Rudd has plenty of advisors and schemes, or more correctly, schemers and he is determined to wreck the social infrastructure. He has already indicated his hand with surgery times pushed back another 2 months, that is from 3 months to 5 months. As well, I mentioned on this forum about 3 months ago that Rudd would privatise and hand over to his cronies the whole electrical infrastructure dressed up with an accompanying political cover 'it is being done for the benefit or good of society.'
Rudd supports to the hilt private health care, privatisation, turning everything into a commodity - in order to rob society. On behalf of the smallest minority in society, the moneyed elite who make all the decisions at the expense of society. A few profiteers who see enormous potential and a ready made market in healthcare (ironic care)that can be manipulated and milked. Like George Bush's infamous declaration "some people fight for the have nots - I fight for the haves." The first step is to create a contrived waiting list. Privatisation is a criminal act of large proportions which is not possible without the cover up from the media.

Hi Kevin

You've written an interesting article on health funding here. I've extracted a snippet an posted it on http://privatehealthinsurance.blogspot.com/ with a link to your full article.

Good health is perhaps along with good education the most important policy objective any federal government should have.

One of my main themes on my health insurane blog, is that the privatisation of health insurance via NIB listing and British for profit BUPS/HBA taking over non-profit MBF threatens the survival of the health insurance industry.

The reason?

The federal government 30-40% rebate may not last too long when the public realises more than $1 billion of taxpayer money will soon start propping up profits via dividends to NIB's shareholders and profits going offshore to BUPA.

Non-profit health funds work for the general good and the focus is on paying claims not dividends.

Anyway, if you're curious about the goings on in the private health insurance industry (where I work for a non-profit health fund) please feel welcome to post a comment at http://privatehealthinsurance.blogspot.com/

Cheers,
Mr Health Insurance

This idea will please the BANKS.

Thanks for your comments.

The main argument against the proposal is that it is better to have no taxation used on health services and to cut taxes and then let people decide how to spend money as they see fit. This proposal is all about giving more control to individuals but in a system where governments fund health services from taxation and that is not going to stop.

Most Australians believe that there is a role for governments in providing health services as part of the social contract. The issue then becomes the best way for the government to spend taxes on health. This proposal is an efficient way for the community to spend the taxes by giving individuals more responsibility and choice. Those who argue that this is a "nanny state proposal" have misunderstood the basic premise which is to give more control to individuals within a social equity framework.

We all know that a straight taxation cut at the current time will lead to inflation. This is an attempt to have a tax cut with a lower inflationary impact.

There is some support for the concept from the US at http://www.hsacoalition.org/?p=167&print=1

For the life of me I cannot understand why health is not tackled properly by reducing the causes of dis-ease and ill health rather than this fascination with "building faster ambulances".

Why not ban smoking, or render ineligible for unpaid healthcare, those who choose to smoke? Screw the taxes, screw the comparatively miniscule number of jobs that would vanish. The reduction(eventually)in palliative care costs for those suffering essentially self-inflicted injuries would compensate for the loss. Don't give me any rubbish about addiction either. I'm an ex-smoker and refute the addiction argument.It's a breakable habit, like most "addictions".

Yes, give us the power to utilise our tax cuts as we see fit but go further and reward those who engage in proactive health measures and don't reward those who don't.

Lifestyle choices cause our bodies disease (break the word up, our bodies become ill at ease, way out of homeostatic balance) and we react by relying on the health care system and drug companies to save the day. WAKE UP! It does not make economic sense for a drug company to cure people for, say, $1000. It makes more sense to put people on a lifetime course of a $1 pill per day for the rest of their lives. No longevity in cures!

Be proactive if you're serious about health. Spend it preventively, not reactively. Ditch Maccas, drink clean water, eat more fresh fruit and vegetables. Even better, grow your own, before Monsanto changes everything!

2legit,

I agree entirely with what you are saying and an extension of the system proposed for the tax cuts going to a health account is to use the health account as a way of rewarding people not to get sick:)

We are working on an expansion of the idea and we will be launching a website in the New Year explaining how this - amongst other things - can be done.

The essential ideas are to

1. Reward people for doing things that promote their own and the communities well being with respect to health in its broadest sense
2. Get some of the money to pay these people whose actions cause problems - like the sellers of cigarettes and alcohol and illicit drugs.
3. Require people to use their Rewards on ways to improve health of themselves and the community.

The approach applies to most activities that have a community aspect to them (and isn't that most activities). To give you an example.

Pay people to generate less greenhouse gases in their daily lives
Get the money from people who generate more greenhouse gases to pay the people who generate less greenhouse gases.
Require the money to be spent on ways to reduce greenhouse gases.