The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > It’s time for a ‘new Medicare’ > Comments

It’s time for a ‘new Medicare’ : Comments

By John Humphreys, published 22/10/2009

Allowing open competition in health would decrease administration costs and result in higher quality, more efficient health care.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
What a very big load of codswallop.

We have already had almost two decades of cost effectiveness and improved effeciencies.

We now have 38% fewer public hospital beds than we had in 1985.

Anybody who says that increased competition will lead to reduced costs and improved service in the health care sector is either delusional or has no understanding that economic theory simply does not work for health.

The is one exception and that is the act of passive euthansia. Simply by either denying or making health care unavailable to certain groups of people will ongoing costs be reduced.

<The marketplace ideology which gives their activities legitimacy is powerful and all pervasive. Despite alarming insights which challenge the validity of market theory in health care, economists and politician continue to impose new marketplace solutions to the problems created by previous marketplace solutions.>
http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/health/central.html

Case in point is that at the moment the NSW government is trying to reduce staffing levels, at a time when there is an increasing demand for health care services, which then leads to increased waiting times, and a decrease in the standard of care. And still cost will increase.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 22 October 2009 9:27:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I said: "Besides a handful of pro-bureaucracy ideologues, most people understand why competition leads to a better outcome."

And then along comes James...

Strangely, to defend the anti-competitive approach, James points out that the current system is inefficient, ineffective and reducing bed numbers and staff numbers. He may think these are good things, but most people disagree. Unsurprisingly then, the only anti-competitive link he can find comes from a communist.

Even more strange, James & his communist friend seem to think that the current anti-competitive approach with a government monopoly provider of basic health care is an example of "marketplace ideology". I can only assume they are joking, or today is "Orwell day" where everything means the opposite.
Posted by John Humphreys, Thursday, 22 October 2009 9:47:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doesn't it make sense that if everybody was in the same health care system. Things would be better off.
At the moment we have a host of splinter providers, which i believe keeps costs high.
Medibank private works well because of the lack of shareholders.
Medicare + select sounds like they are on to something promising.
If everybody had a basic level of health care which included hospital cover as compusory, under medicare, then you can select over and above cover at an extra cost if you desire.
The 30% now provided could be redeemed and go towards this basic cover.
All in the same boat i recon.
Posted by Desmond, Thursday, 22 October 2009 9:52:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John I will stake everything I own including my super, that your proposition will not work as you plan it.

Sure no health care system in the world is perfect. I have had more than a passing acquaintance with the competative American system.

There two major requirements to keeping health costs down, firstly it must be universal and secondly not for profit.

At present in Australia administrative costs are increasing, partly because more and more measures are being implemented to measure performance, which adds to costs.

I actually work in the health care sector, and competition in the health sector does not lead to better outcomes. Competition is about reducing costs, to improve profits.

There is an eye opening report into the performance of the RMH, where cost reduction was a major driving factor, that lead to poorer patient care and treatment.

sadly for our public hospitals the fights between state and federal governments have had a disastrous effect, and socalled cost saving measures actually have helped to increase costs in the longer term.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:59:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John
Excellent article. I couldn't see how anyone could object to it, and then along came James.

James
Can you see how it is mistaken, when government takes over health services, produces worse outcomes, and then tries to fix the problems it has created with more government interventions that in turn result in more of the same planned chaos, to call that 'marketplace ideology'?

"There two major requirements to keeping health costs down, firstly it must be universal and secondly not for profit."

James, why would not the same apply to all other goods and services? If competition and profit were wasteful, then surely the ideal way of providing goods and services would be to have one big government monopoly Department of Everything, thus keeping costs down. But if not, why not?
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 22 October 2009 11:24:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have not read the article but I will. However, the truth of the matter is that we have a system where the people who contribute the most, have to also pay to see a doctor while those who contribute very little, or zero, get to see the doctor free of charge.

Now as long as this is allowed to continue, while the contributors (tax payers) are dwindling, then we are in fact burning the candle from both ends and the system is sure to fail.

200 years ago when our forefathers were planning this great nations future, they simply forgot to plan for those who expect a 'free ride'.

Nothing will change until some serious changes are made to our welfare system and our retired taxpayers, and future retirees for that matter are given a fair go.

Until then, the cookie jar simply will not stretch far enough.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 22 October 2009 12:16:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy