I am sick of hearing about how much health cost the Australian community. I believe the aging of the community is a furthy used by the Government. The facts as I see them are that whether we die at 70 or 90, we spend about the same length of time sick. We are much healthy aged population than we have ever been. We are healthier because of the advances in health.

What I would like to see is what it would cost the Australian community if we did use the advances in health care, whether expensive or not.
Some of the most expensive, such as joint replacement and organ replacement actually cost the community less in the end.

These procedures return the patient back to the workforce, where they are very productive. The alternative of not performing expensive procedures, would lead these people needing very expensive ongoing treatment to keep them alive. It would be very unlikely they would return to the workforce.

Modern health procedures not only keep us healthy, they allow us to continue to be a productive member of society.

The cost of the health to the community is important. The cost of not providing the best health care is one we cannot afford.

My personal opinion is that this Government over the last 11 or so years have weakened and glutted Medicare. Their final aim is to get rid of Medicare. They are more than halfway through the process.

It’s a Global Emergency Stephen Leeder. I support the Alma Ata call, and a call from Norman Sartorius of the WHO.

Sartiorius campaigns for greater equity and honesty in Health.

He has asked the UN to call a Global Emergency on Mental Health. He is challenging 'developmental dogmas, explaining the de-synchrony of research and policy, and how staggering levels of need in mental health repeatedly command low priority'.

I am inspired by his book 'Fighting Mental Health', I just wish the government minister would read it.

htt://www.miacat.com
.

Stephen leeder is going about what other countries spend, such as in third world countries as if this is some justification of lack of providing appropriate health care for Australians in certain area’s.

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I look at it from a total different perspective.

The Constitution provide for “invalids and old age pensioners” (and it includes actually also legislative powers to deal with PAUPERS travelling beyond State borders) and this was because it was held that this should be a federate responsibility in view of the movement of people across State (then colonial) borders. John Howard so much was about WorkChoices because it was within “corporation" powers (I dispute) yet health matters regarding invalid and pensioners somehow do not get the same following, even so this legislative power of Subsection 51(xxiii) was specifically provided for this. Then the 1946 referendum provided even further legislative powers to provide health, dental and other financial contribution to all persons. As such, not just invalid and old age pensioners. More over, once the Federal Parliament legislated regarding a constitutional powers that is the end of the State legislative powers! As such, since the 1946 referendum all financial cost regarding health, dental and other medical incurred cost should be born by the commonwealth of Australia from consolidated Revenue (taxation we paid).
More over, postal, telegraphic and other services were specifically handed to the federation as it was held that it should be equal for all Australians throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. Likewise so matters regarding invalid and old age pensioners and since 1946 referendum with all medical cost and as such it should not matter if a person resides in a city or in a remote area, the very reason that the Commonwealth of Australia has been provided with this power was that then all Australians would have the same entitlements, benefits, care, etc.