In a program on SBS about health care around the world the american presenter asked people in certain countries "If health care had ever sent anyone bankrupt."

The key component in these countries is that they had a universal health care scheme. Governments controlled costs and for example the health care funds were not for profit.

Something that is taking place in Australia at present is that private health care providers are positioning themselves to take advantage of the increasing health care expenditure of the ageing baby boomers.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/health/path_rad_aus.html

Jeremy's ideas and beliefs are disturbing. Once a particular belief system about health takes root, and can cause enormous damage that will take decades to repair.

Take for example that the number of medical school training places was reduced as a cost saving measure in the 1990's and now there are insufficient numbers of doctors in Australia.

There have been failed experiments with privatising public hospitals or co-locating private hospitals with the public.

If Jeremy's idea takes root, health care in Australia will head down the same path as health care in America where the poor have about the same life expectancy and standard of health care as compared to those who live in third world countries.

Truly an ideological humbug.

It seems to me he’s forgotten that 2% of average wage taxation wouldn’t cover a family’s medical bills. Especially if there's a serious ilness or congenital problems. Private insurance doesn’t cover actual charges. Gap insurance? more expense. Medicine by insurance co look at the US disaster 30% without any cover.
Who amongst the average working family is going to be able to afford open heart surgery, organ transplants, AIDS medication, Long term dialysis, intensive neonatal care and survive? Oh yes, don’t get old the medication costs could kill you.

Wouldn’t it be nice if CIS could dump the failed rationalist ideology and simply tried to solve the problems from the people’s position?
Jerry, back to the drawing board.
And to think he gets paid to do this? (I hope it’s a lot or his old age will be miserable).

This is a disturbing proposition which ignores a few facts. People who have retired have paid their way in society. Many still pay - via superannuation (and GST) - to support our society. Their taxes have set up infrastructure (so much as governments have chosen to so do!), they have paid for the education of the coming generations and for the medical needs of their elders (and themselves).

The hucksterism promoted by Jeremy Sammut's article can have only adverse effects on those in most need. It is the kind of self-serving social-Darwinism which punishes the needy in the USA.

By all means express your individuality by ,say, buying an expensive car (like all the other hucksters), but please don't do it at the expense of those who have given and who have need.

Politicians already pork-barrel the “corporate vote”, and this expanding greedy constituency can be expected to vote in favour of tax and 'defence' spending policies that extract higher transfers from younger workers.

Due to Defence and Treasurys' open-ended commitment to provide “free” wealth care for a few Australians, if an ageing Australia continues to rely on pay-as-you-go tax contributions to fund the bulk of health spending, then governments will siphon off a considerably larger portion of the earnings of young generations as taxes to subsidise the greed-fuelled cost of 'Defence' and corporate welfare for the largely foreign owned weapons manufacturing industry, the failing motor vehicle industry, mining industry giants, Big Pharma and on and on.

James H., the self-importantly titled examinator, and LRAM, don't appear to be able to see out from their ideological blinkers.
The whole point of an opt out system is that if people prefer a universal system their free to stay in it. The argument that the poor will die in the streets if some people opt out is the real humbug - the public system will still be there for those in need. It’s the same for the elderly, LRAM, who incidentally have not pre-funded their own health care, have paid fare less for the health and pensions cost of a much smaller elderly population, and have not paid for the university education of the young (it’s called HECS.)
James H.: the private health system is 'taking advantage' of the elderly by providing them with the care they want in a much more timely manner than the public system, unless you want to wait months and years for knee and hip replacements and eye surgery.
Examinator has also bought the myth that the Medicare levy covers the
cost of Medicare. It covers around 15-17% at best of the cost of the public health system. Estimate what Medicare is really costing the average taxpayer, and then think whether you are getting value for your money.
I think that's what the defenders of Medicare are really worried out. That the alternative will turn out better than the status quo, and leave them bereft of even their ideological cover.
Sowat should follow the policy debate more closely: the CIS is a fierce critic of all government of subsidies to all kinds of individual and corporate recipients.

If we have universal health care and universal superannuation systems this should be cheaper and more efficient than

- multiple organisations competing for contributors each having the same organisational overheards

- private corporations pay profits to their shareholders and vastly inflated salaries to their management

Keep Medicare and lose all the employer based superannuation schemes run by the old life insurance companies and Gen X and Y would pay far less money to secure their old age than they do under the present system.

I read your extended article and I'm glad that the OLO editors cut out your spiteful rant.