the last five years of my life I have worked in the healthcare industry. One of the biggest issues plaguing our nation today has been the ever rising cost of health care. If we don't get costs under control, we risk losing the entire system, as well as potentially crippling our economy. For the sake of our future, we must find a way to lower the cost of health care in this nation.

The latest health care reform has done what few policies manage to do – sicken both republicans and progressive democrats. While we can all agree that a reform of the health care system is sorely needed, we must also acknowledge that “Obamacare” is not the cure-all we so desperately require. Rather, President Obama, like a medieval barber, prescribed a health care reform that treated the symptoms of our flawed system rather than the actual disease. The subsidization of health insurance providers has proven ineffective at providing affordable coverage for all. Certainly one is likely to hear the various incendiary talking points of both the proponents and opponents. Whether it’s the republican candidates blaspheming Obamacare as socialism, or the administration praising the success of health care for all, it is difficult to actually find constructive dialogue. We are purview to many sound bites, but few actual solutions. We have witnessed heated debates, but rarely do we witness intelligent discourse. If beneficial reform is to be crafted and implemented, we must first acknowledge the issues and inconsistencies of the current system and begin to explore alternate methods of providing health care to the American people.

The Federal Government became gradually involved in health provision following the Second World War, with a focus on ensuring access and equity to health care. When Medicare was implemented in 1984, the Federal Government, States and Territories agreed to provide free health care for all Australians in all public hospitals.

The Affordable Care Act was into law March 2010. The law has planned to make wide-range of changes to healthcare in the United States. The Affordable Care Act efforts to offer universal right to use to healthcare for Americans, control the rising costs of healthcare, adjust the private insurance industry complete things like state-based private exchanges and online marketplace that brings together state-approved insurance plans from multiple companies so consumers can shop for individual insurance plans, improve the quality of healthcare and make healthcare choices more consumer friendly and easier to understand (Medical Mutual,2017). Healthcare reform involves nearly all Americans from old or young,

Since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, there has been a continuous debate about the effects it will have on the United States economy. Many people argue that expanding insurance coverage for all people will create crippling cost burdens for the economy and taxpayers. While others believe that the ACA will in fact give the economy a much-needed boost. In 2006 as a measure to improve overall healthcare, the state of Massachusetts implemented the Health Care Insurance Reform Act. This paper looks at the positive and negative effects of the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Act (MHRA). Using a literature review of public health studies ranging from 2009-2012, I argue that there are both positive and negative effects of the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform. While the Massachusetts Reform increased health insurance coverage for all citizens and decreased the number of uninsured citizens accessing emergency rooms, it also did very little to decrease already existing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities among minorities and whites in the state of Massachusetts. Understanding the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Act may help in the goal of trying to achieve near-universal healthcare. This paper provides an understanding of the missing pieces in the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Act and constitutes a starting place from which to understand the Affordable Care Act.

An issue that is widely discussed and debated concerning the United States’ economy is our health care system. The health care system in the United States is not public, meaning that the states does not offer free or affordable health care service. In Canada, France and Great Britain, for example, the government funds health care through taxes. The United States, on the other hand, opted for another direction and passed the burden of health care spending on individual consumers as well as employers and insurers. In July 2006, the issue was transparency: should the American people know the price of the health care service they use and the results doctors and hospitals achieve? The Wall Street Journal article revealed that “U.S. hospitals,

U.S. health care reform is currently one of the most heavily discussed topics in health discourse and politics. After former President Clinton’s failed attempt at health care reform in the mid-1990s, the Bush administration showed no serious efforts at achieving universal health coverage for the millions of uninsured Americans. With Barack Obama as the current U.S. President, health care reform is once again a top priority. President Obama has made a promise to “provide affordable, comprehensive, and portable health coverage for all Americans…” by the end of his first term (Barackobama.com). The heated debate between the two major political parties over health care reform revolves around how to pay for it and more importantly, whether it

The change that is being introduced by the Liberal-National government of Australia also went through a change, in the year 1984, when the Hawke Labour Government came to the power. The Hawke Labour government introduced the previous or the original Medibank that was set up by the Whitlam Labour Government (Gray, 2016). The financial arrangement although, went through certain changes along with the name. It was no longer termed as Medibank rather a new name is offered to this Medibank and that is Medicare. The financial arrangement of this particular Medicare policy included receiving public funding, or the 1% of the total income of the people as a tax, for this particular health insurance policy (Gardner, Yen, Banfield, Gillespie, Mcrae and Wells,

“We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice, and provides coverage that every American can count on. And we will do it this year.” The preceding is a powerful statement from the newly elected President Barak Obama. One of the main aspects of both political campaigns was health care reform. The above quote shows passion and encouragement, but the quotes about health care do not end there. Georgian republican gubernatorial candidate and health care policy maker John Oxendine expressed: “Their proposal would virtually devastate the private healthcare sector in this country along with competition and patient choice, by replacing it with bureaucratic planning and government control. The result of this plan and its one trillion

Australia’s Medicare scheme was created in 1984 with the intention of improving access to healthcare for all Australians by providing all in need of treatment with access to adequate healthcare at little or no cost, regardless of age or income. Medicare was introduced by the Federal Government and is Australia’s publicly funded universal health insurance scheme. (Medicare Australia, 2014) Medicare is managed by the Department of Human Services and allows public patients free medical care at public hospitals and free or subsidized care from doctors, specialists and other health professionals, if they’re partaking, such as optometrists. Those who are eligible for Medicare hold an Australian or New Zealand citizenship, have a permanent visa or have applied for a permanent visa and meet certain requirements. The Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments fund Australia’s public hospitals, which aid greatly in providing accessible care. (Medicare Australia, 2014) Medicare additionally provides the Australian community with many strategies that attempt to address the needs of certain groups such as the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, which provides financial aid for primary dental care for children aged 2-17 who meet the necessary requirements. (Human Services, 2014) Medicare also implemented the Medicare Safety Net, which gives eligible families and individuals financial help for out

This assessment explores the changing nature and role of Medicare in Australia. It examines the health provisions available to Australian’s under this scheme and then compares this with the current health system in the US. This comparison reveals the importance of having universal health care and highlights the problems which would arise if changes to Australia’s system were made.

Medibank in Australia was introduced in Australia in 1973, and started to operate in 1975. Medicare is a government funded health scheme which provides free healthcare to Australian citizens. After the second world war, many Australians did receive complimentary healthcare, but up until the 1970s, there were still many Australian citizens which did not have or receive this service. With the introduction of Medicare, health inequities were somewhat improved, with every citizen getting complimentary healthcare. Medicare was introduced after Medibank under the Bob Hawke government in 1984. Funding for Medicare was to be funded by a Medicare levy which currently is 1.5 per cent of taxable income. Before thee Hawke government, the Fraser government introduced a bill named the Medibank private bill, which abolished the need for Medibank, and instead introduced the Health Insurance Commission to come into the private health sector and become a business. Medibank, after it was introduced again by the Hawke government, changed its name to be Medicare. The overhaul the Fraser government had ad to Medicare (or Medibank at the time) was largely rejected by the Hawke government. What the public didn 't know at that time was that in the year of 1976, when the Fraser government had taken over from the Whitlam government, they