Some people like Robg haven't really clued in yet. If you want an efficient, competitive economy you *must* have a healthy workforce. The healthier, the better. Any affliction to the individuals in this workforce will directly affect the quality and quantity of output.

Fester..I do not know where you reside but I reside in NSW and I am eligible to so-called "free" dental treatment (I have a Pensioner Concessions Card) and it has a form of this (proposal). In many instances you attend the "free" health clinic, and there they give you a voucher to have your free dental treatment at selected dentists in your area. I made use of this already...and it works great.The treatment was just as good as if I paid for it. As an example I used this form of free dental treatment some years ago to fill two teeth ....and they are still filled.
As for my proposal if the Federal Government conducts it's negotiations as similiar to that with the drug manufacturing companies under the PBS scheme...then this proposal may be a goer

Steel,

I gather from your comment that you believe a healthy workforce can only be delivered through a socialistic health care system like Medicare? Well, does Australia have an efficient and competitive economy/workforce? No way: ailing manufacturing sector, persistent current account deficits and poor skills base. As to health: the obesity and diabetes pandemic are now likely to reduce future life expectancy, not to mention substantially lowering our quality of life. So much for Medicare – Medicareless is more appropriate. Something for you to ponder Steel is that most people want a life of health and happiness, that is, we don't care about the economy, efficiency or work, only that many of us believe (quite wrongly) that these are the means of attaining health and happiness.

Celivia,

I have always taken the view that the person who RAISES a topic is the one who wants to have a discussion. This means that you share your opinion with him or her, not every Tom, Dick and Harry with an opinion. If you want discussion with others, start a thread of your own. The same applies, in my view, to the other place where contributions are made from outsiders with a point of view to push. We can all make it clear that we disagree or agree by simply stating our own opinions.

I suspect that you and others confuse “discussion” with persuasion – i.e. trying to convince others that they are wrong and you are right. My position is this: you disagree with me, so what? In the end, the majority rules - if we have any influence on the people who make the rules at all, that is.

Steel,

The above also applies to you. I “care about (your) opinions” as much as you care about mine, if you get what I mean. You think one way. I think another. You make no bones about your belief that you are the one with the “reason” and the ability to change the opinions of others. Rather deluded of you, I think!

You seem to be very keen on censorship, too. After wanting Themistocles “reported” for "spamming" on another subject, you now express a desire for people of your choice to be “blocked” or “weeded” out of OLO.

What was it you were saying about a “fundamental communication fault”?

Steve,

I have said elsewhere that you and your ilk are not worth arguing with, but I have to say that there was nothing to infer that good health can be bought in my post. We have it or we don’t; if we don’t, we have to pay to get it fixed. My remarks were directed at people spending money on things they don’t need, rather than on things they do need.

And you think I’m an idiot! Simple comprehension seems to escape you

Leigh, thanks for explaining your view on discussion. I just look at discussion in a different way.
Someone brings up a topic, then everybody who is interested in the topic can contribute and react on the things others have said; people focus on the points that were raised rather than on the person who said it.

For example, anyone can raise a point that I hadn’t thought about or that I find very interesting- I then can ask questions about that point, approve or criticise an aspect of it. For me, that makes the conversation more interesting and more natural.

In real life, sitting down with a group of people, when someone raises a topic, the discussion also naturally flows between participants.
Usually, one does not ignore what others say and just focus on the person who started up the conversation.
I suppose that we all can discuss things in our own way to suit ourselves if the starter of the tread hasn't made clear any special requirements about the discussion method.

Roarer, I didn’t even know about the free dental treatments NSW pensioners are offered. I wonder whether this includes preventive care- i.e. does this include regular (say, annual) check-ups and cleaning of the teeth?

Health care, including dental care, in my opinion, should be a system in where every Australian citizen is being treated equally. The focus should be on the urgency of the treatment for the particular illness.
Should someone be allowed to jump the queue, pushing back patients who are sicker than they are just because the queue-jumper has a larger income, more savings, or is more prestigious?
Not in my opinion- care must be offered to people on medical grounds, not on financial grounds.

Dental treatment for the underprivileged in NSW is extremely fragmented...you have to really run a gauntlet to obtain it. Many miss out on it. I am guessing this is the way in other Australian states. You are made to run a gauntlet I guess in order to dissuade you by way of frustration and perhaps to end up borrowing the money and to obtain treatment privately. Australian (state) governments think that everyone is so naive that they do not recognise this...but some like myself easily notes it.And in a country which is enjoying a resources boom...this is absolutely shameful