2legit - if you are born you will eventually die. In your last 2 years of life you will consume the most health care dollars. If a child dies then those health costs are not offset by the individuals work. If a individual dies at age 65 after working for a life time then society has recouped the health care costs, irrespective of whether they smoked, ate meat or indulged in tantric sex.

I can see no value in adding another layer of complexity to the health system, those who get really sick are in no position to pay for their treatment and I don't want to be like America where sick people live in fear and pain because they can't afford to see a doctor, even for chronic conditions like psoriasis.

Countryboy

If kevin Rudd wants to improve the life style of many children he will enforce centerlink to take twenty dollars a week from welfare payments[or less] so they can be in private health care.

He will identify drug addicts, alcoholics and mental patients and do like wise.

He will put these people under the control of the public trustee where by their funds are controlled so they cant wait for dole day to spend it all at the put or a few hits then be back asking for more hand outs and more of our hard earned public purse.
I couldnt agree more with your coments above.

I think there must come a time where the tax payers are ging to have to say= No more us breaking our backs and time you took reasonsibilty for your own lives and the children you decide to bring into this world without the means to support them.

We are breeding a nation of irresponsible blugers that encourages the world to come to 0Z and demand your free ride.

We see the results every day of the irresponsible people who have few laws ensuring their children and pets suffer.
Time for some personal reasonsibilty.
Well past time.

This proposal is valuable and has some strong advantages over the status quo in health funding. First, it opens up a way of funding consumers (patients) rather than providers and governments. Because our health system it totally provider-centred and provider-dominated, establishing ways of funding the consumer is critical to reform. Without it we can't have anything like a market in health care. Funding the consumer is the only effective way out of the commonwealth/state funding impasse.

Second,it is relatively simple to commence, and that makes it a useful tool in the complex business of initiative health care reform.

That said, I think it is easier politically to commence this kind of approach in more specific fields of care, such as chronic illness, disability and aged care. The National Federation of Parents, Families and Carers has proposed the establishment of an Office of Family Accounts in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to hold and allocate public funding in disability and aged care on behalf of families caring with a person in these situations. General funding would be allocated directly into these accounts - instead of paid into the coffers of providers (the middle men) where there is huge waste and inefficiency.

Politically, it is probably best to have created the accounts first through an prior initiative like this one, then begin shifting resources that might otherwise be earmarked as tax cuts. Shifting resources from the providers to the consumers will be a process that will be resisted strongly by the provider interests (doctors, hospitals, state governments).

Vern Hughes
vern@civilsociety.org.au