Background
Question:
Discuss about the Analyses The Link Between Health And Income.
Background
The federal government of Australia based on the current income inequality is currently considering having an inquiry into to the issue of universal basic income for Australian citizens. In the development of this policy, the government is considering whether all Australians should be paid a regular, unconditional and livable sum of money payable to every individual from the government. A universal basic income is also known as the UBI refers to the sum of money given to all adults within the nation using the policy (Anderson, Crengle, Kamaka, Chen, Palafox and Jackson 2006). The universal basic income is implemented with one purpose which is to allow people living within the nation to meet all their basic needs. The universal basic income UBI payments are made without restrictions of as well as without individuals receiving the sum of money being subjected to any test or work. Even though the universal basic income if meant to bring equity and intervention to poverty, this policy can also be an intervention toward poor health. The content of this paper analyses the link between health and income.
The federal government is planning to implement UBI policy to reduce the inequality between rich and the poor as well as enabling individuals to acquire the basic needs. This policy is meant to take a course in the year 2020 (Borowski, Encel and Ozanne 2007). The federal government policymakers believe that the universal policy will help bridge the currently existing gap between the poor and the rich within the states. The UBI policy is also meant to improve and bridge the gap between the Australian aboriginals and the none-indigenous citizen. According to previous national annual reports, there is a huge gap between the aboriginals income and non- aboriginals income in Australia (Coburn 2000). Thus the need for the policy that will bridge the gap between the two groups is crucial.
The prosed UBI scheme will work based on three key functional factors that are universal unconditional and adequate. To bridge the existing income inequality in Australia, the basic income must be universal payable to all adults without regardless of their needs. The income will be universal in the way that it will be given to very adult within the nations. The payment will be given equally to the working class, non-working Australians, the individual, will as well be paid at the same rate regardless of assets and financial capability (Duckett 2014). The payment will also be given adults, studying and adults with liabilities. The UBI scheme will also be unconditional in that it will be given without any behavioral conditions as well as given without the consideration of how an individual receiving money lives his or her life. The universal basic income they (UBI) will as be adequate (Fazel, Geddes and Kushel 2014). The proposed policy states that the universal will be adequate in that it will be given to people at amounts high enough to a level where they can meet their basic needs without depending on additional income. On the other hand, various scholars are criticizing the UBI policy, the achievement of the policy will have a great positive effect on the daily lives of individual adults in Australia. With the availability of money to individuals, all life aspects such as health aspects are likely to change. Various social health determinants depend on income better health as well as
The Proposed UBI Scheme
The link between income, poverty and health
There are various factors which affect human well-being from within the society. These factors are known as social determinants of health and they include education, employment and income as well as poverty. Various health specialists support the policy of universal basic income (UBI) basing their argument that it be one of the most appropriate health interventions (Jacobs, Bigdeli, Annear and Damme 2011). According to the dynamic income survey, it was found that there is a close link between income, poverty and individual well-being. Australian studies, as well as various international studies, have found that their socio-comic status of any individual depends on income. The policy of universal basic income will have a positive effect on the health of Australians who depend on low-income activities as well as the none-income individuals. The result provided by the Australian Council of Social service same into a finding that poverty and lack of income is the number one risk for poor health among the Australians (Kawachi and Kennedy 2007). In on the recent studies, it was shown that various Australian families under or within the line of poverty suffer various illnesses like stress related to financial and emotional issues (Kreuter 2012). Also, that various diseases associated with malnutrition and health risk behaviors such as smoking, alcoholism as well as the decision to stay indoors by some patients are associated with low-income individuals.
Scientists and researchers in Australian in support of Universal Basic Income further found that low-income level within some of the Australian societies is the determinant of the difference of health outcomes within the country. Australian citizens with low socioeconomic status suffer from various diseases and have been to be bearing the most significant burden of illnesses (Marmot et al. 2008). This is evident from federal government reports which are based on a comparison of the aboriginals’ disease burden and non- aboriginal Australians staying within urban areas. The government reports from the year 2008 shows that there has been high disease burden in geographical areas occupied by the aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander where only 49% of the adults work and earn an income of below 20% of the overall weekly income (Palmer and Short 2000). While 50% the aboriginal Australians live under serious low income, it was noticed that only 5% of the non-indigenous Australians live in the same condition.
Likewise, the result from the national survey also found that since the year 2008, the income from the aboriginal areas where there is high disease prevalence has been less than two-thirds of the general income from the corresponding non-indigenous communities where low disease prevalence was recorded. Taking the result of the year 2009, the general income of the indigenous Australians from ages 18 years and above summed up to $ 580 which was still less than thirds of $ 985 income of non-indigenous Australians (Sanders et al. 2009). According to the economic and scientists, the majority of the indigenous Australians were not the position of accessing proper health care services, proper nutrition as well as proper education which can improve health with the health improvement (Pierson 2015). The high rate of diseases burden among the low-income earner in Australia was based income. It was noticed that low income leads to poor health in low-income areas which further worsens the situation as the majority could work to generate more income. However, there was low rate and a few numbers of health complications associated with non-indigenous groups who have a high income. It is evident that, with the high income, various non-aboriginal households could access medical services which most of the aboriginals could not access (Thoits 2010).
Pros and Cons of UBI
Further, with high income among the non-aboriginals, are the position of avoiding stress and emotional diseases associated with financial problems. Also, the high-income households could afford nutritious diet with the observation of a healthy diet thus reduced diseases. The non-indigenous could also afford best hospitals which are located within the urban areas compared to the low-income aboriginals who could not even afford transportation cost to move to the urban hospitals for better treatment (Wilkinson and Marmot 2013). In summary, income is asocial health determinant as it determines how well an individual can get access to various goods and services crucial for keeping a healthy lifestyle. Moreover, income also relates to other social determinants of health such as education and healthcare.
The universal basic income is like a gift to the Australians from the federal government. Even though to some individuals the UBI may appear to them as an economic intervention, but to health scientist and other individuals who see the fact that poverty is the real cause of poor health, UBI is a health intervention. The federal government concern to give Australian adults unconditional and livable sum of money is likely to boost the health of various individuals who could not afford the pay for proper health services (Wilkinson and Pickett 2006). As discussed above it is evident that without high-level income people are unable to acquire enough food eat, good houses which are crucial to the development and maintenance of healthy bodies as well as proper immune systems.
However, with the universal basic income, every adult will be able to acquire and access various basic needs as well as various key commodities such as nutritious meals, medications and housing which are crucial for living a healthy lifestyle and avoid various psychological diseases associated with materialistic deprivation such as stress for both relative an absolute terms. The universal basic income policy is crucial for Australians as it will also help with improvements in other social determinants of health employment options, education completion as adults receiving the sum of money from the government will be able to balance education and other basic needs (Thoits 2010). Income is, therefore, a key social determinant of health as it also helps with balancing other economic factors. Even though the UBI policy is meant to enable adults to acquire the basic needs, it can be more advantageous to Australians as a population health intervention.
Universal Basic Income as a population health intervention strategy
The Australian federal policymakers are viewing universal basic income as an economic aspect which will be applied to enable a steady and low-carbon stat system which will enable sustainable economic growth, population growth as well as sustainable technological growth. However, based on the knowledge I have required the studying the link between income as well as other social determinants of health, I strongly recommend the federal government policymakers should apply the universal basic income policy as health intervention strategy for the population. Why such a recommendation? This is because the universal basic income is one of the national policies which will result into an as sharp shift in the distribution of various health risks by addressing various underlining environmental and socio comical conditions which determines an individual’s health (Wilkinson and Pickett 2006).
The Link between Income, Poverty, and Health
The policymakers based on the close link between income and health can come up with a way of implementing the universal basic income into the health sectors. The benefits of implementing this policy in the health sector are that it will enable the majority of Australians with funds to acquire various goods and services which are crucial for healthy lifestyle regardless of the location, background or status. The implementation of universal basic income into the health sector will enable members of the public to pay for healthcare which majority of Australians is residing in remote areas such as the Aboriginals and other indigenous Australians who in most cases are not able to acquire health care services based on their low-income level.
Moreover, it is recommended for the government to study the implication of the universal basic income policy in the health system before full implementation to avoid policy implementation failure. The government should also look into other policies with the overall effect of the Australia population and do more research on health interventions. Finally, for the federal policymakers to directly assess the impact of the universal basic income policy the general public instead of running randomized controlled trials (Thoits 2010). Using universal basic income as a population health intervention will be crucial to the Australian population more to the aboriginals and low-income individuals within the nation. It is also crucial for population health interventions to be based on various social determinants of health these factors contribute to poor health among the populace but can be used as health interventions just as seen in the case of income.
References
Anderson, I., Crengle, S., Kamaka, M.L., Chen, T.H., Palafox, N. and Jackson-Pulver, L., 2006. Indigenous health in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific. The Lancet, 367(9524), pp.1775-1785.
Borowski, A., Encel, S. and Ozanne, E. eds., 2007. Ageing and social policy in Australia. Cambridge University Press.
Coburn, D., 2000. Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism. Social science & medicine, 51(1), pp.135-146.
Duckett, S.J., 2014. Structural interests and Australian health policy. Social Science & Medicine, 18(11), pp.959-966.
Fazel, S., Geddes, J.R. and Kushel, M., 2014. The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations. The Lancet, 384(9953), pp.1529-1540.
Jacobs, B., Bigdeli, M., Annear, P.L. and Van Damme, W., 2011. Addressing access barriers to health services: an analytical framework for selecting appropriate interventions in low-income Asian countries. Health policy and planning, 27(4), pp.288-300.
Kawachi, I. and Kennedy, B.P., 2007. Socioeconomic determinants of health: Health and social cohesion: why care about income inequality?. Bmj, 314(7086), p.1037.
Kreuter, M.W., 2012. PATCH: its origin, basic concepts, and links to contemporary public health policy. Journal of Health Education, 23(3), pp.135-139.
Marmot, M., 2005. Social determinants of health inequalities. The lancet, 365(9464), pp.1099-1104.
Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T.A., Taylor, S. and Commission on Social Determinants of Health, 2008. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The lancet, 372(9650), pp.1661-1669.
Palmer, G.R. and Short, S.D., 2000. Health care and public policy: an Australian analysis. Macmillan Education AU.
Pierson, P., 2015. Fragmented welfare states: Federal institutions and the development of social policy. Governance, 8(4), pp.449-478.
Sanders, A.E., Slade, G.D., John, M.T., Steele, J.G., Suominen-Taipale, A.L., Lahti, S., Nuttall, N.M. and Allen, P.F., 2009. A cross-national comparison of income gradients in oral health quality of life in four welfare states: application of the Korpi and Palme typology. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 63(7), pp.569-574.
Thoits, P.A., 2010. Stress and health: Major findings and policy implications. Journal of health and social behavior, 51(1_suppl), pp.S41-S53.
Wilkinson, R.G. and Marmot, M. eds., 2013. Social determinants of health: the solid facts. World Health Organization.
Wilkinson, R.G. and Pickett, K.E., 2006. Income inequality and population health: a review and explanation of the evidence. Social science & medicine, 62(7), pp.1768-1784.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
