The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Putting a healthy surplus before personal well-being > Comments

Putting a healthy surplus before personal well-being : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 14/1/2014

Terry Barnes, a former former senior advisor to Prime Minister Tony Abbott, has suggested a $6 dollar surcharge on bulk-billing via Medicare in order 'to send a price signal'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
I was aware of that, Tristan Ewins.

>>The comment about "a huge drop in private health cover" was Shadow Minister's; not mine.<<

But I was intrigued that you did not make even a passing comment on the other, more important issues.

>>...there is a convincing case to restore Medibank Private to a 'not for profit' footing<<

I pointed out how it is not feasible to return Medibank to its not-for-profit status, any more than it is reasonable to ask BUPA to relinquish its debt-funded structure, or persuade NIB to re-mutualize. Health care industries across the world have moved beyond the fix-it-when-broken model, to try and prevent the system eventually consuming our entire GDP. If you have some kind of magic dust that allows universal, free health care, you would do well to share it, as it's desirability is right up there with the philosopher's stone.

"Privatisation of Medibank Private would undoubtedly cost consumers over the long run".

You have still failed to present any rationale for this.

>>Again: Greater subsidies for low income citizens would result in a grater take up of private health insurance.<<

But, as I asked before, why would this be a better investment in health care than, say, disease management?

I'm beginning to get the impression that you believe that ideology trumps reality. When it comes to health care, it most assuredly does not.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 16 January 2014 3:03:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

Saving $2.4bn by means testing the health rebate, and spending an additional $4bn to cope with the additional demand on the public health service is only a "saving" to the mathematically impaired.

To avoid the additional tax levy, one only needs to take out hospital cover which covers only minor procedures and excludes expensive procedures, that the public sector provide free of charge. The all inclusive cover costs 3 times as much or roughly an additional $400p.m. for a family of 4. Most families have cut down their packages to make ends meet.

As private hospitals are more efficient (by about 25%) cost wise, it makes sense to all but the far left to spend less government money and get better services.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 16 January 2014 3:03:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The point is that 'savings' and 'productivity' in health are counter-productive when the quality of service suffers as a consequence. What you pay for is what you get.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 17 January 2014 9:37:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Tristan, from the governments own estimates you get a lot more for the same money from the private sector than from the public sector, where the same procedure done in the public sector for say $10 000 costs $7 500 in the private sector.

So encouraging people to spend money in the private sector reduces the costs in the public sector by more than the incentive.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 17 January 2014 10:26:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

"Actually Tristan, from the governments own estimates you get a lot more for the same money from the private sector than from the public sector, where the same procedure done in the public sector for say $10 000 costs $7 500 in the private sector.

So encouraging people to spend money in the private sector reduces the costs in the public sector by more than the incentive."

Firstly have a look at the cost of the Private for Profit American system.

Secondly whilst the figure you quote may apply to some procedures, it does not apply to the vast majority.

Whilst encouraging people to spend money to use the private sector does reduce cost to the public sector, it increases costs to the individual.

Subsequently a user of the Private Hospital system, can be tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket.

Take for example cardiac surgery, generally if you are well in the Public sector, you are transferred to the general ward the next day.

In the private sector, you can still be in intensive care, sitting up eating meals for a couple of days, before you are transferred to the general ward.
Posted by Wolly B, Thursday, 23 January 2014 4:44:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/health/sociopathy.html#Sociopathy

"Care and profit compete directly for the health care dollar and those who can bring themselves to compromise on care will be most profitable. This problem has been recognised for 2000 years. The system is very vulnerable for sociopaths to exploit. It is a set of fragile social structures which require constant identification and reinforcement, not only by the professions but by the larger society. In the past a cohesive community, strong professional associations and clear ethical systems have been moderately successful in controlling sociopathic tendencies."

This website has numerous arguments against the Private for Profit Hospital system.

Sure no health care system is perfect, and funding by either taxation or insurance premiums.
Posted by Wolly B, Thursday, 23 January 2014 5:36:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy