The Forum > General Discussion > PRIVATE*..health system?
PRIVATE*..health system?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
-
- All
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 31 August 2013 12:01:55 PM
| |
SM/quote..<<..If the savings..to the public sector
exceed the subsidy,..is it welfare or simply good policy?>> decentralization..of itself is worthy the private..does many operations..on public patients [BUT*..paid for from..the public purse..] [in the main..because when howard..subsidized the private system..many underpaid doctors/nurses..[ie SKILL SETS]..left..public overload.. for easy private practice..to the elite..able to afford their valuable time*[if only cause they got conned.. i would ask..did too many..follow the money? much like packer did re sport..we gutted the public..for an exclusive tort i saw..the instant shortage..greed over need..allowed us to reap.. ok we soon got..*other doctors nurses..from OTHER/under developed countries..that accept the lower/pay scales..of the PUBLIC system..as plenty.. is that welfare well..it is fair..but..its also biased but should we be paying..for capitalist..*to own their own health system built upon the backs of poor..deceived working class..paying double insurance.. plus a top up burden..sprung on them.. if they ever dare use it..nilsum gain..indeed gross loss to who..the nett tax-deductible subsidized capitalist/shareholder gain? be it tax deductions.. or lower tax input tax.. more deductions...lol..for those who earn too much.. to get base assistance..and dontneed govt aid yet do..take ever more and its the same..re private health or private education..or for rich woman...to get super *PLUS some colluded/extortionist rate of pay..scale..plus other benefits.. our public servants..seemingly..always?..had. recall OUR PUBLIC servants have long had it..both ways and you know..how ps/pay_scale rates change..! when FREE CASH..IS ON HAND*.. for a future pension or other PAY_OFF Posted by one under god, Saturday, 31 August 2013 12:47:28 PM
| |
I agree with Suseonline's post of Thursday, 29 August 2013 12:57:09 AM. See here,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5990&page=1 I pay for private insurance and a host of other things to provide the shelter, care, independence and future for loved ones and myself. We will all work and pay for everything in life. Alternatively, I could surf when the waves are up, frequent clubs and pubs, punting and peeing the money up against the wall as many do. 'Molling' as well (they say 'moleing'). Y'know, live that a beaut lifestyle I deserve, drinking boutique beers while whinging that the Gubbermint isn't doing enough. I don't believe that there isn't work available. The grey nomads, people in the seventies and beyond, chase work to do and yes, it would usually be below their skills and it wouldn't pay what some younger people would set as their minimum to get out of bed. What really exasperates if I choose to think about it, is the exorbitant cost to the health system of ferals who don't take care of their bodies, abusing fast foods, booze and drugs, while taking truly stupid risks that often put other innocent people's lives on the line as well. Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 31 August 2013 1:46:52 PM
| |
The subsidy (as funded by public taxation) should have been paid directly to the Public Hospital system where it would have benefited the public.
Instead it was used to line the pockets of the health funds and steer people into using the private system instead - which increased their rates anyway. The so-called "incentive" to join private funds was essentially a gun-to-the-head threat to force people into the private health system at the expense of maintaining an adequate public system. Welcome to the future. Posted by wobbles, Monday, 2 September 2013 7:33:07 PM
|
If the savings to the public sector exceed the subsidy, is it welfare or simply good policy?