You completely forgot to mention the pathetic role of the states in Australia's hospital crisis. You just want to lay it all at the feet of Tony Abbott. Last time I checked, each state and territory has a health minister plus Premiers who've choked the system to death.

Just look at the debacles in QLD and NSW for good examples of Labor managed health systems. To simply say Tony Abbott is to blame for all the ills, is to ignore the reality in state administered hospitals.

But they don't count as they regularly change their hats or move on. ie. Peter Beattie.

Kevin Rudd might very well have been “convincing”; I didn’t hear the debate.

But, let’s not forget that Rudd also ‘convinced’ many Australians that his hideously expensive stimulus package and the house insulation scheme were to be the bee’s knees to save Australia from recession.

Well, we have all seen the result of the insulation fiasco – death and mayhem, with rorting thrown in.

Still to come: paying back the money handed out to individuals who are the worst money-managers in the country (the reason why they are always struggling) and for school halls that were not needed.

The people who will be most affected when that money has to be taken back with interest, will be the people who most benefited from the money recklessly spent and borrowed by Rudd. They enjoyed a lull in their woes (perhaps), but the hard times are soon to return for them.

Rudd can not even run his core ‘business’ – government. He doesn’t have a clue on real business, and has proved beyond doubt the folly of government interfering in private enterprise.

How could anyone be confident in a man like that?

As for hospitals, there is never a moment when people are not complaining about them. Undoubtedly, there is room for improvement in the public system; but to listen to the complainants on talk back radio, it seems they think that they can have the same thing as people who pay private insurance, often at the expense of other important needs, to ensure that they don’t have to wait for surgery if needed.

If people think so little of their own health that they are not prepared to pay, they will always be disappointed. Public hospitals work for emergencies and people who are genuinely poor. If you want elective surgery when it suits you, you must pay for it

the usual far right wing bile from leigh. translation:

if you have a lot of money you deserve to live a healthy life.

if you are poor, then that is clearly your fault, and you should simply stay sick & die and stop wasting all that lovely money that should be in my back pocket.

E. Sykes,

The usual talk about "right wing bile" from Mr.Sykes. The usual dislike or downright hatred of 'rich' people. All those poor, downtrodden people (trodden on by me, I suppose).

Well, Mr. Smary Pants Sykes, I'm so rich that I get an Age Pension,to be precise, a part Age Pension. Part pension because I stringently save my money and live an extrememly simple life. Small, ordinary car, mortgage paid off many years ago because my wife is a good housekeeper, not dining out all the time, only hobbies gardening and reading and DVD movies, and no debt.

I could afford for my wife to have had two shoulder reconstructions in a private hosptial at a time of her convenience and need, simply because we lead what is a pretty frugal life these days; not because we are rich.

Of course, a person with just a pension, owing money on credit cards for luxury items, paying rent and having several old cars parked on the lawn and in general wasting money they could put into hospital insurance, would have to await the public hospital's pleasure.

I don't that's my fault, Mr. Sykes

Hi Leigh,
I am just wondering what kind of procedures you think are involved in elective surgery? Don't forget that it often includes surgery that is very necessary for people to have a 'quality of life' and is not really a choice for them per se but rather a necessity. The difference between it and emergency surgery is just that - elective patients aren't going to die tomorrow if they don't have surgery today but they may not be able to make it out of the house to work or buy groceries or meet with their family and friends until they have it.

LEF,

Good to have a non-aggressive and non-nasty response/question to a post. Thankyou.

Quality of life is one of the reasons I and my wife go without other things to have hospital insurance.

Life, for the average person, is about money or lack of money, family planning and financial planning.

The first is about handling the amount of money you have, not matter the amount. Family planning relates to the first – people with too many children for the amount of money they have will always be in financial trouble – and there are too many people in the world for resources to cope. Financial planning is available to all. Not the costly financial planning advertised on TV necessarily, but the equally adequate sort available from the Salvation Army and other organisations which is totally free.

There is no reason for people no to go to one of these organisations saying, “I need hospital insurance, but don’t seem to have enough money at the moment to have it. What do I need to do to be able to afford it?”

Young, healthy people can punt on not having hospital insurance (although there is a much cheaper version for them if they want it); people with kids cannot until there kids leave the nest, and older people definitely cannot take a punt on hospital insurance if quality of life is important to them. (The well be well serviced by the public system if their life is at risk).