Trends Of Medical Care Around The World

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

The following paper is based on the differences between two healthcare systems in two different countries, these systems are the Australian healthcare system which is Medicare, and England’s National health system which is known as the NHS.

In contrast to the United States, Great Britain has a health care system that is focused on the delivery of health care as a human right. Because of this model health insurance is universal for all citizens allowing everyone to have access to care. According to Sick Around the World produced by Jon Palfreman (2008), Great Britain runs a system that allows their people to never receive medical bills. Instead, Great Britain has implemented a national health system where the government runs and regulates the delivery of health care (Shi & Singh, 2013, p. 20). They have universal coverage where all citizens have access to health care under the national health system (Thorlby & Arora, 2016, p. 49). People living in Great Britain can also choose to pay for their own private insurance but only a small number of people select to do so.

By examining both the United States health care system and the British health care system, it will provide insight of which elements of each system are beneficiary and which elements of each system are disadvantages. Therefore, this paper will provide an overview of the pros and cons of each system to decide where improvements need to be made.

Globalization in healthcare is a topic that has been the subject of many debates worldwide. While practically the entire world is becoming a global village due to globalization, the healthcare industry was considered to be invulnerable to this trend. This was attributed to the fact that healthcare is a service industry, where service is delivered on area of purchase. However many developments not only in the healthcare industry but in the entire economical sphere as a whole have seen the aspects of globalization. As a result globalization in the healthcare industry is a common phenomenon in the contemporary world. As the healthcare industry across global boundaries becomes increasingly intertwined,

Health care has been inclined by several significant events that have occurred throughout history. Change is the primary focus on what has shaped health care and continues to by pain of improvement, and to focus on the importance of our population and their needs. Though there are several influences politics, finance, culture, technology, health trends, and religions they all play a major contribution towards shaping the healthcare field. (Shi & Singh, 2012) Throughout this paper we will present significant events that have changed and affected health care today, give details about how the historical evolution of health care

In terms of healthcare, which country has a better healthcare system? Every country has a different way of how their healthcare system works, but we can all learn from each other to better our health care system for the people. The healthcare regulations and policies should be in a way where it works for the economy as a whole and not for some classes. In this report it will cover the points of how the United Kingdom has a better healthcare system than the United States. The similarities and differences in the healthcare system of both countries will be discussed to fully understand why I believe the UK healthcare system is better than the US.

This paper outlines the differences between the healthcare systems of the United States and the United Kingdom and expands on what that means for the health and wealth of the citizens of these countries. The U.S. and the U.K. are two different countries with two very different healthcare systems. The U.S. healthcare system is the Affordable Care Act, (ACA) and is the attempt by the U.S. to provide affordable healthcare coverage. he U.K. healthcare system is publicly financed and managed by the National Health Service, (NHS). The U.S. healthcare system is largely private sector whereas the healthcare in the U.K. is public. “The U.S. spends more on health care than any other country in the nation while the U.K. is a country that spends

Great Britain stands on its own as a separate entity that ensures the citizens of the federal government have accessed equitable health care services. The payments of the health care services offered by the states go all the citizens is catered for by the general taxation body within the federal government. Every state has a private health care centre that is smaller than the public health care sector. The private health care provisions are provided by the private sector through direct funding by the patient or through taxation accruals in cases where the patient suffers complicated cases like AIDS/HIV (Dewar, 2010).

For instance, high income-earners in Australia are taxed a 1% levy to fund the health care system. For proper funding and accountability in the use of the health care funds, Australia has established a national health policy, which emphasizes the provision and accessibility universal health services to the public. In fact, the federal government plays the all-important role of covering most of the public medical expenses in hospitals, albeit by way of subsidies in some cases. This coverage could be in form of subsidies on services or drugs, as realized in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schemes (Hill et al., 2005). The level of expenditures the federal government covers in the health care system varies from in-hospital costs, general practitioner, to specialist services.

The last main policy area noted by David Moon is the rejection of the private sector and thus heavy use of the public sector. This is the main issue in where England and Wales have severely diverged when it comes to health policy. As argued by Peter Vincent-Jones and David Hughes, this is because we have seen both countries diverge away from the norm. Wales has moved towards a public provision model whilst England has moved towards a hybrid of private and public. Vincent-Jones and Hughes point to both as diverging but point towards England as the culprit who has diverged from the social norm of the NHS, a public-funded health service, implying that if it was the other way around England may have stopped the radical agenda. This shows a key

In the United Kingdom, public healthcare is offered to entire permanent inhabitants roughly a population of 58million. At the point of need, healthcare coverage is free and is salaried by common taxation. Approximately 18% of the income tax of the citizen is diverted to healthcare; this is approximately 4.5% of the income of the average citizen. In general about 8.4% of the gross GDP of the United Kingdom is spent on health care. Historically, in the UK, the NHS (National Health Service) the body in charge of the public health care segment was

Regarding the conditions Marmot outlines, Oliver and Marsland appraise the UK system in their publications for Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law and The Lancet respectively. Oliver shows comprehensive care as the most effective in cost, coverage, and equity by weighing the pros and cons of universal care. Following, he discusses the economic aspects of healthcare affecting the United States. Marsland admits the strength of the UK health scheme, yet he contends socialized medicine as the cause and accentuates adversity in the UK system from its induction till it launched major reforms in the 1980s as discussed by Oliver. Both sources admit faults in the UK system.

In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS), a publicly funded healthcare system for England, provides the majority of healthcare, including primary care, in-patient care, long-term healthcare, ophthalmology, and dentistry. The issues associated with access to healthcare include availability, quality, costs and information about the services available. According to healthknowledge.org, “the availability of good medical care tends to vary inversely with the need for it in the population served… The quality of services offered to patients may vary between population groups, the health care services may impose costs (financial or otherwise) which vary between population groups and the health care organizations may fail to ensure that all population groups are equally aware of the services available” (Steinbach, 2009).

To test my theory, I compared the healthcare systems of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Pakistan. The United Kingdom (UK) was the first country that I chose to examine. Before I had conducted research, I was aware that the UK had a form of universal healthcare. Another reason I chose the UK is because it is made up of four different countries, which include England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I wanted to see how a universal healthcare system would