Health Care Gaps of Australia

For my case study project I am looking at the huge life expectancy gap and health care gap of Aboriginals in Australia. All my blogs and research have been building up to this project, and this will be my last and final blog. Enjoy my findings!!

            All around the world there are very distinct and unique cultures, but what happens when a very unique culture is in the midst of mainstream Australia? In the case of health care it means that they needs of Aboriginals in Australia are grossly under met. According to the 2010-2016 Aboriginal Health Care Plan, life expectancy of Aboriginals today is around 60 years old, that’s twenty years younger than the average Australian of European dissent, but why?

            The Health Care plan goes on to talk about how about 70 percent of early deaths are caused by preventable diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, respiratory disease, drugs, STD’s, poor diets, and cancer. So what is stopping proper health care from being attained? The biggest issues are cultural differences between Aboriginals and European Australians, preventative education, and cost. Currently one of the top reasons that Aboriginal peoples do not go for regular preventative checkups are language and cultural barriers. Like any culture there are unique customs, beliefs, and languages, and in many hospitals and doctors’ offices there are very few health care providers who speak the language or understand the culture. The language barrier itself is enough to stop many people from going to the doctor because they can’t verbalize their illness or understand the instructions or diagnosis from the doctor. There is also a very predominate role of the family when it comes to healthcare. Often time’s aboriginal families prefer to go doctors’ offices together and provide support, a practice that many hospitals oppose. There is also very little tolerance for the integration of natural healing practices that are very important and common in Aboriginal families. There is also the problem of remoteness with many Aboriginal families.

Throughout the years Aboriginals have been pushed from the coast into harsh desert climates, often time’s miles from the nearest towns. This makes creating preventable programs and education difficult to provide. Because the life expectancy for Aboriginals is commonly in the 60’s, the majority of the population is very young from their 20’s to 30’s. Because of the age of the majority of the population it is vital that health education is given so that the population can understand how diets, unprotected sex, and health checkups can increase and improve their lives. Their remoteness also makes it difficult for many Aboriginals to get rides to hospitals or receive emergency medical attention. Transportation can be very expensive in both circumstances. According to the 2010-2016 Aboriginal Health Care plan about 26 percent of deaths are accidental deaths where an individual’s is hurt and is unable to receive medical in time. To attempt to fix this the Australian government has sent up a helicopter program to get emergency health care to isolated areas. But the costs of these helicopters are far out of the budget of many Australian citizens. So far the Australian government has attempted to build more hospitals and health facilities to increase availability. They have also put in money to attempt to bring the cost down for many families. But there is more than just the facilities and cost that is keeping Aboriginals from getting proper health care. For many the biggest problems are the cultural and educational barriers. But Australia is not the only country who has many issues when it comes to the declining health care of their indigenous people. American too has many large health care gaps when it comes to their Native American population.

Political History of Australia

In order to better understand the current health care problem in Australia it is important to understand the political history of the state. So far I have only looked at the actual colonization, but this blog will give a short history of how the actual government came to be. Australia was first settled by the British in 1788. At this time Britain was going through a transition of its own, moving away from the rule of an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy under the Westminster system. This system was a huge step towards democracy for Britain and it will be because of Britain’s move toward democracy that Australia eventually became the Liberal Democracy it is today. But in 1788 Australia was far from democracy. When the state was first colonized it was merely used for housing convicts. Because it was not initially used for British citizens to settle in, there was no formal government, only a system of governors who kept order over the military a prison guards who lived on the continent. For the most part these governors had absolute power and acted on behalf of British crown. For the most part this system worked, that is until the prisoners started finish their sentences and demanded a more responsible government.

The first step towards creating a more responsible government came in 1823 with the creation of the Legislative Council, which in actuality didn’t limit the powers of the governors but only made governors power and rulings legitimate.  But the people continued to push to be represented and in 1842 they did add elected officials to give the people some say. Soon more and more convicts left the prison system and began to integrate into society, giving new English settlers free labor system that essentially helped build the colonies. But, Australia was not just an island filled with criminals; eventually the English government realized its potential as a producer for goods. Once people heard there were economic opportunities they start to settle into Australian colonies. This influx of people caused a stable economy to rise and with this came a middle class consisting of skilled workers. Once this group was established they wanted to be more active and acknowledged within government. Soon even the members of the Legislative Council wanted the governor to be more responsive to the people.

To accomplish this the Legislative Council and head of governments began discussion possible constitution ideas. Their goal in this was to create more rights for the people, and to have more control over their territory expect in cases of imperial issues, allowing them to handle problems unique to Australia. After several meeting and conferences it was decided that they would have a federal system of government. Once approved by the British Monarchy many territories adopted the constitution. But Australia’s federal government has been described has a “hybrid” with strong ties to Great Britain with the president having dominance within parliament, and American federalism that was created out of colonialism. Today Australia is a strong liberal democracy but its citizens are losing faith in their government and they feel as if the government is run by elites who do not represent them. This is causing Australians to want more state rights that way they will be more closely represented.

Australian Political Culture

By understanding a countries political culture you begin to slowly understand how a country is run and why it is run in that manner. The article I got mainly discussed how Clientelism is a major part of Australian politics.

Australian political culture is in many ways similar to the United States, they are patriotic, and have trust in the government and their officials. But in some cases Australians don’t feel like they can make a huge impact on politics with a voter turnout of only about 76%. Fortunately these current feelings about government have changed throughout time. In the beginning of Australian history Australia was a colony of England. As time progressed they kept those very tight knit bonds with England and the British government. But as national identity increased Australia transitioned away from the British monarch and made the Prime minister the head of state. This occurred so that their interests would be better represented and dealt with.

One of the most interesting aspects of the article was how in Australia a big part of their political culture is Clientelism, especially with immigrant and minority populations. Clientelism itself is a system where a patron creates a friendship or relationship with a client. Here the patron uses their influence and protection in exchange for support or assistance. In this system the patron would be a politician and the client would be the constituent. In most cases this system is thought of as very abusive to the constituent as they are often taken advantage of by the patron. It is common is Japanese politics and often times doesn’t properly represent their constituents. But for Australia they have molded this system to one that creates more benefits then downfalls. Today in Australia, Clientelism is used as a new form of representation where patrons can better get in touch with minorities and immigrants and in exchange get the support they need to hold office.

In many countries like Australia, minorities and immigrants tend to live in secluded neighborhoods. This often occurs because these groups face disadvantages in the life and living close to those are similar to them helps them cope and find support. These close knit communities create very complex networks that are often involved in community building and organizations. Despite their community involvement often times they are not involved politically. Many politicians see this trend of non-participation and refuse to ignore them as a political factor. Many politicians realize that their lack of participation harms them because their views aren’t being voiced in the political realm. In order to reach these communities representatives need to make strong community and cultural ties. Often times they attend social functions and community events to not only get to know the people but to start communication. Because politicians have to become close to the community to gain their votes and support they are less likely to abuse the relationship because it took so long to create. Politicians also use intermediaries to help in gain minority and immigrant support. These intermediaries often times come for the community and help bridge cultural and language barriers.

Although Clientelism is often viewed in a negative light, in Australia they seem to be making it work. The article also said that this system works because for many immigrants and minorities this system agrees with their cultural beliefs. The clients themselves in this system are very aware of the system and truly hold their representative responsible. It also gives a voice to groups of people who were formally not involved in politics until this method was utilized. And as long as this system doesn’t turn to its stereotypical ways of corruption, then what’s the harm?

Australian Economy

In order to get a better understanding on how Australian fits into the world it is important to look at its economy.

            According to Countrywatch.com Australia has one of strongest economies in the world. Like other liberal democracies their economy has moved away from an agricultural centered economy to a service directed economy. This type of service centered economy focuses on tourism, industry, insurance, property, retail, communication, and transportation. And although their economy is dominated by services, agriculture and mining still play a big part in revenue of Australia, contributing to over 50% of Australia’s exports. Australian economy is also supported by many structural reforms and policies that protect not only businesses the people.

            Once Australia began to establish a highly recognized and respected economy they began to focus on how to best support Australia. To create a more prosperous country the economy began to support more internal competition, and became more export oriented. To accomplish this they reduced tariffs and set up systems to protect the dollar exchange rate.  But because of Australia’s remoteness it has a very small domestic market so it is important that Australian maintains a healthy amount of foreign trade and investment.

            Although Australia has seen relative economic stability, recently it has been it affected by the economic down turn, surprisingly not as much as other countries. Although their economy wasn’t affect as much as the United States, it still had set backs. For example commodity prices fell, domestic markets were strained, currency depreciated, and prices of real estate dropped.

But how could have Australia avoided some of the crippling effects that other countries experienced? According to countrywatch.com it was due to their vast amount of commodity exports with China, which continued despite the economic downturn. Another thing that protected the economy was the government’s timely response to the by setting up strong policies which protected the country. And lastly Australia has a very strong banking system that helped maintain Australian’s ability to obtain credit and provided many stimulus to improve the economy.

            Because of the stability of Australian economics many citizens have had long record of comfortable living situations. Currently the unemployment rate in Australia is 7.1 % compared the America’s 8.7%.

Current news- Freedom of Speech in Trouble

Although Australia is a country of Liberal Democracy there are still debates on what core values should be upheld. It today’s News, the Sydney Morning Herald printed an article about how freedom of speech may be in jeopardy in Australia.

Recently two of Sydney Morning Herald’s reporters wrote an article criticizing Australia’s Crime Commission, which is Australia’s national criminal intelligence agency. This particular agency is very secretive and has a vast amount of power. Having the ability to tap phones, collect personal information, and search homes without knowledge or consent of the individual.

            Once the articles were printed the Crime Commission made an announcement that it wanted to seize the reporter’s phones and SIM cards in order to discover their sources. If this demand is granted the reporters could be held in contempt if they refuse to give up their phones and private information. Recently the courts enacted the Federal Evidence Amendment Act, which allows disclosure of a source if it is in the public’s interest. Because of this act, the reporters in question may be forced to give up their sources.

            In this article this is a strong stance against the Crime Commission and the new Federal Evidence Act. The author believes that the act should be amended as soon as possible because if sources no longer feel safe to disclose information to journalist, Australians will miss out on reliable news. It will also force many Australians to stay in the dark about behind the scenes corruption because in most cases, these stories leak out due to inside sources, who may no longer come forward.

            The most powerful statement in the article states “Freedom of speech has no meaning if the government and their agencies are above public criticism and being accountable.”

Out of the whole article I felt that was the most important sentence because it really shows the importance of freedom of speech. By being able to openly talk about government, we the people are also holding the government accountable. If journalists are allowed to keep their sources in confidentiality the Australian public can keep a closer eye on government, even behind closed doors.

If the reporters are forced to give up their information  it will be a huge violation of Australian human rights.

Understanding the Australian Healthcare system

One of the main problems that Australia faces today is the poor health status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I also want to see how the current health system of Australia could improve these conditions. But before I can do my detailed research I decided to get some background that explained what Australia’s healthcare system is like. 

            Over all the health status of Australians is good, life expectancy is about 81 years of age, but these numbers can be deceiving because the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a poor health status. When it comes to Australians of European descent they are generally healthier than the indigenous Aboriginal people. So how does such a successful sounding healthcare system fail so many of their people?

Currently in Australia there is both a private sector and a public sector which together, insures that all Australians, New Zealand citizens, and holders of permanent visas obtain health coverage. Their goal is to provide a health care funding system that allows for universal access to health care while still allowing their citizens a choice between a private sector and a public one. In 1946 Australian health care took a new direction with a new amendment to the constitution which stated that the Commonwealth would start to provide health benefits and service in addition to the service offered in States and Territories. Funding and decision making for health care is divided up by these two entities. The Commonwealth heads policy making in health care and research. They also help fund services out of the hospital such as residential aged care and also health research. States and Territories directly fund many health services. They also join forces and help fund community care such as meal deliveries.

            In Australian both private and public health care is known for providing quality care, offering a wider variety of service and hospital options. These systems are also strongly centered on residential and community care programs which are aimed at improving the lives of Australia’s elderly. Here the health care system can provide delivery meals, at home help, or nursing homes. They also help to provide a wide variety of affordable medicines. Inpatients are provided with medication free of charge. The common wealth also works closely with the Therapeutic Goods Administration which imports and monitors the quality of prescription drugs.

            A major part of the health care system in Australia that needs mentioning is Medicare which helps provide health care with little to no cost to the people. Medicare is largely financed by a wide range of taxes and also a levy which began in 1984. In order to fund Medicare both States and Territories can apply for grants provided by the Commonwealth. Also under Medicare all armed forces and veterans are covered.

            When citizens are covered under public health care they are entitled to choose hospital locations. Private patients are free to choose not only their location, but also their doctor. And although Australia has a health care system that is available to all citizens, the Commonwealth encourages citizens to obtain private health care because it helps cover many services that Medicare does not provide such as dental, optical, and physiotherapy. They also encourage private health care because it is not only affordable but it also allows the government to reduce pressure on the public system. Despite the fact that the government encourages citizens to take out private health care the Commonwealth still protects and regulates private insurance companies to ensure that they are charging everyone the same premium regardless of health status or claims history. This protects Australian and New Zealand citizens from getting denied based on chronic illness.

            Although Australia seems to have a very well established and fair health care system, there is still a population of Australians that are neglected and experience poor health. Just recently the Commonwealth has started up a program to help citizens obtain healthcare regardless of how far they live. This includes Royal Flying Doctor Services which delivers care to remote areas by aircraft, community controlled health services that meet special needs of the indigenous people, and also community programs that are aimed to help the aged. Despite their attempts many aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are still behind in their overall health compared to Australians from European descent.

Political Conditions Part 2

The second part in my research of political conditions really focused on Australian discontent and divisions over the support in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. These opposing views led to a string of political consequences. Its crazy how one issue, granted a large issue, can cause so many political changes.

Like the United States, a huge point in recent Australian debate has been on the war on terrorism. When the 9/11 attacks occure in the United States Prime Minister Howard was in office.  After the attacks the Prime Minister took a strong role in the fight against terrorism sending as many as 2,000 Australian troops over seas. Then in 2002 there was terrorist attack at a nightclub in Bali leaving 90 Australians dead. This terrorist attack caused the Prime Minister  to react in much the way that the U.S. president reacted. Soon after the attack Howard took “pre-emptive strikes” against terrorist groups in Asia. Many Asian communities were shocked because they too lost many citizens and they couldn’t believe that Australia was taking on such an aggressive policy. Later it was reviled that the Prime Minister had received warnings against the Bali attack months before. This could answer the question as to why the Prime minister was so aggressive.

            By 2003 many Australians began to question Prime Minister’s tactics in handling the Iraq crisis. Australia’s parliament then launched an inquiry into Australia’s participation into the war and claimed that Australia was pressured to participate by getting false information. Once the 2004 elections started there were political talks about removing Australian troops from Iraq. It was at this time that the U.S. began to openly criticize Australia, causing mass opposition to the United States. Labor Party President Carmen Lawrence stated “the U.S. was inserting itself into Australian politics to propel the election of Prime Minister Howard, and Australians would not like to be told how to vote.” Up until the election Prime Minister Howard vowed to continue participation despite the growing opposition.

            In October 2004, thousands of citizens attended an anti-war protest in the streets of Australia.

In the elections of 2007, the Australian’s discontent would finally be known with Prime Minister Howard running against Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd’s initiatives were very different from Howards, he wanted to enact reforms in healthcare, employment, education, and he promised to withdraw Australian troops. Once the ballots were in it was clear that Kevin Rudd had a clear majority, which demonstrates how the people's discontent with Iraq related to how they voted. And as promised, he withdrew all troops causing many changes in the foreign relations between Australia and the U.S. Another thing the Rudd did that many other Prime Ministers did not do was having the government publically apologize for the ill treatment of Australia’s indigenous population. He also ended the policy of asylum seekers in detention centers. In all, Rudd moved toward issues that were very strong within the population.

            Although these policies appealed to the people, in June 2010 the Australia’s ruling Labor party, along with a leadership vote, ousted Prime Minister Rudd, who was replaced by Julia Gillard, the first female Prime Minister in Australia.

This secondary part of the article really made me happy because it demonstrates how much power the people can have in a liberal democracy. Participation and voting are vital to democracies such as Australia because it forces the government to carry out the wishes of the people.