Oliver, you cite your hospital CEO as saying:
"it is easy to raise money for children, but hard to find charity for the geriatrics, where the need is great".

The assumption appears to be that money must be raised by individual hospitals, to meet requests which the state and federal governments will not fund.

The NEJM article excerpt highlights poverty and dependency among children as significantly affecting the approaches which may improve their care. I expect the authors would allow that geriatric patients may also be poor and dependent, and subject to other key factors (and prejudices)which limit the quality of their care. The authors do not advocate better care for children at the expense of their grandparents.

What system would you advocate to assure that health care needs were met equitably, across generations?

Great analysis. We have an "illness industry" rather than a "health system".

We have to start putting the fence at the top of the cliff rather than the hospital at the bottom. To do that funding for the health system must reward primary care providers for keeping patients well rather than for curing them after they get ill.

Roll on the politicians and bureaucrats who will give us good health

Sir Vivor,

My point was identified by you. The aged find it hard to gain funding especially charitable funding, based on what I was told.
As I have mentioned in an other thread even middle-people find it hard to gain access to PET scans at a reasonable cost. PET scans can locate osolated radical cells after a primary operation to prevent occurence. Australian has a 1.1 trillion dollar economy.

"I think we should stop thinking in terms of parties and focus on failing Ministers. " Oliver.
It is not "failing ministers" nor the subjective characteristics of corrupt politicians, more than anything else today, they are the expression of a national tendency when the whole structure of the globe has became international. They are the reactionary leftover from the old national order. The globalization of production has rendered them obsolete and superfluous. Increasingly, they will turn to more brute force using the military and police. Behind the scenes they are preparing for more wars such as in Iran, and colonial interventions in the Pacific region. War abroad always means war on workers here. The politicians do not have one policy for Iraq and another for here. A similar scenario is being prepared in the US.

Johncee, re your dire prediction:
"The globalization of production has rendered [politicians] obsolete and superfluous. Increasingly, they will turn to more brute force using the military and police."

I think you're drawing a long bow here, comrade. Surely they won't beat up and imprison the entire hospital ladies auxiliary, just for running a cake stall to raise money for a PET scanner.

johncee1945,

What is not usually rewritten in Western textbooks about Pearl Harbor is that Japan had is its oil supplies threatened by the West and was militarily surrounded by China, the Durch, Britain and the US. Today, NATO, plus, Japan, Australia and India could place pressure on Iran [and their Russian alliance?]. But this has little to do with PET scanners and advanced equipment.

The above said my point is about purchasing more PET scannes and capping the cost of using them. These machines are valuable in the diagnosis on isolated cells after an primary can cell to ensure early detection. Tony Abbott has been very too slow to act. So we should act on him.

Regarding ostrasization of individuals, one could vote Liberal in a non-Manly electorate but still rally against Abbott in Manly. By targeting the poor Ministers, we can break the domination of the two party system. Its the People taking control off the politicians.