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. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
So who's personal well-being is being offered as a sacrifice while the Government work on not only getting rid of their deficit, but building a healthy surplus? Oh, of course, the lower end of the scale and medicare. As, I believe the Rudd Abbott combined deficit is $50bn this year. $40bn when Abbott took over, growing to $50bn within one hundred days. The addition to the Medicare levy will remain, and a healthy surplus well. No comment.
Reducing the welfare bill, namely Newstart and Disability. I hope they are referring to those claiming the dole unnecessary or fraudulently. A review of disability recipients, targeting short term support who may be fit for work. Permanent disability recipients should be safe as it speaks for itself.
If their intention is to implement, across the board cuts, to both areas, they are pathetic, lazy excuses.
Pollie- Cassie McGannon suggests 'it is short sighted to not include Aged Pensioners as some are very wealthy and even have half a million in assets. Ok target those who are obtaining benefits fraudulently. As for those with half million dollar assets, which you would assume they possessed at retirement age, what? Assets, being their home, one maybe two cars, and furnishings? Theirs through hard work. Cassie McGannon stooping real low. Not an option.
Oh yes there was mention of getting rid of the 'milti millionaires' welfare/hand out. Does this exist and if so what thoughtless idiot would have any involvement in a ridiculous scandal. Please be false.
This all gives me the s..ts and yet I persist.
How about all the pollies get targeted for a bloody change. Im sure if they looked really hard there could be cuts made somewhere in their more than ample earnings.
Posted by jodelie, Thursday, 23 January 2014 10:45:55 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
<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

Where is the evidence for this?

There have already been fail experiments "Port MacQuarie, Sunbury where private operators were put in charge of running public hospitals in the belief that it was cheaper, only for the same hospitals to require bailing packages.

http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/health/privat_aus_states.html

I have additional information on old computer files.

<Efficiency and Costs:- As Lawrence has shown in a recent paper the costs of private care in <Australia are greater than that in the public system. This is despite the fact that the public <system treats sicker people, with a comparable complication rate. In their study of available <data in Australia Duckett and Jackson concluded that "care in the public sector is provided at <higher levels of technical, allocative and dynamic efficiency than in the private sector".

[see Dr Carmen Lawrence, MHR. "Shortcomings in the Howard government's private health insurance incentives bill" (1998)
Duckett S J & Jackson T J Med J Australia 1/5/2000 Vol 172 p439-42]
http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/health/comp_effic.html

Anyone who supports the idea of private being more efficient and cost effective, either has substantial share holdings or stands to gain an enormous amount from such an idea.

We only need to look at what has happened to energy prices in Australia, and the idea that competition keeps prices down is down right delusion.
Posted by Wolly B, Friday, 24 January 2014 7:25:02 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
Wolly,

The American system is a mess largely due to the screeds of regulations imposed by successive federal snd state democratic governments which mean that more than 50% of the medical dollar is spend in administration costs. Comparing Aus to the US is as silly as comparing it to the socialist Greek medical system.

The reality is that the private sector in Australia provides similar services at about 75% of the cost of the state run hospitals, and the stupid cuts in private health subsidy hurts everyone
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 24 January 2014 8:48:06 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
Just to be clear, Shadow Minister.

>>... means testing of this rebate has lead to a huge drop in private health cover<<

As I pointed out to Tristan Ewins, this is simply not the case.

There has not been a drop in the number of Australians covered by private health insurance...

http://phiac.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/QtrStats-Sep13.pdf

The numbers are still increasing, in fact.

>>... the stupid cuts in private health subsidy hurts [sic] everyone<<

The major "cuts" have been means-test related, and seem to have caused little, if any, downward pressure on the cohort of private health insurance users. Sure, there is evidence of "downsizing", in that people are taking more notice of what exactly they are covered for. But this is ultimately a healthy attitude.

There has been a recent move towards indexation of the rebate, but that is likely to have a negligible impact also, as it is talking a small number of dollars for one particular segment.

I am very much in favour of the continuing viability of the private health system, and the insurance industry that supports it. Simply bandying about partisan party-politically-motivated slogans does not help this one little bit.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 24 January 2014 11:42:02 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
Pericles,

If you had bothered to read my first post, I have never claimed that less people are covered, but that people are cutting back dramatically on their health cover. This removes the cover on most major illnesses such as heart, cancer, diabetes that are very expensive, and pushes these people back onto the public purse, with a net savings to the taxpayer of zero or worse.

Just look at any basic private health cover that is just sufficient to avoid the tax penalty, and you will see that it excludes a hell of a lot.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 24 January 2014 12:15:43 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 reality is that the private sector in Australia provides similar services at about 75% of the cost of the state run hospitals, and the stupid cuts in private health subsidy hurts everyone
<Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 24 January 2014 8:48:06 AM

Again where is the evidence for this?

Did you not read the Carman Lawernce reference?

A friend of mine was treated for Prostate cancer in the private system and he was left around 20k out of pocket, so how is this cheaper than the public system?
Posted by Wolly B, Friday, 24 January 2014 2:26:48 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. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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