Thank you for writing this rational article, John Humphrys.
I have no idea why people would be opposed to changes; it's not like we have a fair and economical health system where everybody has easy and equal access to the best health care.

You mention that the Netherlands has implemented such system and I've been aware of that because my whole family lives over there.

While it's up to the individual health companies to offer a variety of 'menu's', there are some rules that the Dutch govt set for the different companies to abide by, and I think that this is an important factor why the system is a fair one.

For example, anyone should be free to switch companies without incurring penalties and all companies should be easily accessible to anyone. Medical history, current health state and age should NOT be reasons for rejection.
A good combination of govt control and ‘free market’ makes this a fair system because nobody is discriminated against and everybody has equal free choice.

My mother, now a pensioner, has basic cover only and can afford to see any medical professional she likes. She’s had to see many specialists as well as physiotherapists, counselors, relaxation classes, heart-health education classes, free access to a hospitals gym for heart-health, healthy cooking lessons, (free prevention and /or recovery programs) and also sees a dentist twice a year for general check-ups and cleaning, has had some fillings replaced and had a crown, too. She had new spectacles and some permanent hair removal, too.

Her gaps? Nothing!
Medication is included, too, and is even delivered to her house.

Compare that with my family’s costs here in Australia. We have top hospital cover and extras, for which we fork out thousands of dollars each year and we STILL have gaps to pay wherever we go!
Simply seeing a physiotherapist, dentist or any medical specialist means there will be gaps to pay. Need medication? We pay for that, too!

So yes John, I fully agree that we do need changes and we do need a fair(er) individual-based system!

Welcome back Celivia.

The Netherlands sounds good.

I haven't bothered to read all this, but really if it ends up like America where people hold on to jobs they hate just for the medical insurance I don't want it.

Someone tell me how/why it wont end up like that?

I'm happy enough with what we have at the moment with the pikeys getting free sub-standard medical care, and the rich getting ridiculously overpriced rip-off adequate care.

I remember after paying basically $5000 in medical bills WITH private insurance for our first baby, we decided to go public for the second. It's all a mess of course, but I look at it like I look at the school system

public: As in, the public have a free system.
private: People who are rich, and don't like the public system, can pay through the nose for something better (or perceived as better) if they so desire.
problem: When the government gives money to the people who have rejected the system that the government provided for free. Just like grants to schools who have a spare $35 mil lying around and the kids go to France for school vacations.

Why should ANY industry, childcare, private health insurance, superannuation, private schools, get a free leg up and a license to print money from the government? If their service is right, and the price is right, people will pay for it and it will be viable. If not, they'll have to do something about that.

gotta agree with the author. i mean, just consider the brilliance of the u.s. system. how could anyone possibly question the benefits of competition when it comes to health care?

I agree that we should have some real competition in health care in Australia.

My first proposal is that the government immediately stop subsidising the private health industry. Let the private health industry prove its worth by standing or falling on its own merit.

The $3 billion saved annually should then be invested in public health, and let the public decide which they prefer.

Oh ... they already were deciding: they were abandoning private health in droves; until the Howard government bullied and bribed them back.

Few things make me want to spew more than money grubbing doctors.

Full medical ought in my opinion be an inalienable right of all people in any decent system of governance.

Medicine is like food and water, everyone one needs it on tap. If that means we need to make lots more doctors who all get paid less then so be it. Regulate them, as clearly indicated by the plight of the Original Australians and some low income groups, the money grubbers form the a.m.a. have their own pockets as too high a priority.

Currently, medicare is optimized such that the best time to money ratio in terms of profit is something like a 6 minute consultation. And those on medicare who book extended appointments and get chucked out early can no longer protest the over billing fact because the system, designed by an idiot, "push button" assigns your rights away in advance.

What a joke! We may expect an increase in medical errors without a shadow of a doubt i.m.h.o.

Priority number one is that people get plenty of treatment, not the lifestyle of doctors. For those who just want to make money, go and be an exporter.

I agree there should be more competition between health insurance companies.
However, there will always be those people in our community who will not be able to pay for even basic health cover, for whatever reason.

We do need a form of medicare to care for these disadvantaged people.
What the government failed to do was to ensure that all people are at least asked to pay a nominal fee for all services in public hospitals.

When GP surgeries don't bulk bill, then many people will turn to hospital emergency rooms to find a 'free' doctor and free medicines, leading to overcrowding in these departments and a waste of resources.
Gone are the days when health providers are expected to serve the public from the goodness of their hearts, with no monetary gain!

Most Doctors aren't money grabbing as some posts have suggested. It is very expensive to run GP surgeries and the government does not pay appropriate renumeration to cover a bulk billing practice's expenses.

Why is it that people in our society are more willing to pay for their pet veterinary fees than for their own medical expenses? Because they aren't given a choice.

We can't go on expecting healthcare for nothing.
The medicare levy at least makes a start in making the system fairer.