I've noticed Leigh and ColRouge both have this trait whereby participation in a discussion for them means, they give their opinion and they don't care about others' opinions, nor will they listen to reason if it leads them to a different conclusion. They simply speak their mind, then put their head in the sand. Why bother posting anything if this is all you're doing? This is a fundamental communication fault and I think it's shows that insults are thrown around for legitimate reasons. If this board had a block feature, then it would be a simple task of weeding out these people since they may as well be talking to an empty room.

Teeth are useful. They help us eat and if you have real problems rotting teeth can kill. An untreated abcess can lead to sceptceamia [oooh - bloody poisoning].

Modern restorative dentristry was invented in Chicago in 1897, until that time the barber just extracted rotten teeth. From about 1950 there have been enough dentists to service the Australian society.

Why pay for those who haven't any money? Well perhaps its a social safety net thing, we should support all members of our community, even children whose parents can't afford dental care. Then I get back to same old thing of - if you have a user pays society and most people can't afford the service, those people who can afford the service will find that when they need the service the expertise has been lost or not developed.

Dentists are keenly aware of the costs of proposed treatments and they incur massive overheads in setting up their practices. I say this as a patient, who has had the priviledge of attending the dentists' dentist. The dentists' dentist used a rubber dam for every restoration and expected the patient to watch the work being performed. I am not so impressed by the pink and grey decor, with the computer and high techery equipment if hygiene is not of the highest grade.

Leigh

It was your comment "It's their choice: good health or things they don't really need" that I found idiotic.

This infers that you can buy good health. Of course this is untrue. I think from earlier posts you do not like medicare and would prefer a user pays system.

My view is that health is far to important for "the market" to prevail it is one area where there should be no market. Otherwise you are endorsing people profiteering from illness.

Would you care to comment on my opinion, or shoot off a glib selection of weasel words.

And the health system we have is that the health abuser gets all the attention at the expense of those who look after their health. Sure we need a safety net for the very poorest in our community, but health (care can be more efficiently provided by private health insurance, or if you really wish you can save money for your own health insurance. Medicare is another form of authoritarian compulsion, like voting. If all your teeth fall out, stiff luck – get some dentures.

Here in Australia right now we are enjoying a resources boom. I do not see why the Federal Government (i.e. Tony Abbot's Department) cannot do the following in resolving this issue:
1) Marginally increase the Medicare levy
2) Commence forthwith discussions with the Australian Dental Association ( or any other appropriate authority) to create a "package" deal for dental treatment of the disadvantaged where certain dentists can participate in this scheme. This is being done with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme...why can't it be done for dental treatment

Thanks pragma.

Another thing to consider is the number of children brought into existence as a result of welfare payments and baby bonuses. The government and big business are obsessed with increasing Australia's population, and I think it totally irresponsible of them to encourage welfare babies when it is well understood that these children will be disadvantaged. It is also no secret that the pensions don't even have to go to the children; parents need only drop their kids on the state but keep guardianship to do this. And the change in age limit for welfare payments may only encourage disadvantaged women to have more disadvantaged children. Perhaps the provision of decent health care and education is the one thing that government could do for them.

I would like to see more cost/benefit analyses on the impact of food on health and wellbeing. Junk food sellers know that X% of the population will over indulge, but how do the profits compare with the health costs? Clearly, if the result is a negative benefit for the community when health and welfare costs are considered, then junk food sellers are by definition parasitic, and I strongly believe it to be in the community interest to know if companies contribute more to society than they cost.

But it isn't all bad. The discovery of the tooth protective qualities of calcium phosphopeptides may allow the possibility to reduce the harmfulness of many foods by their use as food additives. This would fit well with a philosophy of supporting the drug lord to the detriment of the addict.

Roarer

Your call for a package deal is totally naive, and would either find very few providers as with the Vets dental scheme, or guarantee a fall in treatment standards. You need only look at the NHS in the UK or the dodgy invention of “preferred providers” by health funds to realise this. And remember that the Queensland Government could almost halve the decay incidence in many areas by mandating the fluoridation of municipal water supplies, a far cheaper option with a very predictable outcome.