I wish that people like Jeremy and his admirers could explain to me how a non profit organisation, like public health care, is less able to provide health care than organisations, private hospitals and insurance companies, who exist solely to make profits for share holders.

The mantra of increasingly expensive health care is a loosely bandied about expression. The majority of surgery and other treatments have vastly improved in efficiency. Three decades ago something like a cholecystectomy meant weeks in hospital. Now one day max.

For almost all eye surgery there is no hospital stay anymore.

I could go on. The high end expensive whiz bang health care is few and far between and still almost exclusively provided by public health. Like organ transplantation.

Australians pay high personal tax, including medicare, we have GST, we pay stamp duty, we pay tax whenever we tank up the car. It is ludicrous to suggest that we cannot afford universal health care.

I'm all for capitalism and the free market, but is everything in a society simply a commodity to be bought and sold and only available to some?

Why should a wealthy old man be able to afford some kind of treatment that would be denied to a healthy young man because of cost? He may have to go to war to 'protect the old guy's way of life'.

Leigh, private health does not mean it only goes to the seemingly deserving. Old wealthy women can get their boobs done and face lift, but you will not be able to afford to have your compound fractured leg fixed properly.

Personally I think we should largely privatise our armed forces. The US is already showing the way.

A fair society still needs universal health care, but not everything needs to be funded by taxes.
We need universal health care that helps to prevent people becoming chronically ill and disabled - burdens on themselves and on us.
That prevents people being driven into poverty and losing their homes because of medical expenses.
The US model of health care is appalling. A Time-Life article once found that 90% of people who BECAME poor, were driven into poverty by medical costs.

Costs of medicare can be reduced by removing some inessential procedures from the list: eg
1 At present medicare funds quite a lot of inessential and expensive medical procedures and medications, some of which is defensive medicine driven by fear of law-suits.

2 Most old people dread being kept alive like Struldbrugs if they become mental vegetables by costly 'heroic mesaures' for years and years instead of being allowed to die naturally but with minimum pain.

3 We could well put more onus on people paying more towards treatment of illnesses they have brought upon themselves, ignoring doctors' advice - as with many consequences of alcoholism, avoidable diabetes,noise-related deafness etc.

4. Psychological problems of people unable to live with how they are already - eg sex changes, much cosmetic surgery, and even some IVF - which could be reduced by better informed people, and for the latter, more ways to share in care for children needing love.

Preventive medicine can also reduce greater medical costs later, eg dental care, since poor dental health brings on other health problems.

(I am 78, and needed far more medical treatment during my adult life 22-50 than I have in recent years. I would like to see breakdowns of how Medicare is spent and on whom. Some claim that the average period of illl-health before death is two years, regardless of age.)

That means that we'll need to purchase them which is a cost the government will need to bear.

Isn't this the case now?
Me thinks a system of research and manufacture of treatments, drugs etc need be invented, unless of course we can persuade drug companies voluntarily to give up their right to patent drugs for as long as is now.
NO need to rush out to sell your shares, it ain't about happen.

Being a famous scientist is rarely a satisfactory reward today unless thru that you become a millionaire. There lay the problem, perhaps our honours system too requires rejuvenation.
As Indians and and others have proven medicine can be relatively cheap
It's the years of research that costs.
Some therapies have always been for the rich and powerful, and nothing I know will change that.
Could we have more info from the author how he extrapolates our predicament?
For instance where does the logic lie for it to be a crime to take your life whenever one chooses, done legally, generally means it wouldn't be so messy for others to clean up?

fluff4

"Australians pay high personal tax, including medicare, we have GST, we pay stamp duty, we pay tax whenever we tank up the car. It is ludicrous to suggest that we cannot afford universal health care."
AGREED++

This issue was brought home to me recently when my wife had an impacted wisdom tooth.
She could not get an appointment to see our (expensive but better than most) dentist.
She rang the dental Hospital and was told she could have an "emergency" appointment in 12 months. (!) (How much Pethidine would that take!)
Mostly the Dental wait is three years.
A dentist friend often does Rotary help in Tibet, but what about Australia?
What does it cost our economy to have such poor dental care?

I recently had an operation for bowel cancer.
While I am insured to the hilt, and a pensioner, I had to find $5,000 for my (excellent) surgeon. The comment from a medical friend was "Yes these young ones know how to charge don't they? ha. . . ha"

It is crunch time for our health care service, simply because the demand is going to increase over the next 15-20 years.

If our political masters get it wrong and do not put into place NOW an effective stragdy to be able to meet the increase in demand, many more people regardless of age with experience adverse effects as a direct result of political incompetence.

The idea of the 24 hour clinics is good, except for one point.

Where are they going to find the staff?

Michael2, a great job was done on you frightening you re private health insurance.

Don't you think it strange that you are insured, that taxpayers are subsidising private Health and that you are still out of pocket by that much? You would scream blue murder if that happened with your house insurance, personal insurance, car insurance, life insurance, but it is somehow accepted with health insurance.

Recently my daughter had her tonsils removed. I paid up front to a surgeon, the surgery was performed in a public hospital and his secretary says: 'Hey, you are less out of pocket than if you went to a private day hospital with private health insurance!'

Private Health insurance is a great feeling, until you need to make use of it. Then you realise you would have done much, much better if you had kept that money in your own pocket over the years.

I have worked in both public and private Health (over almost 30 years), and had experience in both systems from a patient's perspective.

What I can tell you is that the care in the public system is excellent, you will not be charged any excess, and not only that, but because of intense public scrutiny and reporting systems, it is far less likely that an untoward event is hidden. The public only thinks that private health provides better care, that is because 'stuff' is kept in house. Not good for business you see.

I maintain, the whole private health insurance with the astronomical gap is a rort. As for care, the doctors and nurses are trained and educated in the same institutions. The difference is that a private hospital is loathe to employ much of its own nursing staff. It is cheaper to rely on agency staff. How well are their skills maintained? Do they have the requisite skill to work in all areas?

Think about it.

Personally, if I became seriously ill, needing Intensive Care I would want to be in a big public hospital.