Senator Leyonhjelm makes some sound observations about the lack of a “price signal” in the current Australian medical system. Making consumers of medical services assess whether they think a particular service is worth paying for out of their own pocket makes the decision about which tests and procedures to undergo a little more rigorous than when someone else is paying.

But in order for this to be effective, the consumer must have enough information to make an informed decision about the effectiveness of the particular treatment and particular provider (and doctors, like the rest of us, hate having their performance being measured and publically displayed).
Medical services are an area where the normal assumptions that underpin efficient market theory break down. A “consumer” of a medical service can be faced with a choice where the product may not have a reasonable chance of succeeding, but the alternative is death where the money is useless anyway, so they make the (economically) irrational decision.

Similar irrational behaviour can also be observed in medical research donations. Senator Leyonhjelm makes the observation that breast cancer research is well funded, but when the level of donations is compared to the level of donations for research into male prostate cancer, we can see how “more interesting” conditions receive disproportionate levels of attention.

Government’s role should be much more limited than the all-pervasive role that it fill today. But a governments role is to intervene where the market cannot succeed, and the medical field, research funding in particular, is probably one of those areas.

This article addresses two separate issues. Government funding of medical research and visits to the GP.

I was interested in what he had to say as he rightly alludes to the Trojan Horse of the medical research fund to disguise the actual operation of dismantling universal health care.

Medical research is arguably the one area of research in Australia that does not require any more funding from government. This in stark contrast to other areas of research.

Wobbly is correct that medical debt is an enormous contributing factor in bankruptcies in the USA. With so many other variations of health care on display in OECD countries I cannot fathom why the one failing model is the one this government is hellbent on copying.

It is a popular belief that a large number of people go to the doctor just for a little chat and not a medical reason. Even if this were so, a doctor's visit is still cheaper than an admission to hospital, even for one day. The fact of course is that preventative health care is the best kind of health care and the GP is at the front line of this.

On top of that, we must have the biggest rip-off private health insurance scheme anywhere in the world. It is outrageously expensive with very, very little in benefit when required, considering medicare still pays 60% of all medical costs. What private insurers pay is a joke.

I would consider that to be irrelevant to this discussion, Foyle.

>>Most of the most important medical drugs of the recent era have been achieved by medical laboratories financed by the USA Government, not by private sources.<<

USA is different. It is a country with a substantial tradition of "having a vision". The practical results spun out from their 1960s era determination to reach the moon, for example, is a classic example of how "form follows function" in their R&D process.

Australia so desperately lacks any similar visionary leanings, that we have no guiding principles upon which to invest taxpayers' money into the kinds of longitudinal research that generates scientific breakthroughs of any kind. To think we can trust our political classes to direct relatively puny amounts of our money (but significant in a per-taxpayer sense) in a productive manner is beyond credence.

If you have ever tried to approach the government for an R&D grant, as I have, you would know beyond doubt that we have a public service with the breadth of vision and imagination of a small hamster.

I am not against public funding of research per se. But giving our money to our purblind pollies for such purposes is just another source of riches for the armies of rentseekers who thrive on our government's overweening incompetence.

That's all of our governments in living memory, by the way, not just this one.

Another great article David. It is so nice to see a clear thinking politician, telling it as it is, & putting his reputation out there on what he really thinks.

I have a couple of "conditions", & am on a diabetes watch. I make it to the $1000 worth of prescriptions, [even with the subsidy] a year. I most definitely don't object to paying that bit towards my medications, particularly considering the actual cost of some of them. Thanks young tax payers.

I have at least 4 blood tests & doctors visits a year, often more, & would be happy to pay this small part of my medical costs. Lets face it, all I'd be doing is giving back a bit of the pension the kids pay for now. Surely that is not too much to ask of us oldies being looked after so well.

I really do get so sick of the hand out takers fighting tooth & nail for every bit of the younger generations money they can grab. So many forget how good we've had it. When we were young, on the average wage we paid 7.5% tax. Yep 7.5%, we did not have so many welfare recipients to pay for, or as many bludgers.

At the same time the interest on a home loan was only 4.25%. Our kids would think it was heaven, if they had it so good.

Our kids are paying over 30% on the equivalent income, just when they are buying houses, raising kids, & all those expensive things. Some times many of my generation make me feel sick & ashamed.

On the doctors visit front Yvonne, it is so bad around here it can take 3 days to get an appointment, even if you have a serious problem.

WE have xxxxx care around here. A government funded community support agency. They are one of three.

They visit oldies to help with showering cleaning & other chores on a regular basis. They also fit handrails, clean out gutters, fix leaking taps, cisterns & dangerous stairs etc. This is a great help for many oldies, & probably productive cost saving in the long run.

They also have a bus. It picks up from a different outlying district each day, taking people once a week to the community center for socializing, lunch, & to do some shopping. It is a great day out for people beyond driving. Every second week they take many to doctors for an appointment.

My mother visited the doctor for a nice chat every fortnight for 10 years. He is a nice bloke, & it was a highlight of her fortnight. This was great for her, but was a terrible waste of Medicare funds.

I also don't agree with very expensive high tech medicine on the public purse. By all means cut out a cancer, & fix the general stuff, but heart, lung & other million dollar transplant surgery should not be on the public purse.

Sticking organs in clapped out old farts, like so many of us on here is more a criminal waste of money than kindness. In the same way, with so many of these things, the recipient is merely an expensive trophy to medical science for a short time, rather than a useful member of society.

Much of this stuff serves no useful purpose than to make surgeons rich, & our younger generation poorer.

Hasbeen, contrary to what some politicians tell you, it's not the co-payment that is the issue. If it was truly meant to improve medical expenditure it would be an easy sell.

Emergency departments are full to overflowing, not because every person who goes to ED has an emergency that needs to be seen by a trauma specialist, but because there are not enough GP spots available to make a last minute appointment. I'm with you on that one. I've been known to tell the receptionist at my practice, that no I can't make an appointment in 3 days, 3 days ago I didn't know I was going to be next to death's door, otherwise I would have. Fit me in TODAY!

The real issue is that this co-payment has very little to do with balancing the books. If ALL the $7.00 went towards medical care I'd listen. To have 2/3 go into some sort of vague slush-fund set up by a political party who happens to be in government? My whole being screams Nooooooo! I might even pay some attention if there was some sort of bipartisanship.

You've mentioned your mother's fortnightly GP visits before. And this brings us to medical care in general.

Your conservative friends within the AMA are vehemently opposed to Registered nurses and midwives taking over more care. Your own visits, for instance, of ongoing monitoring and even prescribing some medications, do not require the expertise of a medico. Most chronic illnesses and some acute ones can be dealt with by a much cheaper person, the RN.

I've been in both public and private health care since 1977. Here and overseas. Believe me I can tell you stories of wastage and mismanagement. And if you believe for one moment it is Private good, public bad you've fallen hook-line-and-sinker for propaganda. Both have issues. In private it's double dipping in the public purse, and a horrible lack of transparency. it's bad for business... In public its layers of management.