Of all of the posts here I have yet to read one by someone who sounds like they knows what they are talking about. I have recently been in hospital for a major operation to place a patch over my diaphragm, and since I don't have private health insurance I was public. And no matter what those like Frank_Blunt try to make it out to be, public is the least desirable option.

I was bumped no less than three times due to emergency cases coming in while Private hospitals are only required to take emergency cases when there is no other option available. Public hospitals are required to complete all surgery by 4:30 pm to clear the theatre and ready the surgical staff for any emergency cases (which happen more frequently than most think). Because of this time limit even if there are no emergency cases, if a scheduled operation goes long those in after are bumped as well. Private hospitals can continue operating as long as they wish or as long as the surgeon is able. After the operation stay in the ward is the shortest time possible, with some cases being sent home the next day due to the lack of beds. While this is similar to private hospitals, in private there is not such a huge crush of people looking for a limited number of beds.

Public health care is a shambles, the people working within the system while being some of the best in the industry are let down by the way the system is structured. So no, this one is going to get private health insurance even though I come well under the Medicare levy limit. I and many of the other people I know who are on public have had enough and will be on private from now on.

Frank,
what can I say.I can't immagine what it must feel like surrounded by all those budgers and people using up all those tax $ even if they do form the majority of Australians.

Everytime Medicare is threatened the majority of ordinary people say no.
I would respectively suggest you get a dictionary and look up the meanings of words like 'Welfare' Health is not Welfare its a Public services. Are schools welfare? is the army welfare.

You appear to be upset with the AMA and the various colleges and their control over Drs and private industry manipulating for a greater profit. Come the revolution comrade it will all change.

The PBS is only broadly speaking part of the medical system.
But it is controled by a Federal Commision seperate to that which controlls Medicare.

Hospitals are (currently) a state authority.
As you failed to address any of my points i assume you just want people who agree with you....what ever it is.
The key word for this site is debate. To do that you need facts and reasoning sorry Frank in this case you're exibiting neither.
Bye

Frank,

the private sector particularly in pathology is positioning it self to take advantage of what will happen when the baby boomers start to require health care, for example in the last few years of a persons life is when they will have the majority of blood tests.

The private sector is positioning for the best financial result.

you critise the PBS scheme, I have had contact with americans and how they deal with the drug prices in America, people travel to Mexico to buy their yearly supply of medications.

There are in Australia many lucky people who do not require expensive medications or a few who are wealthy enough not to be bothered by the cost, but resent the fact that they pay taxes which in theory are suppose to help the poor.

Examinator,

Sheesh, it's a bit rough accusing me of not debating. I'm doing my best.

Let me restate a few positions.

1. I think there are good reasons for splitting the health system from the welfare system. Public expenditure on medical treatment is growing at an unsustainable rate, much of it going to people who can afford to pay for their own medical care and much of it going to people who choose to keep themselves in poor shape.

2. The welfare system needs to be able to accommodate people who are struggling to pay for the costs of living, including their medical expenses. Absolutely. However, the welfare system is not designed to cater for all of the people, all of the time.

3. Protection of the medical industry has overseen the growth of a bloated, inefficient industry. At the same time the health status of millions of Australians has got worse. Not a good system. The wrong industry is being protected.

4. There is no more reason for states to run hospitals than there is for them to run dockyards, banks, telecoms, or electricy utilities.

5. We have to reconcile the desire of people to keep themselves in poor shape and the State to pay to keep them going.

You write 'everytime Medicare is threatened the majority of ordinary people say no.' Of course they do, they're on a good thing, they're not paying anything for their medical bills; they'd love it if the State paid for their groceries as well. However, by the looks of it, it's not doing them or the country much good.

I agree schools are an essential public service, as is public health infrastructure. I don't believe surgeries, hospitals and pharmacies are.

I think you've missed my point about needing to mark the boundary between what's a public health responsibility and what's a private health responsibility. My feeling is that the pendulum has swung too far. The State is, unreasonably, being asked to pay for more than it's share of the illhealth bill.

Frank you said,

<
1. "I think there are good reasons for splitting the health system from the welfare system. Public expenditure on medical treatment is growing at an unsustainable rate, much of it going to people who can afford to pay for their own medical care and much of it going to people who choose to keep themselves in poor shape">

This may appear at first to be correct yet if you compare the Australian health care expenditure to that of the US, Australia spends much less on health per GDP than the Americans, the american private system does not cover the majority of americans (I use to know the stats).

<
3. Protection of the medical industry has overseen the growth of a bloated, inefficient industry. At the same time the health status of millions of Australians has got worse. Not a good system. The wrong industry is being protected>

Inefficient, mention that to any person who works on the wards and they will have your guts for garters.

There has been a large shift over the last few decades, firstly hospitals use to only have a small percentage of critically ill patients(which are the most expensive) and a large population of recovering patients( which helped subsidise the cost of the very ill).

Now what has happened is that medicine has become a production line, admit, treat as quickly as possible and discharge, for example today if you are admitted with a heart attack, you will likely be discharge within 3 days, compared to spending a week or more in hospital a decade or two ago.

Many procedures that use to require and stay of 4days to a week, now take place as a day procedure.

So where is the inefficiencies in that?

Oh! by the way increase throughput means increased costs. Public Hospital admission and discharge rates have increased without an increase in bed numbers or staff.

Thanks James

By inefficient I mean that the aim of a health system should be to have healthier people. That's not happening.

I'm sure, as you say that the doctors and nurses are working flat out. However, despite hospital medicine becoming vastly more efficient in the terms you express, it's not efficient enough to cope with demand.

Making medical care the be all and end all of public health policy supports the ambulances at the bottom of the cliff model. If people were keeping themselves fit and healthy to the best of their ability, they'd still be walking around on the top of the cliff and the doctors and nurses would be sitting around at the bottom twiddling their thumbs.

The metabolic dysfunctions would disappear, bones would get back into alignment and people's mood would improve.

Some doctors are making a rod for their own back. Their customers ignore their advice. They keep coming back. The doctors can't help themselves and keep treating people who don't want to do the things THEY need to do to restore poor function to good.

Some doctors provide poor advice. They reach for the pad at the drop of a hat. People become dependent on the service and keep coming back for another fix. In reality it's a good lurk if you can get someone on to blood presure tablets for 40 years. I'm not sympathetic to this type of doctoring.

The fact that the State keeps paying the bill for poor medical practice is another source of inefficiency.

A lot of doctors are reluctant to co-operate with the fitness profession, which I think is probably the profession the State should be protecting. It's time to gradually wean people off the medical system and swap them over to the fitness system.

Your last couple of sentences are interesting. If the industry were becoming more efficient costs should be coming down. They're not. That's the effect of protection.