The fact that the American implementation of a model fails does not mean that the model is wrong.

The model is to have a group negotiating prices rather than an individual. If profit making insurance companies is not the right implementation perhaps cooperative member based insurance companies is an appropriate way?

The point is that it is almost impossible for a sick person to make a selection on health care facilities. We need to work together in some way to balance the market.

Having a single authority with the power to set prices as in a fully government national health system tends to economic inefficiencies because there is little choice and hence the system will stagnate. We need a system that can evolve and adapt.

For myself I want a system where I am encouraged to stay healthy, where I pay for my regular usage of health services but where I have insurance against the catastrophic situations. (Much like the one we have at the moment:)

We can do it because motor vehicle insurance, home and contents insurance works well for most of us and fulfils their purpose. We should be able to tweak the current system to make it work better. I suspect that the problem of rising health care costs is in our demand for more health care rather than being a problem in health insurance. Certainly giving more so called choice to consumers is not going to contain prices.

What is the priority? care for people or the dollar. The article is long winded and obviously created by someone who has never had hands on experience at the coal face.
With 2 billion dollars going to the private sector every year and a failing public sysem where is this dollar brained person coming from?.
The private system does elective surgery in the main, and it is profit based.
The public system takes all emergencies including road traumas, many of these related to alcohol which the sale of, contributes to government coffers. Violence related traumas are treated in the public system. All acute medical cases are treated in the public system. Acute psychiatric cases are treated in the public system.
Do the dollar heads take these facts into consideration when slicing the dollar cake?.
Where was the author of the article in the 1970s?, when we had the best health system in the world without doubt. Why are we paying high taxes if we cannot expect to have a decent health system?.
Howard's troops being deployed in an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as Aphganistan is a huge burden on the taxpayers who did not want Howard to join Bush in what has become new killing fields. The dollar heads cannot make the citizen responsible for their health care in any shape or form, when such irresponsibility is shown by the government of the day.

If we truly had private medicine then Australians could expertly comment on the proposals for privatised health care. But the fact is we don't. Australia has had subsidised health care since in 1947 when PBS was started.

We currently have a private health insurance regime which is

- regulated to the hilt so that insurers must charge a high enough premium for the weaker players to remain viable

- the contributors get a 30% cash rebate from the government

- insurers are not charged the real cost of patient care - in fact no one knows what the cost is

- insurers do not cover the full cost of patient care so patients make GAP payments

In the absence of any better data I compare Australia's health care system to that operating in the United States and conclude that health care outcomes are better in Australia for all but the super rich. As I am not in the top 5% of Australian incomes I do not want the Australian Health Care System privatised.

The federal government has announced its intention to sell Medibank Private which is still the largest health insurer in Australia. The governments mode of sale isn't clear yet but the choices appear to be

1. sell Medibank to an existing insurer
2. sell Medibank shares on the stock market - like Telstra
3. sell Medibank to an investor not yet in the Australian market - an American insurer perhaps?

Clearly we don't want to go down the American health insurance road where
only the seriously rich have health insurance cover.
Health insurers dictate the level of treatment they will pay for.
Health insurance won't cover pre-existing conditions
health insurance cuts out irrespective of whether treatment is completed
The cost of visiting a doctor in the US is extortionate in comparison to the cost of visiting a doctor in Canada for the same condtion.

The most common cause of individual bankruptcy in the US is unpaid medical bills.

It may be your fault if you need a knee reconstruction at 25 because of your aggressive football playing, but its not your fault when you need medical care at age 75 because you are OLD.

Fickle, just click your curser on the little yellow house with the green roof at the foot of this message. or my previous message under the other heading.

Good luck.

What health economists fail to consider is that the private health insurance rebate adds an additional $3 billion dollars the health cost expenditure.

"While most health advocates argue that a greater redistribution of taxpayers’ money into health is required to resolve these issues, the fact remains that our health sector is not starved of resources. Indeed, the growth rate of spending on state-subsidised medical services in recent years has increased by an average of 12 per cent a year. Overall health spending has more than doubled from 1995-96 to $45 billion, and now represents around 10 per cent of gross domestic product."

The private health insurance rebate is just over 6 percent of the 45 billion Australia's health care expenditure. In addition not all the 45 billion is spent on public hospitals.

Public Hospital expenditure is estimated to be 20 billion (2004) which is less than half the total expenditure of 45 billion.