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 > The virtues of healthy choice and competition > Comments

The virtues of healthy choice and competition : Comments

By Mikayla Novak, published 29/3/2006

Increased privatisation of services and greater individual responsibility for healthcare costs is the best way forward for the Australian health system.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
MikeM, those statistics don't even paint a fraction of the picture. It's ridiculous to say that Australia's health care quality or prices, let alone life expectancy can be attributed solely to the level of private sector involvement in the health care market. What about the level of regulation, or government granted monpolistic behaviour? The health care market can be entirely private, but if competition is stifled and prices are elevated due to other artificial factors then the level of private sector involvment is irrelevant.
Posted by G T, Friday, 31 March 2006 12:45:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie, your brief bio says "Julie Novak is a Brisbane-based economist." Must be pretty hard getting to work in Melbourne each morning. :-)
Posted by Faustino, Friday, 31 March 2006 2:29:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a health consumer and I consume blood pressure medicine. If I do not have it I will probably have a heart attack.

I assume "price signals" for someone like me means that I should pay more for my medicine and because of that I will change my behaviour ?

Now I concede I could stand to lose a few kilos and the fags are not doing me any good, so I can probably get the signal.

But thank God I am not genetically pre disposed to some illness where all price signals will do is give me a stroke because I have no alternatives.
Posted by westernred, Friday, 31 March 2006 4:11:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Apart from the fact that more public funding into health means less money for schools, roads, policing and other services, the possibility that greater consumer choice and provider competition ought to play a role in driving systemic improvement in the health sector has not been sufficiently appreciated."

Interesting the tax on petrol was meant that more money would be spent on maintaining our roads, however in practice only a small portion of the tax collected is spent on maintaining our roads. State governments have resorted to Public/Private programs as a way of funding roadworks, despite the enormous amount of tax collected on petrol.

The Public Private partnerships means that the taxpayer is paying through the use of tolls, another tax on top of the fuel levy surcharge and all the other taxes imposed on motorists.

So it stands to reason that even if governments spent less on health that the money would not necessarily go to other services like education, policing etc.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 1 April 2006 5:49:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As many have pointed out price signals at the consumer level often don't apply in health care (or should we say sickness care).

However, price signals could work for insurance companies if they were allowed to exercise them. I am more happy if I pay health insurance and I never use it. I would like my health insurance company to have the ability to encourage my doctor into making me so well that I would never have to visit him nor visit a hospital.

Instead of trying to fix the problem at the consumer level let us give more power to the insurance companies and let them figure out ways to reduce costs by reducing the usage and so gain more income.

The current system tends to encourages consumption. We need a system that discourages consumption.

Mandatory health insurance is socially desirable (with subsidies for those less well off). Many insurance companies are a good idea to bring competition to the market. But we need to remove the shackles of regulation so that the insurance companies can implement ways to reduce demand and reduce costs and increase profits because we will be happier if we do not need health care.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Sunday, 2 April 2006 6:47:12 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
Allowing insurance companies into the Dr-Patient relationship,will create an American template doomed to fail as distort the 2 person process - patient consulting doctor now 3 into the intimate healing/care process

Major TOP DOG American Insurance suit Aus $11.3 million income - 5 thousand Aus$/hour). If I was a lawyer, I would want MORE insurance involvement- a proven madness. Inserting a layer of highly paid insurance Zegna suits surrounded by a posse of complexing protective lawyers just adds more costs. Simple.

Lets go back to the days when Freemasons and the church groups ran charity hospitals and their members made a contribution back to society?

Company Intelligence
2004 Executive Compensation Publicly Traded Managed Care Firms*
May 9, 2005, MANAGED CARE WEEK, news of health plans, PPOs, and POS plans.

Name/Title Annual Salary Bonus Other Annual Compensation

William McGuire, M.D., Chairman/CEO UnitedHealth Group $2,176,923 $5,550,000 $242,386

Stephen Hemsley, President/COO $1,038,462 $2,325,000 $143,447

John Rowe, M.D., Chairman/CEO Aetna, Inc. $1,133,749 $2,500,000 $231,416

Paste link below into browser - the resultant legal turmoil inflicted upon patients, providers and hospitals.

http://www.aishealth.com/ManagedCare/HMOLawsuitWatch.html

Do Aussies want this model?

No, but our MP's are either stabbing each other or snoozing!

MP's don't seem to give a toss, for the insurance lobby can smell profits like a White Pointer, they are circling, as is Coles who has paid $48 million purchase Pharmacy Direct "to have a look". Pull the other one, Uncle Scrooge. Pharmacy direct was owned by API who has on their Board: The Hon Dr Michael Wooldridge (Independent Director, Non Exec. Director). Cute?

God save our grandchildren, for there will be nothing for them to do other than be slaves to the corporates - no Aussie egges, pork, apples, garlic, potatoes, milk, no professional independent practices. The rural communities will become a wasteland of nothing, ruled by highly nurtured corporate gnomes.

How did the madness start? The ACCC (highjacked by Toorak suit Venture Capitalists with MBA's from Harvard) proclaiming that the professions are just a business (therefore we will more in and take the albeit slim profits oh, except radiology and pathology)
Posted by Big Julie, Sunday, 2 April 2006 9:44:43 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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