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 > Broken promises - the MedicarePlus safety net > Comments

Broken promises - the MedicarePlus safety net : Comments

By Brian Harradine, published 28/4/2005

Brian Harradine argues that the Government should not erode the MedicarePlus safety net package he negotiated last year.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
Brian,nothing is free.If you make anything free,it will be over used and abused.

We have to be a lot more creative in our approach to health.

Firstly;Individuals must take more responsibility in prevention of ill health;ie healthier life styles.

Second; Explore the value of the alternate medicines.There are many of these that really work.ie{natural medicines}

Third; Use chemists and nurses as the first line of remedy before a doctor is consulted.

Fourth; Charge everyone a fee to visit a doctor.This will reduce over servicing, since many run to the Doctor with the slightest ailment.Increase pensions so they can afford to see a doctor.Those with servere or chronic ailments receive many visits free.

Fifth; Educate everyone about health and healthy lifestyles.Give those who do the right thing a reduction in health premiums.

Sixth; Exclude the rich from accessing cheap health benefits at the tax payers expense.

We have no choice, the noose is tightening.There are too many draining the public purse and with our retiring baby boomers,falling birth rates,our economy will collapse under this continued pressure.We all must become more self reliant.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 2 May 2005 7:23:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

"Nothing is free" is a favoured cry by people who have fallen into the trap of the Federal Govenments campaign of scaremongering about public medical services.

Please allow me to quote in full Mr. Howard's statement (originally screened on channel 9), discuss its context and its validity as a catch phrase.

"Nothing is free in life and nor should it be" was Mr. Howard's response to the community indignation to proposed cuts of Medicare funding of IVF patients.This comment was made after the Minister for Health, Mr. Abbott inferred that IVF treatment was somehow related to a moral failing on behalf of the patient and might be considered non-essential medicine. It was also after the Treasurer, Mr. Costello spoke of it as an economic inconvenience although he is fond of the idea of himan reproduction. Remember the colloquial terms used for his 2004 - 2005 budget?

Infertility is a medical disorder and IVF is one of the treatments. Were you aware that one in thrity-six children born in Australia today is IVF assisted?

Medicare is paid for by all of us through our taxes and therefore it is not free. John Howard's comment is a furphy.
Posted by Rhonda Jankovic, Thursday, 5 May 2005 1:42:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhonda, you seem to think that the "Tax Well" is bottomless.With more technoloy the procedures become more expensive.The individual doesn't have a disproportionate right to public funds unless the have covered themselves with the consumate insurance.Look at the total picture.Are we all going to spend half our incomes on health insurance?
Is the IVF scheme producing healthy babies or are many of these to be become a burden to themselves and the rest of society?I don't believe in life at all costs.

The reality is that the rate of continued spending on health is not sustainable.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 8 May 2005 12:32:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

How did you come to the conclusion that I consider the “Tax Well” as bottomless? I don’t. I am concerned with the manner in which this government plays out its stewardship with our tax dollars with regards to medical priorities.

You said “The individual doesn’t have disproportionate right to public funds unless they have covered themselves with the consummate insurance.” What exactly does “consummate insurance” mean? You tell me to "look at the total picture". No problems, I can do that with the assistance of facts. Are you aware that 30% + of all the Private Health Insurance Premiums are subsidized by the Australian taxpayer? This means that the Australian Federal Government gave private heath insurance companies $2.4 billion last year in tax dollars. These dollars come form everybody in the community including those who cannot afford Private Health Insurance. Now, the subsidy is a percentage amount of the premiums and they tend to rise at about 7% per year. You do the mathematics and work out how sustainable this subsidy is over a period of five years …

This is a question of stewardship. Are you aware that the advertising campaign regarding the Medicare Safety Net, launched just prior to the 2004 Federal Election cost approximately $200 million dollars? Let’s examine the numbers. $200 million divided by $40.00 (the cost of an average G.P. consultation) equals half a million consultations. We were told by the government that they could not afford Bulk Billing General Practitioners but they could afford an advertising extravaganza just prior to an election for a product which proved itself unsustainable after a mere six months. These are issues of stewardship or how well the government uses the funds that we pay into the taxation system. I suggest that there probably is enough money to provide universal health care for Australians but the tax dollars are being misused.

Arjay, I think you are correct in part when you say “the rate of continued spending on health is not sustainable” except I think that it is the nature of the continued spending which is not sustainable.
Posted by Rhonda Jankovic, Thursday, 12 May 2005 3:02:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhonda,the word I was groping for was commensurate.If these stats are correct,I agree with you.Why not make all private health funds mutual societies whereby the profits are ploughed back into the health system.I've been told that private health insurance is a waste of money.If you had the discipline in your youth,it would be better to invest $1000.00 per year and grow this amount as your own health fund.Chances are ,you will never use it.

This still doesn't cure the problem of over servicing and individuals expecting the tax payer to pick up the tab for high tech services or operations.We can't live for ever and we can't expect others to pay for our excesses.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 12 May 2005 7:21:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

The ‘stats’ I gave you are all on public record. The 7% rise on the private health insurance subsidy is conservative, given the Liberal Government’s election promise to raise the subsidy on insurance policies held by people over the age of 70 or 75 to 50%. (I am not sure which age but I am sure if you were to check the newspapers about the time of the 2005 election you could find out.)

I know very little about the business end of Private Health Insurers except that which is on public record. Apparently 70% of them are a non-profit business which is amazing given the amount of corporate welfare they receive from the Government. Would you please describe to me what exactly a ‘mutual society’ is, who would own it, benefit from it and how it would be advantageous to the public health system?

I think that your solution of investing $1000.00 per year as a personal health nest egg is interesting but perhaps misses the point of Senator Harradine’s article. His interests are with the people who don’t have the income to afford that sort of measure or private health insurance. I suggest that you have a look at the article by Peter Botsman, “Our bosses are richer and live longer” on this website. Perhaps then we could discuss the need for a health system which tends to all the people in Australia.

I wonder what Senator Harradine thinks of the Private Health Insurance subsidy?
Posted by Rhonda Jankovic, Tuesday, 17 May 2005 2:15:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

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