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