Nice try Suze, but might I remind you that I have CLEARLY SAID a co payment for SELF INFLICTED illnesses.

Perhaps you could go back and read my opening post so you can see, or are you simply choosing to ignore that fact.

The blunt reality is, we can't continue to tax the healthy living, so as to provide free medical for those who abuse their bodies.

As for me being perfect, not even close, but I did help raise two law abiding children (now adults) without assistance from the tax payer.

The other point I would make is that so many of the recipients of gifts from the efforts of others are not only ungrateful, but they have the hide to think it's an entitlement.

Sorry, those days are over, so best you get used to it, unless of cause you think we should leave the mess for further generations to clean up, in which case go for your life but please refrain from trying to make me the bad guy.

Here is a straw in the wind;
Someone in the financial world has warned that interest rates could go to zero.
Now if that isn't something to worry the self or partial self funded
retiree I don't know what is.
In fact in Europe interest rates have gone negative.
Think about that you put money in the bank and THEY ask YOU how much
interest YOU will pay THEM !

No sure it has come to individual depositors yet but does apply to commercial depositors.

I see nothing coming that will prevent us going the way of Europe in
the economy. I suspect the politicians have been told this but as
they do not want to know they sit like King Canute a cry out Growth,
Growth Growth that is what we must have.

The entitlement brigade is in for a hard time. Think how they will
scream when the pension get cut in half.

rehctub, this is already done to some extent withh things like cigarette taxes. But copayments, discouraging early intervention, are a false economy.

And you've no real evidence that our health system is either unaffordable or unsustainable.

___________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, that's not what negative interest rates actually are. Governments charge banks to park money, but the banks don't charge customers negative interest rates.

It's not a disastrous policy but it is a stupid one. A bigger government deficit would bring all the economic advantages and would benefit the public more. And there's one very imoortant way we're unlike most European countries: our government has unlimited credit (because we own the RBA). We need not fear debt.

Alright then rehctub, who decides where we draw the line for 'self-inflicted' diseases?
With smoking, will we expect full payment for all medical procedures for all smokers?
Or will we only expect it from those who , say, smoke more than 5 a day?
How will we police that?

Wouldn't everyone say they don't smoke, or they just gave up?
Would we then need full payment of all medical expenses for everyone who EVER smoked?
Would we expect payment before the medical procedure?
If they couldn't pay, would we expect doctors to just let them die in worst case scenario?

With the obese, where will we draw the line there?
Will we penalise all those who are, say, 10kg overweight?
25kg? 30kg?
Who decides that figure?
If they can't afford to pay extra will the doctors be expected to let them die?

Of course, we wouldn't stop at just smoking and obesity either.
We would need to penalise anyone who drank alcohol, drove a car, flew in airplanes, climbed mountains, rode bikes etc, and any other unhealthy or dangerous pursuit that might cause (not course- that's a different meaning) the taxpayer to fork out for extra medical expenses.

In your Funtime world, it would surely be fatal to be poor.....

Imagine the cost of Medicare if men went to the doctor as frequently as women do. Given that men do the lion's share of the dirty, disgusting and dangerous work about it is strange that they visit the doctor far less.

Or if doctors, especially women doctors, tested men as much as they test women. Male doctors arrange more screening tests for women and women doctors arrange a far higher number again.

But just wait a bit, the feminists would have it that women have poorer health and require more medical treatment because of the 'patriarchy'.

While the doctor should be an effective gate-keeper against over-use of medical services (and Medicare), that is not working where women are concerned. The 'whys' need independent study to advise solutions. Or alternatively, if men are not seeing the doctor enough for screenings, encouraging them to do so would result in better health outcomes for them. However, differences in the advised health screenings may still not explain the apparent far higher consumption of medical and ancillary services by women, particularly by otherwise healthy women.

Well I guess that depends on the men out there in the community OTB.
We can't just drag them in to the GP kicking and screaming.

There are plenty of advertising campaigns warning people to see their doctor re diabetes, smoking, drinking, bowel cancer, prostate cancer, STD's, obesity and breast cancer on TV and in the newspapers, as well as sending bowel cancer testing kits to all people over 50 in the country.

In all GP surgeries there are GP's who have special interests that they advertise, such as men's health problems. My husband sees his GP regularly and has a multitude of yearly tests to check his health every year, as do I.

Every person should be proactive about their health, and if they don't, it is not because of a lack of resources or help for either gender, but merely a personal choice.

Believe me, there are also plenty of women out there who also live with their heads in the sand....