Individuals and government needlessly waste health resources because their decisions are not evidence-based.

Reason and evidence prevented the wasteful wholesale screening of men for prostate cancer - the cost/benefit just wasn't there although the decision meant that some men who could have been saved would die. Maybe the argument for routine breast mammography for breast cancer is similarly flawed, but who would know with the amount of pink politics involved?

The problem for government is that terms are short and oppositions focus on opposing policy rather than on presenting a viable alternative.

New drugs and treatments
There would be few advances without the availability of venture capital. Risk requires adequate reward, otherwise the investment money goes elsewhere.

Looking at the bottom line and trying to move backwards to develop policy with restrictions and bans might suit economists but it is like trying to rearrange the porcelain with a crow bar.

Steven,
We agree (with qualifications) that
Some people have a higher genetic potential for cancer others and it doesn't depend necessarily on weight or lifestyle. There are many factors that cause weight issues doesn't necessarily mean unhealthy. All this was in response to your suggestion of rewards program to draw attention to the the question who do you 'reward' or 'punish'? My observations went on to raise the 'whole of community' funding. Also to put perspective on your stated concerns. As Dr Teo said on Q&A '80% of our medical costs occur in our latter lives.'
I also said that too many entrepreneurs are injecting themselves into the system each with their demand for POTA.(piece of the action), reducing the available funds to be spent *on the needy*. ( too many "drinkers at the well").
I agree with Pericles about insurance but I see no real reason why this needs to be in private hands (ideology and self interest aside). BUT THAT IS ANOTHER TOPIC.

Yes HIV drugs are subsidised but can be more exy that the ones you cited.

But as I said Pericles nailed the issue.

YABBY
If only what you suggest about the PBS were true. One needs to consider 'me too' (left or right molecule change can in effect increase the prohibition on the parent drug too. Then there are 'new' drugs that don't really do any better but are more expensive. Not to mention the way drugs are cleared is open to manipulation. This end of 'big' is a pit of vipers much like 'life science'(GM ) corps. skulduggery.

RStuart
my comment had nothing to do with your responsibility save a bit of perspective. My point was that common opinion has little to do with reason and facts and more about belief therefore the half a brain comment/attitude was inappropriate. What may be obvious to us including the (non)existence of God is not to others ….therefore a reasoned debate and time changes opinions.

Examinator

I am not proposing to "punish" anyone.

Most overweight or obese Australians do not get that way because of some genetic factor. Their bulk is USUALLY, not always but USUALLY, due to a combination of eating too much of the wrong kinds of food and a lack of exercise.

Similarly lack of cardiac fitness is USUALLY due to a sedentary lifestyle rather than genes.

All I'm proposing is FUN way of getting the message across. Exercise more, eat more of the right kinds of food and shed a few excess kilos. The $100 reward is purely nominal.

So lighten up examinator

Steven
I think you're over interpret my motives.
I am relaxed....I was just examining what you said.
You're right many of the over weight is as you say.
My problem with many conversations is that proposers of topics tend to think in therms of absolutes...black and white. While by no means a genius or uniquely insightful I do try to ground topics in terms of wider perspectives.
I.e. the exceptions tend to distort the rules. :-)

Why not extend the argument a little and penalise women who abort children thus contributing to an expensive immigration program (and no I am not opposed to abortion)? Easy to do, just remove any contribution by the taxpayer.

Alternatively those who abort a defective feotus determined by a scan ought be rewarded with at least a $1000 bonus - the savings to the health and education systems alone are enormous.

All people who don't ride motorbikes should get $100 pa for sure and then there are those who are over 55 and don't figure in those expensive injury claims from car accidents, give them a bonus too.

A few hundred a year is cheap for heterosexual non-drug users. Sign the Stat Dec, pee in this and if clear take the money.

Pay migrants a few thou for every year they put off bringing their aged or disabled relatives in under the family reunion scheme. Better still, ban family reunion.

I am not fat and I have a remarkable healthy body - thanks parents - but I am damned if I am going along with the game of find a whipping boy to blame for the faults of the health system and the abject failure of successive governments to plan and manage an effective, efficient health service.
/2

2/

What about the intergenerational jealousy and blaming that has gone on about older people, especially boomers, for the alleged lack of cheap housing for spendthrift gen Y's? That is what this is all about isn't it, the game of find and label the whipping boy that is so popular with lazy, cynical politicians and the tabloid press? The same argument is used to flog smokers for some more taxes and no, I don't smoke either.

Anyhow, this brings me to the Number 1 way of saving money for smug young professionals who have better things to do with their money than pay tax 'to support others', which is free suicide pills in outpatient and emergency care units for all who do not meet approved standards. Nothing like saving some tax dollars and speeding up the transfer of all of those assets.

My doctor friends told me I would be opposed to voluntary euthanasia if I saw what they see and they are probably right - ve haf simple ways of encouraging people to save ze health dollars, starting with some sledging of fatties.