Week 8 Critical Question- Do Wealthier People Have an Advantage Over Poorer People Because They Can Afford Private Health Care?

Wealthier people have an advantage over poorer people regarding health care. Not only they have an advantage over the poorer people, but they also help the poorer people receive proper medical attention in two ways. Firstly, by having private health care, the wealthy free up more beds in public hospitals. Secondly, some of the money which they pay to the private health insurers goes towards public hospitals. The Options Trail on Friday further proved this hypothesis with majority of the people we surveyed agreeing that wealthier people have an advantage over poorer people regarding health care.

Wealthier people who have private health care are, in the eyes of many, advantageous over those without private health care. On Friday for our Options Trail, we surveyed thirty people and all of the people surveyed said that they would go to a private hospital if they could. However, when they were asked if it was unfair if people without private health care couldn’t access private services, the votes were split down the middle, some believing it is fair and other unfair. So why could it be unfair? The general idea in most peoples’ heads is that private health care is better, and that people without it may suffer. But is this truly the case? Public hospitals have the same equipment as private hospitals and they charge less for their services. Having said that, it could be fair because the difference between public and private hospitals is not that great. Both patients in public hospitals and patients in private hospitals receive the care that they need. The only major difference between a public and a private hospital is that public hospitals are funded by the government and private hospitals are profit organisations. Because of that, the prices in private hospitals are greater. However, as they are privately owned, they come with better views and more spacious rooms because they are further out in the suburbs.

Although wealthier people may get better views and more spacious rooms, they do not skip the queues and get around the same level of care that others receive. Private hospitals are less efficient than public hospitals when it comes to emergency care. Therefore in emergencies, wealthier people treated in private hospitals do not actually benefit from having private health care. Dr David Isaac explained how this is possible in our interview. He stated that once it gets to a certain hour in a private hospital, most of the doctors leave but in a public hospital, they have doctors working around the clock to service those in need. He contradicted himself when he said that the nurses in private hospitals have less patients to look after and this results in higher levels of care. Does he have proof of this or has he only stated what he thinks is right? I interpret this into meaning that public hospitals have a faster response system but the focus on their patients is less. According to an article published by GMHBA Health Insurance, if you have an accident and need to get your knee reconstructed, you could go to a public hospital and Medicare would cover the whole cost but you would have to wait for a long time to receive treatment unless it the operation is seen as critical. You could also go to a private hospital without private health insurance but Medicare would only cover around three quarters of the cost. Or if you are covered by private health insurance, the fee is minimal with your provider paying majority of the costs. With that article, there is a heavy bias to be expected as they are trying to sell you private health insurance which in reality, it is not that far from the truth. This proves that people with private health care have an advantage over those without but more so for arranged procedures such as operations. I think that people would only be in emergency care at a private hospital if they had a health insurance or if the public hospitals are on bypass because they have reached their maximum capacity.

In conclusion, wealthier people have an advantage over poorer people because of their private health care. Private hospitals have shorter waiting periods than public hospitals and for non-life-threatening procedures, wealthier people do benefit from having their own health care.

Bibliography

https://www.gmhba.com.au/about-health-insurance/private-vs-public

Week 6 Critical Question- The Subjects We Learn in the Classroom Effectively Prepare Us for Life After We Finish High School – Agree or Disagree?

The subjects we learn in school effectively prepare us for life after we finish high school academically but we still need to learn life skills somehow. The subjects are designed to give each individual student the best possible chance for their future career but do not focus on life skills which are more important in some aspects. Life skills such as compromise and team work can be taught outside of school through sports or other means but skills such as surveying may be harder to develop. Thus, the subjects we learn in school do leave some gaps.

There is a wide range of subjects taught in schools. According to VCAA (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority), there are 144 subjects available for study in VCE. This is a real figure however, not all of these 144 subjects are available for study at all schools. In fact, around a third of them are languages which are more commonly learnt outside of school. What people fail to realise is that despite Victorian students having all these options, fifty of them are languages and out of the 94 remaining subjects, not all of them are offered to every student in every school. Besides not having access to all of the subjects, this is still a wide range which is able to cater for the many different interests and talents of students and by having so many choices, it can often be difficult to focus on around six subjects. These subjects will prepare students for life after high school by teaching vital knowledge and skills which can be carried into universities and workplaces. Traditional classroom schooling is very effective as students can use their initiative and look at other resources to help prepare them for tests, exams or provide them with some extra knowledge if need be. The academic subjects help students get qualifications and jobs in the future. However, there are some gaps in the curriculum.

Life skills are often hard to learn in school as many are developed through experiences which are uncommon in schools. Some skills, such as team work and collaboration, are explained and developed in schools through sport or group projects or even through friendships. One of the skills needed in the workplace is public speaking. Public speaking cannot be taught and is a skill developed over time. Secondary schools assist their students with their public speaking skills by setting tasks and encouraging more involvement in class. If the student chooses to take advantage of the opportunity, however, is up to them. A personal quality that many students do not develop during their time at school is independence. This can sometime become a challenge once they leave school because they are unsure of themselves and have no one to follow. This is evident even in the young children at The University of Melbourne’s Childcare on Queensberry Street. There is often one leader of the group and the other children just follow him or her around and do what the leader tells them to. Of course, some children will grow out of their obsession to follow another, but some will continue to practice this habit right through school and even in universities and workplaces. Another skill which is rarely taught in schools is personal sustainability. It was obvious on camp that we needed to be able to sustain ourselves and pack wisely. Some students may not have had experience with that before and they found it challenging without having the proper equipment or too much of it. Some other inner-city schools may not even have a camp similar to ours and the students there may never learn or gain experience to help them be personally sustainable. In more rural schools, it might be commonplace that they know all this already, and if not, they are taught. But do we all need to learn the same things?

Traditional schooling in the eyes of many is the normal way of life. For others, they wonder why they have to learn skills and information that they are never going to use anyway. Why should we be forced into doing music if we want to be an athlete? Why should we be forced into art if we want to be a mechanical engineer? These are both valid questions and should be asked. Many teachers and experts argue that students do not know what they want to do with their life and therefore should do a wide variety of subjects. But why not let students choose all their subjects in year seven? Or even earlier? With the right guidance, such as students having to cover at least four domains, this should not be a problem. In fact, it could be a solution. Just because someone likes drawing, which is an art, does not necessarily mean that they like creating things out of wood, which is also an art. Furthermore, by having specific subjects, it will assist students to learn in areas they are interested in. By allowing students to choose their subjects, there will be fewer holes in the curriculum because the course will service the needs of each student. Also, some parents put too much pressure on the schooling system to teach their children all they need to know, including life skills, when in fact, many skills should be developed at home. With the right support from parents, skills such as respect, punctuality and keeping promises can be developed at home, lessening again the number of holes in the education system.

In conclusion, traditional schooling works and opens doors but there are some gaps in what is taught. The academic side of schooling works amazingly well but the intrapersonal development area needs some more thought put into it, as do the concepts covered in subjects. After all, why study biology if you want to be a geographer?

Bibliography:

www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/pages/vce/studies/index.aspx

Week 4 Critical Question- Is Melbourne Fair?

Melbourne is both a fair and unfair place. But what does ‘fair’ mean? According to the Heinemann Australian Student Dictionary, fair simply means to be honest or in accordance with the rules. Based on that definition, it is reasonable to say that Melbourne is a fair place. However, to the poorer and richer people, these rules are mostly unfair. There are some concessions for poorer people, as seen on our trail on Friday but hardly any for the rich or middle-class. The Magistrate’s Court does alter sentencing, depending if people are dependent on the accused. One man stole some clothing and got fired from his job as a security guard. He was supporting his family and got off with a good behaviour bond because the people he was supporting needed him to help them survive.

Melbourne is unfair to the less-fortunate people of the city. On Wednesday’s trail, we visited Frontyard Youth Services which provides ‘integrated services to address the physical, social and emotional needs of young people aged 12-25 who spend time in Melbourne’s CBD’, basically meaning it provides assistance to young homeless people. We discovered that although Melbourne has many provisions in place to help the poorer people, there are hardly enough for the growing population of poorer people. Centrelink payments to young homeless people are only $201 a week, making it difficult to survive. In addition to that, the cost of staying in a hostel per night is around $188. This data came from Frontyard, a service run by Melbourne City Mission, which should be a reliable source. The amounts may be different from real life amounts to help promote the need for assistance in the area of youth homelessness but the information should be mostly truthful. In the last decade, the number of young homeless people has more than doubled and now stands close to 10,000, proving that Melbourne needs to help the less fortunate people more.

Some might argue that the poorer people should work to make their own money so that they can afford a home but many do work and it is often very complicated. People do not become homeless because they want to, there are usually many factors contributing to them becoming homeless. In order to sustain themselves, they need to have an income and when they begin searching for employment, an obstacle they must overcome is competing against smarter people with higher qualifications for the same job. This often proves difficult and it can be extremely hard for people who do not have an extensive education to get a job. And even if they manage to become employed, it is exceptionally difficult to maintain the job. According to Melbourne City Mission, only 51% of homeless youths stay in the Victorian School System. This number seems about right as many would not have the means to pay for school or the transport to get there, but the number may actually be higher because no one can count the exact number of homeless youths or the number of them still attending school. What should be happening is finding out why more people are becoming homeless and try to stop them from sleeping rough, not focusing all the attention on getting people out of the situation.

Our city is also unfair to the rich. It makes sense that the rich should give money to the poor but how much is too much? The rich people worked very hard to get to where they are now and, more often than not, are deserving of their high wages. They should be able to use more of the money that they worked for and not have to pay so much in taxes. According to the Australian Taxation Office website, an Australian resident who earns more than $180,000 (July 2014-15) has to give more than 30% away in taxes. This 30% starts from $54,547 and only increases with the increase in wage. The money taken away could be better used to buy an apartment or a car or be donated to charity. Instead, it is instead going to the government, and what they choose to use it for may not be going towards what you want. The Australian Taxation Office website is reliable as many people go on it to find out how much they will be taxed. It is true that without the taxes, society would not be able to function and the poor people would only get poorer without the assistance from the government, but is excessively taxing the rich the way to solve the problem?

Melbourne is a fair place if you have a reasonable amount of money. As soon as you only have a bit or have too much, the city makes you pay in its own way. Some poor people end up homeless and the rich people have to give so much money away in taxes it does not matter that they have a high income. Melbourne is fair to most, but for some, Melbourne is an imbalanced city.

 

Sources

melbournecitymission.org.au/services/homelessness/young-people-25-years/frontyard-youth-services

https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/income-and-deductions/how-much-income-tax-you-pay/individual-income-tax-rates/

http://www.melbournecitymission.org.au/docs/default-source/Fact-sheets/youth-homelessness-fact-sheets.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Week 2 Critical Question- What Sustains Communities?

Sustainable communities are groups of people with common factors who are able to keep on living and sustain themselves for a long period of time. Communities that are sustainable have efficient architectural design, low consumption of energy and only consume goods if they must. They know that what we do with the Earth now will affect the generations to come.

Efficient architectural design is very important in order to live a sustainable life. With the right design, less energy is spent on heating, cooling and lighting the area. Helen and James’ house in Elsternwick is very efficient, due to the architectural structure of the house. They have big windows which let in lots of light and very good insulation to keep the warm air in when it is cold outside and vice versa. Some people might argue that the energy spent on heating and cooling is not much so why not use heaters and air conditioners? The truth is that the appliances used to heat, cool or light a space are releasing greenhouse gases which are harmful to the environment and contribute to global warming. But do you actually know where your energy to power your heaters comes from?

Our energy comes from burning oil and coal to spin the turbines to generate energy. This process releases toxic substances into the atmosphere. However, this should not be the case. Renewable energy from the wind, sun and water is available for purchase from our energy companies and must be used to create a sustainable community. Alternatively, we can have solar panels fitted to our roofs, generating our energy in a non-polluting way and even distributing it to our neighbours. Reduction of household energy consumption will not have a major impact on reducing emissions; however it changes behaviours and personal opinions which can transfer into the workplace. This can in turn create the momentum required to reduce energy consumption in industries. In Australia in 2012-13, oil was the largest primary energy source (38%) followed by coal (33%) and natural gas (24%) while renewable energy accounted for only 6% of Australia’s energy mix. However, renewable generation became increasingly popular and in 2013, it was 13% of the total generation in Australia. The reports commissioned by the Australian Government may support their policies and add weight to the abolishing of carbon tax. That being said, the report is credible and supported by global evidence. The growth of the use of renewable energy is a hopeful sign of the trend to come and is essential to help minimise our mark on the Earth. On Jane’s lesson of ecological footprints, we as a class, realised how desperately we need to change. Only one person had an ecological footprint less than two, meaning that if everyone in the world lived like them, we would need just under two Earths to sustain ourselves.

Manufacturing and transport use the biggest proportion of energy generated, 2597 petajoules in total, over 1000 petajoules more than the other four industries (commercial and services, residential, mining and agriculture and construction and other) combined. By minimising the amount of goods that we purchase, we are also minimising our ecological footprint. Everything we buy at the supermarket has been transported there by fuel-burning vehicles, and most of it has been packaged in plastic. Plastic does not decompose easily and when it does, it releases synthetic chemicals into the atmosphere. Our appliances in our houses have also been distributed to shops by polluting the Earth and the appliances themselves do the same when they are switched on, as they create greenhouse gases. Sustainable communities buy the majority of their food from famers markets or grow it themselves. This lessens the distance the produce needs to travel to get to the consumer which leads to fewer emissions from vehicles. Competition in the food industry drives costs in supermarkets down, making it attractive to purchase processed food from supermarkets. This saves time and money. But, there is still a choice of making smart purchasing decisions and look for zero carbon emission food. Some people may not believe that it will make a difference if they buy locally grown produce, but if every Australian did so, we would prevent releasing hundreds of thousands of pollutants into the air every year.

In conclusion, sustainable communities can be families, neighbourhoods or even cities which live consuming minimal resources but are still able to be productive and function. These groups of people are aware of the benefits of efficient architectural design, the importance of low energy consumption and only buy goods necessary to continue living productively. After all, how would you feel if you were born into a world which was already destroyed?

http://www.bree.gov.au/sites/default/files/files//publications/aes/2014-australian-energy-statistics.pdf 27/7/14

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b24f8db4-e55a-4deb-a0b3-32cf763a5dab/files/national-greenhouse-accounts-factors-2014.pdf 27/7/14