There seems to be two different stories here.
Can someone tell me what John Humphreys is saying.
Does he want more competition ?
Does he want more govt involvement ?

John and Peter, I was very fortunate as a child that my parents could afford private health cover, as I had a high number of broken arms.

My nanny, had a brother with a deformed arm and I ask her what happened, and she told me that he had broken his arm and they could not afford to go to the doctor.

Today it doesn't matter if you are wealthy or poor, broken bones are treated, thanks to government interference.

Now if Australia had remained with the American model of health care, health care for the poor and disadvantaged would have remained either non-existant or been at a very low standard.

In America the cost of health care can send you from being relatively well- off to being bankrupt. So government interference has protected many middle income families in Australia from experiencing bankruptcy as well.

Even pre medi-care(bank) public hospitals recieved revenue from these sources, government (taxation), private patients, and third party accident insurance. As far as I know all public hospital beds(wards) for private patients have now been closed.

We have two decades of reductions in health care spending (public hospitals) and at the same time our population is increasing at an alarming rate, without the infrastructure to deal with it.

In 1985 the states closed many psychiartic hospitals, sold the land to developers and promised to improve community services for psych patients, this has not eventuated and now our prisons serve as defacto psych hospitals.

Sadly John because you are saying what our politicans want to hear, we will be forced to gone a pathway which in the end will not work in the way you intend it too.

I do not deny that too much government interference, results in poorer outcomes.

One of the biggest cost drivers is that in the last 6 months of a persons life, is when the most money will spent on them.

Houellebecq:
” 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?”
Hi Houellebecq! Well, it’ll be clearer to you if you read the article. The system in America now has an employer-based system…. But if they follow the Dutch system, this means that people are buying their own health care insurance and that there is subsidized care for those (e.g. elderly, poor…) who need it.

”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.”
With the new system there may not be a two-tier system but there will still be options to upgrade to a higher level of health care. If basic medical care is compulsory but if there are options to upgrade it so that it is suitable to individuals’ needs, then there should be something for everyone.

”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.” I agree to a certain extend… but if the private system (I’m just going to talk about health care here because it’s already such an involved and difficult issue that I need to stay focused) provides a service to the whole community and benefits the nation, I can’t see why there shouldn’t be a basic amount of money (that otherwise would’ve been spend on health care insurance provided by the government anyway) to support this private industry. BUT in return the government has to keep an eye on these health care insurance providers.

Hi JamesH:
“Competition is about reducing costs, to improve profits.”
Hmmm, there is truth in that… but in Health care it is also about customer satisfaction. It would be good if patients/customers could give ratings that would be openly displayed so that new customers could base their choices on the feedback of others. Openness about performance of an industry is very important, I think.

Hi Bushbasher,
If you read the article, you would know that the author is not talking about blindly following the system of the USA. He is talking about an improvement to the system by doing something different. Even Obama has intensely looked at the systems of some other countries, such as Switzerland and especially the Netherlands because it is said to have the best medical system in Europe.
It is not perfect, but it is the best that any other country has come up with. It is a universal system, meaning that it includes EVERYONE, while it is still adaptable to every individual’s needs.

Well *SuzeOnLine* I'm shocked to see you trotting out the platitudes of the a.m.a.

The only thing I can say in your defence is that the underlying industries supporting medicine also need to be regulated.

The economy can be expressed as a mathematical equilibrium and everyone can't be a millionaire.

There are only a fixed amount of resources, even for a wealthy nation of barely 25mill.

I have 2 GP's. One with a specialisation in sports medicine and the other with a specialisation in another field.

One drives the latest Saab turbo, and the other a 7 series BMW, both with plush homes in tof suburbs.

Meanwhile, some people in the Australian community suffer. The a.m.a. should be thankful that the likes of me aren't making the rules, and I note that even canberra gasped in disgust at their latest demand for a pay rise.

celivia, i know the author wants to do "something different". but i also know the author is chanting "competition" as if that's the magic wand to make sense of health care. well, if it is, then the author is obligated to explain why the u.s. system is a complete nightmare.