I agree it's time for a new Medicare. But beyond that there is precious little from there.

As usual with most CIS offerings this starts with a biased summary then followed by highly contentious(unprovable as an absolute) ideological assumption as an immutable then proceeded from there.

Next it delivered a pre-emptive emotive spray declaring that only Bureaucratic ideologues and closest COMMUNISTS disagree with the assumptions.

I would take issue on all points. I am none of the above having a successful career in private enterprise.

University teaches to state one's proposition then discuss it giving criteria, assumption (justifying them) then add examples and other proofs. Then arguing to the conclusion. At ALL times remaining OBJECTIVE.

The a fatal assumption here is the irrefutability of the dogma. e.g. the absence of one extreme form of management automatically mandates the extreme of the other. It doesn't!

The Article gave no evidence to disprove its flawed status.
Conversely one could give clear evidence that the current 'feral Capitalism' is practised in a terminally distorted environment making the prerequisite level playing field a nonsense. Without this, the silent hand, the market is so distorted as to fails to deliver the necessary impetus to force competition.
That is, if the primary purpose is service delivery at the cheapest price. Consider the abuses of Telstra, the neglect of privatised water and power here and in several other countries.

One could reasonably suggest that the majority of the increasing costs is BECAUSE of feral Capitalism . Drs unions, pharmaceutical companies shenanigans, et al.
One can further suggest that without controlling them ANY management model is fighting a losing battle. Particularly the for 'profit first sector.' On close analysis this whole argument is thus doomed to failure .
In short it is a superficial, biased blurb ( paid ) by the already subsidised private health insurance industry, the pro business at any cost lobby and conservatives.
BTW I support no party dogma just good ideas which because of dubious preconceptions are generally lacking from CIS

The arguments against privatisation are essentially of this form:
1. socialism has never worked anywhere it has been tried
2. everyone knows that
3. therefore we need more socialism.
http://mises.org/story/3793

Exterminator, some people either have short memories or do not really understand their subject.

Around 1997 certain state governments beleived in the mantra that the private sector would be able to run hospitals more cost effectively and effeciently, so they privatised some hospitals, which later proved to be more expensive, I think the website that had details of this is now non-existant.

No health care system is perfect, there are a number of questions we need to ask.

Firstly, is health care to be available all, regardless of income?

Secondly, how are we going to achieve this?

In many countries around the world follow the American system, including middle eastern countries, if you have money, you get health care, if you dont, the disease process would follow its natural course.

for example Seano who posted previously about spending time in ICU, in the States this would have bankrupted you if you do not have health insurance, and in other countries it is highly likely Seano would not have survived the asthma attack, if Seano was not able to pay for health care.

For all of you who think that the American system is based on competition, consider this; out of pocket costs are lower in america relative to total health care spending than most OECD countries. Insurance companies or the govt (which is the largest insurer in America, covering one quarter of the population) pay for ordinary GP visits. Insurance is meant to protect you against catastrophic expenses, not regular check-ups. That is why health care is so expensive in America. NO competition.
Singapore, which spends only 4% of GDP on health care and has one of the most efficient, fair and good quality health systems in the world has more competition and a public safety net. Some stats: almost 50% of spending on health care comes from the govt in the USA, almost 70% in Australia and just 30% in Singapore, but Singapore as better health outcomes and more competition.

All this talk of competition, has me imagining hospital representatives attending motor vechile accidents, to sign up the consumers to use their services, or maybe giving ambulance drivers kickbacks to bring patients to their hospital.

You are having a heart attack, imagine trying to make a judgement of the pros and cons about which health care provider you should use.

Hi bushbasher,
Yes it would be helpful if Humphries clarified his argument, I’m just trying to understand it the best I can.
Thanks for the article by Krugman, I read it with interest- but he is pointing out that relying on the free market ONLY will not work, so how is this relevant to Humphreys’ point? Humphreys, as far as I understand it, does not advocate that we should just rely on the free market. E.g., he says:
” Regulations can be put in place to ensure that health firms do not discriminate against high-risk customers.”
“…agree to have their $3,000 go directly to the government “new Medicare”.”

You like Australia’s medicare system and I think there is a lot to like about it too. In fact I would prefer this system IF I could be convinced that it could work and if it promised to be future-proof, but I find it hard to imagine how this system could survive an increasing greying population if there are so many problems with it today. It’ll be harder to manage if we, in the near future, have a bigger population and proportionally fewer earners.
And we’re also struggling with a dental health system of third-world standard, something that Medicare still hasn’t proposed a solution for.

I see more merit and future in a universal, regulated free market medical insurance system than in Medicare provided health-care. It would get rid of the queue-jumpers, too.

However, if we go ahead with the patching-up of Medicare, a good start might be to stop handing out rebates for private health insurance, and direct this money to Medicare. I believe close to 4 billion dollars was spent on rebates last year. Dumping the rebates altogether would be better than means testing. And we would need something like Medisave.