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).

Bit of mis-spelling and letters left off there, but I hope the message is clear.

You're going a bit overboard with that description of elective surgery there Lef. Much of it is for much less important reasons.

Like leigh. I am a pensioner. I'd get a full pension if I lived in the city, in a moderate value house. As I have 19 acers, used for the kids horsing interests, before they left home, I am a part pensioner. As it's land, not bedrooms that I own, some of my homes value is counted as an asset. I therefor live on less than the pension.

I have had great service from our Qld hospitals, with a couple of cardiac events, although we were not so happy with their treatment of my mother.

I have a bunion, which hurts sometimes. It's hurt since I was at school, playing football. It's a bit of a nuisance.

My youngest daughter had the same bunion, she blames me of course, which is probably true.

She was told that it would take about 2 to 3 years to get anything done about the thing, if she wanted it done publicly.

As a 19 year old sexy young lady, she wants to wear 2 Ft high, well 6 inch high heals. They hurt her bunion, & she did not want to wait 2 or more years, to get it fixed.

It took a bit of a whip around to raise the $5,000 to get the bunion fixed privately, & she'll be paying money back to a couple of siblings for a while.

We have no complaint. I can see absolutely no reason why the tax payer should fund my daughters chioce of foot wear. In fact I think there is far too much asked of the tax payer today. It is about time we asked a lot more people to fund their wish list for themselves.

I think the ability to wear high heals, or play football should be included in this.

Well! What a collection of out and out moaners, never a constructive comment on the article by the two eminent authors who very obviously know what they are writing about.
As a user of public hospitals over more years than I care to remember, I also believe that Mr Rudd's proposition is most certainly a large positive step forward in the Australian public hospital system, a step, or series of such steps it urgently needs.
Mr Abbott is a negative posturer, his previous, very dismal, record as health minister speaks for itself. Mr Abbott unfortunately is a religious bigot and again unfortunately brings his religious beliefs into his everyday parliamentary life to the detriment of the Australian public health system.
The Australian Public Health system certainly needs positive revision and the Rudd government will, I believe, do this provided they are not sabotaged by the likes of Mr Abbott and his ilk, who would most certainly appear to have a hidden Private Health System agenda.

"Street Angels, Home devils"

This phrase is used to describe people who are nice people publicly and at home turn into devils.

This applies equally to our politicans, in that they want to appear publicly to be angels, yet privately their behaviour is less than desirable.

Publicly for about 2 decades politicans have been promising to fix out public hospital system, yet secretly have applied the financial screws and cut public hospital expenditure. Secretly the Labor Premiers would prefer for us all to use the private health insurance in private hospitals, there by reducing demand on the public system, reduced demand equals reduced costs and money saved by the states can be used for pork barrelling and nepotism.

Politcal promises are cheap and worthless without doing the really valuable work.

Rudd sounded good, by like all illusionist it will be all smoke and mirrors.

I say it would be a good thing to have the health system taken over by federal, another reason for them to look after the system, as it is their office that is on the line. One can not blame the other, Victoria won't be able to claim they are being short changed with 30% of Victorias funding going to Queensland.
Victoria would benefit from the move, by getting all of our GST from the federal:

An interesting article, and one that makes me worry even more that Tony Abbott should ever be in a position to affect health care in this country.

The only way we will ever have an effective health system in this country is if private health cover is only taken out to use on special, non essential health items.

For example Private health would be taken out for 'extra' health services such as chiropractors or aromatherapists, as well as elective surgeries for cosmetic reasons, or for those who only want a hospital private room and bathroom.

All other hospital patients should be covered by medicare and a small payment each time they go to a GP or hospital.
As soon as hospital care was made 'free' for those without private health, we started to see a slide in conditions.
Only those on a healthcare card or pension card should have 'free' hospital or GP care.

Why is it that people are prepared to pay for the veterinary fees for their animals, but not for themselves or their children?
If people had to pay a small fee each time they went to a GP or hospital, maybe we wouldn't have so many time wasters and malingerers as we do now.

We have private health cover because we can't
afford the cost of hospital and specialist
care. In emergencies we can't afford to wait
for availability of treatment at public hospitals.
Admittedly we spend more on insurance costs than
the immediate cost - if we were without insurance
but we don't have the stress and delay that we'd
have if we were not covered.

My understanding is that the PM's proposal does not
match the recent approved American health scheme,
but it proposes to streamline the management and
financing of the current hospital systems throughout
the country. Hopefully bringing uniformity and excellence
of service throughout. What Mr Abbott is proposing -
nobody as yet knows - we'll have to wait and see just
prior to the Election which will not give any one any time
to evaluate his policies.

As we know in politics, election promises aren't
always kept - as was the case with the GST. With the PM
however, his government is making an honest effort to keep
their promises despite the gliches which could happen in any
industry with all good intentions. And the major world
economic crisis . At least his Government
is making the effort - which unfortunately we can't see the
Opposition doing.

The Opposition made a genuine contribution with the ETS
revisions - under Malcolm Turnbull. And we sadly saw where
he ended up. Can we now expect anything constructive and
positive from the Opposition? The PM has repeatedly invited
the Opposition to put forward positive contribution ,
however all the Opposition seems to be capable of - is negativity.

Foxy, just think about 2 things.

1/ Rudd has stated no jobs will be lost in the take over. I can't see how any streamlining can occur in that case. In fact there would have to be an increase in bureaucracy, to introduce local boards.

2/ No new money gor at least 4 years.

I'm afraid the closer I look, the more the whole thing looks like just a monet grab by Rudd, with no advantage for the public. In fact, it would probably be another pink bats problem, we just can't afford.

I don’t think it was a “great debate” at all. The opposition is not going to announce its health policy, except in the most general terms. The government policy fails to answer many key questions. I’m not sure for instance, if the actual problems with our health system have been identified at all?

As with all bureaucratic systems, the main “growth” area is in administration, this is self evident in our health system with the multi-layered “approval” processes. What this system has always done is increase the number of “decisions in progress”.

If this really is a key problem, how does more federal bureaucracy, to administer 60% rather than 40%, solve anything?

I’m also curious as to why our media, almost exclusively, reports a debate “win” for the government (via the worm), when independent on-line and telephone polls (Yahoo, Ch7 and Sky) reported exactly the opposite results?

Thomas and Ruth then ask the question, <<Did the PM make a better case for it at this debate? >>

Their answer <<Yes he did, unequivocally. >> And this is based upon what exactly?

Why is it we have to tolerate meddling academia that cannot even produce papers that meet their own standards? What a damaging embarrassment to what is remains of the ANU’s brand image.

Dear Hasbeen,

You could be right.

I'm simply worried of us losing what we've
already got - and not knowing what the Opposition
has on offer. Also Mr Abbott's track record is a
very miserable one as far as health is concerned.

America is trying to get a system up and running
similar to the one we now have - I'd hate for us
to go down the American road of the past - with
everything being privatised - and pharmaceuticals
being out of our reach - with the only people
benefiting being the wealthy and large corporations.

But that's just me dear Hasbeen - I've got two mums
with alzheimer's - and we're barely managing looking
after them now as it is - God help us - if the health
system goes down the gurgler.

Suzeonline is going down the correct path. All major health procedures should be undertaken in the Public Health System. Private Health hospitals used solely for cosmetic surgery and procedures. If the hoy poloy want private health, certainly let it be provided for those who wish to avail themselves of such a health system, BUT, not subsidised from the public purse.

The public hospitals should and most certainly could be, financed 100%, by increasing the Medicare Taxation Levy by one or more percent, leaving the contentious issue of the GST allocation as is.

Australian Governments of any persuation live in mortal fear of introducing new taxes, all wish to give the voter impression of being a low taxing government, similarly the US goverments, however with European governments the reverse appears to be the case. One cannot have these efficient, well equipped public services unless they are adequately financed, be it for profit, (as in the US system )or not for profit, as we here expect it to be. This is apparently the reasoning behind the Rudd government fixation on acquiring 30% of the States GST, to give the appearance of no new taxes.

If however the Rudd government very properly explained the reason for the new tax and, where every cent raised by the increased Medicare Levy would be spent, on a vastly improved, enlarged public health system, then I feel sure any sane normal voter would embrace the increased levy.

I still maintain that Mr Abbott and his close shadow cabinet min isters have a hidden agenda of privatisation of the Australian health system. His previous health record supports this view.

Excuse me, but given that Mr Abbott had this dropped on him by the PM as a stunt and given the fact that Mr Abbott and his party are reviewing his health policy I believe it to be a little disingenuous of you to bag the man for that element of the debate. As for the garbage about pharmacautical companies getting an easy ride, who advanced the use generic prescriptions into the PBS.
I don't think this was a well thought through critique

I think I get it ; We want everything available to us "and" We want it immediately "and" We want not to Pay for it ourselves .

Only Solution : Add whatever percentage is required to the GST .