Introduction to Sociopathy
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/health/sociopathy.html

"Care and profit compete directly for the health care dollar and those who can bring themselves to compromise on care will be most profitable. This problem has been recognised for 2000 years. The system is very vulnerable for sociopaths to exploit."

The above link is to a website which contains an enormous amount of information.

In the US their market driven health sector out performed the financial sector in earning profitablity for the share holders in the 1990's.

Very bluntly it is a myth that the private sector can perform better on delivering health care!

Sure no health delivery model is perfect, however under the American market driven model, something like 70% of the costs/profits are generated from around 30% of the population.

In the near future demand for health care will increase and for those who are interested in good share holder returns investing in the private health industry will do just that. the health care may not be very good, but the profits will make more than a few people turn a blind eye.

Once you let econometrics determine social policy you fall into the deep well the current Govt has taken this country. Labor is prone to this as well. Social Darwinism reigns supreme. It will be interesting to see what the 'X' and 'Y' generations think about subsidised health care when their own bodies start to fail. I suggest the neocons amongst you will look back at the architects of social medicine more kindly then. Econometric projections always inform decisions that favour the well off in our society. That is why social equity considerations and more reasoned analyses of economic productivity are required. Some of the postees here get it. If you view society as nothing more than an amalgam of relative productive units then you just won't get it.

So why doesn't the writer advocate the abolition of the private health insurance subsidy?

Surely a subsidy like this is unconscionable for any new right warrior and would be a good first step towards a rational health system.

Good work JamesH. I checked out the link you gave us;

Introduction to Sociopathy
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/health/sociopathy.html

And I agree it has a wealth of information. I also agree that Australians ought to beware, "In the US their market driven health sector out performed the financial sector in earning profitablity for the share holders in the 1990's. " and "..it is a myth that the private sector can perform better on delivering health care" under the present rules of the economic framework.

To suggest a reply to Shal's question, "Surely a subsidy like this is unconscionable for any new right warrior and would be a good first step towards a rational health system".

Yes the subsity system is required and so is the private/public partnership to help governemnt resolve the core problems. However, the problem in health (as John H points out) is similar to the problems we have in the economic's of unrestrained, contrary, uneven based free-trade, when a private sector is rewarded for doing the unconscionable, rather than lawfully restrained for its unethical aspects.

In the bigger picture it is a competition juxtaposition. The problems of billing for consumer benefits in car repair insurance's (over pricing) the horror mechanisms utilized by banks, housing developers, housing investors, company shareholder's and the like. Our economy needs to find policies that help everyone WIN.

In theory it is one reason why we try to choose economically the government who can help balance free-trade ethic with the needs of the "whole society", by promoting fairness constructively through economic policy.

We are our worse own enermies when we fail to be applied and work to address the core issues through a "responsible" or mindful political vote.

Our chances under the present economic system of resolving the sustainable issues in the present economic-political climate, will become increasing Ad Hoc, unless we use our speech, and right to vote, to make the true stand.

http://www.miacat.com
.

"We" cannot afford health insurance? This article should be read alongside
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/opinion/03herbert.html

Helen

Yes Helen the US health system is cruel and inhumane.
We don't want to go there.
"Lonnie died on March 26 at age 45. The cause of death was cancer, aided and abetted by an absurd, unnecessary and utterly unconscionable absence of health insurance."

One of the things we could do to reduce costs is to attack the Doctor's unionised "closed shop" with regard to medical education and especially specialist training.

For a start a billion or two could be set aside in a Future Fund to fund bursaries and food and rent to deserving students who want to do medicine.A center of excellence for medicine say at Utas where rents are manageable and employment is needed might be a start. Perhaps we could swap a Tamar Valley pulp mill for it?

Who made the absurd assumption that getting a 99.99% mark in the HSC makes you a good outback GP?
Or having 2-3 degrees before you do medicine makes you a better doctor? I imagine such people would be bored witless as a GP.

Doctors and their powerful political organisations control the supply of GPs and especially specialists.
This is very basic economics. Reduce supply and the price goes up.
The system is designed for doctors to make more money not for the country's health.

As a pensioner paying 25% of my income for private health insurance is a real struggle, but I am too frightened of the run-down public system to drop my private insurance. Soon, one day, I will be forced to.