I should add, that private insurance spreads the liability across it's policy holders.

Government operate systems also spread the liability amongst the tax payers, the main difference is that the private system is driven by the ability to make a profit and to pay share holders and under the private system it is much more likely the policy holder will be at risk of being denied care.

Dear runner,

You wrote: "Secularist have made such a mess of the education system that they now are looking for Chaplains to clean up at least a little bit of it up."

Please state who these secularists are who are looking for chaplains to do anything in the schools. I know of none, and I doubt that there are any.

This is simply another of the statements you make which have no basis in fact.

Wolly B,

"This type of user pay system is prevalent in third world countries, where your survival from an illness can be reliant on your or your families ability to afford the treatment."

Only too true; I spend a fair amount of time in India and always go with sufficient medications to meet my every need. Locally to where I live when there, there is a Doctor who opens his doors twice a week for at least 12 hours a day.
He is a Specialist at one of the main Mumbai hospitals and has rooms in the city as well but he was born locally and spent his childhood there, hence the two days a week for the mainly poor patients, all that he asks from them is a donation if they can afford it; 99% drop something in the box.
Generally however the health system is for the better off and quacks abound.

Dear Wolly,

There was no question of denying medical services from anyone who has no money to pay: my post was about those who use alternative medicine and would not use conventional Western medicine, but pay for it anyway twice: once through the Medicare levy and once through the so-called "private" health insurance (which is practically compulsory due to the Medicare surcharge and so heavily regulated that one cannot really call it 'private'), then only can they pay with what (if any) they have left for their actual, alternative, health-care.

Since you mentioned the "user pay" system, it is fit and proper for those who can afford to pay and gives them more incentive to lead a healthy life-style to begin with. It also controls the tyranny, red-tape and high charges of the doctors through the AMA Mafia because then their employer/client to which they are accountable is the patient rather than the government. Again, those who have no money should continue to have their medical needs covered by the government - possibly through a system of HECS-like loans which they don't need to repay unless they become wealthy.

Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 4 January 2015 5:07:01 PM

There are a couple of furphies in your post.

Firstly, it is well known especially in the US that people are regularly denied medical coverage by their insurer. Even Australian insurers are denying coverage to overseas travellers.

<It also controls the tyranny, red-tape and high charges of the doctors through the AMA
<Mafia because then their employer/client to which they are accountable is the patient

Private insurance does nothing of the sort, in fact doctors get the medi-care rebate, the insurance company payment and the out of pocket expenses of the patient.

The example I will give is if the Doctor charges $120 for a consult, medi-care will cover about $36, leaving $84, your private health insurance may rebate you $64, leaving you $20 out of pocket.

It is a total fallacy that market forces and competition lead to lower medical costs.

Dear *DavidF*

Whilst I largely wholeheartedly agree with your stance about chaplains in the school, I think your argument that if the guvment is going to bin the rebate for "natural therapies" then they ought be consistent and bin the chaplaincy program is flawed for a few reasons.

Before I do, I believe *Foxy* is correct about the practical political realities, except that to that I would add that sometimes this kind of advocacy can be counter productive in that it has the effect of making the religious types fearful, and in turn they huddle tighter together and provide even more support for immoral politicians, which is of course what they want - votes - regardless of where they come from.

(It's enough to make you cry isn't it?)

And to *Runner* I would accept that from within the Christian quarter more generally there does come some needed morality, but I only want the best of the essence of it, not the outer garment.

Anyway, the first flaw i.m.o. is equating natural therapies (and depending exactly on how you define that) with faith. Now, I did have a look at the list on your link and by no means can I think that they are all "faith based."

So, how about a few examples: t.b.c.