Charging patients makes them wait longer until they are really sure they need a doctor, by which stage a small problem, may now be a big problem.

Secondly, a patient is not always the best person to judge if a symptom is minor or important.

It is better for a diabetic to come in complaining of an infected toe, than to whack some salve on it and come in a cold sweat two weeks later because "My freaking toes gone black!" and getting an amputation.

I agree with Snooty, one of the big problems of medicare is it's assumptions that "Health = Doctors." It's time we opened up medicare to legitimate and evidenced based allied health and nursing.

It would probably save money in the long run too.

Just my 2c.
Husmusen.

When my son was so ill that he didn't leave his bedroom for a year except to see a doctor as he suffered from excruciating pain throughout his body and a severe migraine that never ended they told him that it was all psychosomatic and sent him to a psychiatrist. When I insisted that he was really ill I was told to see a psychiatrist too. The psychiatrist thought my son was ill because of a bad childhood.

It took seven years before he had a diagnosis of CRI-chronic rickettsial infection, but in the meantime it was alternative therapies that brought him some relief. It was chiropractors, osteopaths and naturopaths that got him off constant painkillers, out of his bedroom and into a place where the pain reduced and he had some painfree days.

Psychosomatic? Bull.

My father was told that he was a hypochondriac because he thought he had a heart condition. The tests they did on him four month before he died of a heart attack showed he was fine--so they told him to stop worrying. The autopsy showed he had severe atherosclerosis.

Psychosomatic? Bull.

My mother was continually told she did not have cancer and that she was fine as the cancer ate her away--they finally told her she did have cancer a few weeks before she died but not before she had wasted away to skin and bones and was so weak she could barely raise a hand let alone stand up.

Psychosomatic? Bull.

I was told by a GP I was a hypochondriac and I had to accept getting older when I had hip pain so bad that I could not sleep at night. One session with a chiropractor and years of pain were completely over--One session.

Psychosomatic? Bull.

Psychosomatic is what doctor's say when they can't work out the problem.

And I agree with Narcissist. The person in my family who uses the doctor the most these days is my super healthy other son who regularly goes to the gym and eats a great diet and is really fit but if he gets the flu he has to get a doctor's certificate. It's a joke.

The health system should focuss more on prevention and early intervention anyway. If doctors and the health system wasn't so focussed on the absolutely extreme cases they might catch a few more before they become extreme cases.

The only reason I go to conventional medicine these days for my family is to get a bone set, a cut stitched or a burn dressed--which I think conventional medicine is brilliant at. Otherwise they either give you a pill with side effects without addressing the real illness or the lifestyle issues that might be making you ill or they tell you that you are crazy.

A suitably provocative article.
A couple of very good suggestions in the comments thus far:

1. Registered nurses, with a most basic training, to check for flem in the nostrils and on the hanky - and to hand out the sicky certificates.
2. Some more people employed as social workers to help the lonely, worried and disenfranchised.
3. Registered nurses - (they usually have few practical clues), to make recommendations to the seemingly psychosomatic, as to what to try next. Include the chiro's and naturopaths as the second port of call.

And what about allowing some more Australians, who are not necessarily 'top of the class', but are in the 89% range, and who have a promising 'bedside manner' to become GP's.

Perhaps we could 'follow' poor, but practical China, and get the relatives (who are willing) to provide the meals in hospitals, and be a general help aroung the place. All that saved cash could be spent employing more orthopedic surgeons, and the like, to get the massive waiting list shortened. (I know some people will be miffed at this last suggestion - but it has merit - sometimes the relatives are in to visit, just about every meal-time).

Perhaps you could select the cheaper option hospital cover - choose it, with or without the meals!!

People sometimes visit medical practitioners for reasons requiring only modest skill to address. Some are even trivial.

I visited our family doctor twice in the last year. The first time I was seriously ill with symptoms that could have indicated a stroke. Physical examination and CT scan eliminated that. Blood tests eliminated other possibilities and in the end, the conclusion was viral meningitis, for which, like most viral diseases, best treatment is to just wait and see whether you live or die. (I lived.)

I was certainly grateful for finding myself in very skilled and experienced hands.

The second time was for a certificate for my superannuation fund to attest that I am still alive. Blind Freddy could have attested to that if the fund was prepared to trust him.

An earlier post suggested that nurse practitioners and other health professionals, who cost less and and take less time to train than doctors, could handle much of the work that doctors do - especially counselling of the "worried well".

It is more economically efficient for a registered nurse to change a pensioner's light bulb than for a GP.

The government has made moves in this direction. However the Australian Medical Association is firmly opposed to inroads into its monopoly.

QUOTE
Following debate at its Federal Council meeting [in August 2005], the AMA has released a Position Statement on Independent Nurse Practitioners, which states categorically that nurses are no substitute for doctors.

AMA President, Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, said today that at a time when Australians expect and deserve higher quality health care it would be irresponsible for governments to pursue medical workforce solutions that offer patients less than the best possible care.
END QUOTE,
from http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-6FK2UA

Is having less than "the best possible care" preferable to having no care at all - because there is no doctor in your vicinity, because you can't get an appointment for a fortnight or because you just can't afford it?

Perhaps if Dr Ahmed wants to see the situation improved, he might have a chat with his professional colleagues.

Such a view could only come from a person who knows nothing about scraping to survive.

My household is a family of 6 people. So let's just say we pay $50 per patient when a sickness runs throughout the household, as it often does. That would equal $300 upfront for the doctor followed by medicine. This is before you get any money back.

There has been a number of times where we have opted not to take a sick child to a doctor simply because we can not afford it. Should the child become so sick as to really need the doctor, then up to the emergency department we go.

Then we have another problem. Because we don't take the child to the doctor on getting sick due to finances(rent and food must come first), ideological Social Workers jump at the chance to scoop yet another bunch kids off their parents. Each netting of kids is a badge of honour to them as they break up the children who tend to get abused in 'Foster Care'.

Sure, there are people who abuse the system. That's for sure. Your view of making Doctor's even more expensive is just going to force many families into a worse scenario. Are YOU going to take the blame for the kids not seeing a doctor when Social Workers steal the kiddies? No, ofcourse not. You'll be sitting in your soft armchair sipping fine wine calling the now criminal parents, negligent.