Im waiting for my place to come up for surgical work on my knee
The leg is deteriorating while i wait for my turn, i continue to seek medical advice wich incurs a fee with most of this cost paid by TAX payers
it scares me that it may worsen to a degree that is irrepairable
what then, i wont ever be able to work , with only one leg..
do you think there will be associated costs to the TAX payer if im to adapt to one leg? possibly a wheel chair? subsidised Taxi's?
why cant we recieve prompt medical assistance / repair and pay it off like we do our motgages? or and car's etc?
Isn't it ridiculous?
If our bodies are impaired all else is affected, so why hasnt some bright bean set up a pay by instalment plan for those of us short on big amounts of cash to enable us to get on with our health care.
Does anyone think that by making people wait and suffer its going to cost any less to the tax payer?
Anyone like my idea of a HEALTH INSTALMENT PLAN that would run much like a car sale?
Pay a deposit then monthly payments thereafter..
Why hasnt it been done?
It might help our public hospital waiting list?
We pay by instalment for most items, isnt our health the most important concern of all?

Is this an issue which stems from your reliance on medicare? If you were paying through health insurance or better yet, could take your own bag of cash in, I expect you would be attended to quickly.

Of course, even if you are on a medicare waiting list, your points about how foolish the government is in making you wait due to the future care costs which the government will ultimately incurr are spot on. I have an autistic child and have been aghast at how short sighted the government is in not funding any significant early intervention treatment with the consequence my child would likely (but for my family's ability to meet most of these expenses) be totally dependant on government provided care in the years ahead.

It is amazing what government will do to save a few pennies now, even though it will cost them big $ in 30 years (some other government's problem I guess). Of course, when strapped for cash, people sometimes put off expenses which ultimately cost them more because they couldn't pay up front, however, this government isn't strapped for cash at all, so it has no excuse.

Your "repayment" after surgery idea has some merit, but would offend those who think all medical services should be free.

Mariah,
You have raised some very relevant and salient points about the timely fashion is which you require your knee operation. For the sake of argument, Health Care by installments is simply a twist on words for Private Medical Insurance. Without a doubt, if you have Private health insurance, your knee would be operated on and you would be as good as new in no time. Insuring one's health is really no different than insuring ones home/contents, car, life, and income protection insurance. I wish you well in overcoming this obstacle and your needed operation is carried out asap. Good Luck

hello Kalin and TammyJo,
yes good to have health insurance as foresight for possible future occurances, still dosent cover any old injuries and often wont cover immediate instances unless paying the premium rate.
Now u know thats not possible for many young or old regardless of education or breeding..alot of money IS luck-that is even to say luck of guessing which way the wind might blow next year...if you get my point.
Sure if youve always had and maintained medical insurance well and good, you do have a point. And a wealthy family as back up is well and good if youve got it. The point im trying to make-suggest is could it be possible, feasable and or workable to have a pay by instalment Surgery scheme, just like we have with our Mortgages and Cars (well some of us whom dont have wealthy relatives that is(and that happens to be the greater majority per population)could partake in such a scheme... it might even see more people invest in themselves rather than car's and / or property in the future and REALLY change the psyche of all of 'us' underdogs..and make way for a whole new generation of thinking. Yes or No?
Or are you only concerned with whats yours and whats working for you?
The way im seeing it we may be in for ANOTHER French Revolution yet!

Mariah

What is to stop you from borrowing the money, having the surgery now, and repaying by instalments?

Sylvia.

sylvia, i have already borrowed to the max regarding my mortgage
(wich as you ought know is only an ever incvreasing debt) I did think i made that clear in my first post/ mabye not.
There is an option possibly of borrowing against the equity of my property yet this is generally a lengthy process and last time i found i was still left with a surplus debt of $7oo not geared into the doctors account , inflation its called,(as from time of surgery to final appointment took 2and 1/2 years. Plus the $300 to process this arrangement of acessing my own equity.
So i paid $1,000 more than the initial quote anyway.
Many dont have mortgages and are not able to borrow large amounts of cash for surgical procedures,the young/umemployed/students esp.
so who helps them help themselves?
take note its interesting that the people with no idea of the struggle and delay in life these health hurdles cause keep suggesting similar solutions that are not feasible_like a poor man borrowing cash for medical procedures,Hmmm, i think he'd be told to go home and take painkillers-keep in touch with his GP and wait till his number comes up.
Any fresh interesting & possibly workable suggestions regarding health care waiting lists anyone?
Oh, and it was feedback on my suggestion of a 'pay by installment health care plan' that i would appreciate feedback on, thanks.

Mariah,

Why can't someone put money away into a managed portfolio account or even just a old fashioned bank account for "Health Expenses?" The answer I suspect lies in human nature and why not spend it on something else. . . . Like I said previously, obtaining private health insurance (which does have government subsidies) is the way to go.

However, I think you are suggesting a type of payment plan like 30% deposit then 60 equal payments- kind of like buying a car/ paying for new furniture. Its got merit however private hospitals would likely avoid this type of funding due to the high cost of defaults.

There is no doubt you are in a very difficult prediciment Mariah and you may need to accept the payment by installment suggest just will not cut it. . . . its idealistic but really not workable. The private hospitals have their waiting list of cashed up patients waiting for treatment and whilst you can have your op via public- it will take quite some time due to waiting lists. Keep the good ideas coming. . . . again I hope you recieve the care you need as soon as possible.

Mariah,

The reason I asked the question was to get some feel of your understanding of the issues relating to debt.

Payment for medical treatment by instalments is really a form of debt, because the service is obtained before it is paid for. This raises the possibility that the treatment will be obtained, but never paid for by the person who benefited. In that case, either the doctor loses out, or there has to be a third party who covers bad debts. I doubt doctors would be willing to carry that risk themselves.

A scheme can cover bad debts by levying higher interest than would normally apply, but it then becomes a scheme of last resort - those who are good credit risks would obtain loans elsewhere, because of the lower interest, leaving the scheme itself to cover those who are the most likely to default. In practice, the government would have to run the scheme, and cover the bad debts, which means that the government would be spending more on health care than is currently budgeted.

You apparently own a property, at least in part. If you're not willing to sell it, in order to pay for your medical treatment, then that tells us something about the relative values that *you* attach to the property and your health. Should the government subsidise an instalment scheme, and thereby attach more value to your health than you do?

Mariah,

Don't hold your breath waiting for sympathy from Sylvia.

Sylvia,

setting aside the 'blame' issues which you attach to impoverished people, in australia, it is the government and the taxpayer that ultimately pays to support most people unable to care for themselves. Don't you agree it is stupid of the government to fail to subsidise treatment when that failure will produce a vastly more expensive problem down the track, which almost certainly will ultimately fall on the government anyway?

As a former insurance man myself I can tell you sincerely that private health insurance isn't even close to being as reliable as you seem to think. It's full of holes (ie conditions that it won't cover) and much of it's coverage is illusory (ie the policies say they cover certain things but in the small print you will realise the cover is completely inadequate.

Private insuarnce and people taking responsibility for themselves is part of the solution of most of our problems, but it isn't the whole story. Perhaps a bridging solution would be government subsidised loans, like the HECS system to cover cases like Mariah's. I can't see any absolute impediment to such a system for those who lack private health cover or fall through the gaping holes in the health system. Why is that such an unreasonable proposition?

thanks anonymous one
Sylv,Hmmm
like u say im pretty ok im fortunate my dad was a doctor and my mother a nurse
others are not so informed.
& the investmant wich i solely organized and hung onto for the last 20 yrs
Sylvie if you dont think ( or even imagine would suffice) that pay by instalment loans are geared to take up the slack of 'costs' involved whatever they may be then I'd say no one would do it (as in organize such loans)
if your not aware, even centre-link organizes loans in small amounts for its clients...and like i said loans like my Radio Rentals Fridge, my mortgage etc are geared by the structure_'INSTALMENTS' .
If it dosent work then why are so many companies, banks,departments (not to mention Centre-link and thats government) diong it
i think its a great idea_my pay by instalment health care plan.
And as far as selling my house to pay for medical costs that would only upset the applecart, i have a child and responsabilities..and any way its been such a strugle to hang on to 'my place' the journey has taught me that 'a place' is ultimatly essential for everyone and watching others being shunted around through the rental system making bucks for others is pretty sad.
Oh, but i spose you meant just sell the place, pay for my medical services and just camp anywhere_outside the front of your place will be fine then, and i hope you dont mind me toileting on your front lawn whhen your not about to let me in to share your loo.
yes that idea would really work (like hell)
what do you expect multitudes of homeless people to do?
just exit earth so you dont have less to bitch about rather than come up with ideas to deal with it?

thanks kalin its a relief to see/hear/understand that others can see the chaos and stupidity in our countries health care arrangements ,be it alot better than other unfortunate countries, it still dosent leave us free of the responsability of improvements to keep up with social change..
the only constant on this earth IS change, hey

Kalin,

I don't know why you're lecturing me on insurance - I didn't even mention it.

The specific problem with a scheme such as described by Mariah is that it would in practice require that the government provide funding. To the extent that that funding is available, it would be more appropriate for it to be used in the existing system.

While it seems superficially absurd for the government to postpone medical treatment, but then have to carry the financial consequences of that, it would take a much more detailed analysis to determine whether such an approach results in a higher financial burden on the government than exists under the present system.

Like it or not, one of the functions of the queues for publicly funded medical treatment is to limit the demand. To the extent that it persuades people to fund their own treatment, either through insurance, or paying cash, the queues work. If they are made shorter, the demand, and therefore cost, increases.

Mariah,

Selling your property would not result in your camping out on the street. At least, not unless your equity in it is so low that the proceeds would pay only for your operation. You could use the capital to pay rent. Your decision not to go down that path indicates, as I said before, that you attach more value to the property than to your health.

Kalin & Sylvin,
both sounding a ;little sour
remember the point was i thought i had a good idea..health investment plan
and yes i have some equity, you silly women cant you see sellig up is a catch 22_it wouldnt suit_im a mother....on the other hand instalments would work.
id prefer tp pay for my health by instalments as i do my mortgage etc etc
at the moment there is no Health payment PLAN to allow me to do this_couldnt you understand that message?...id just like to go get the job done and make payments. Like this idea would be workable for me and probably great for alot of others whom are disadvantaged (yes ANYONE) and it could work just like banks etc....investing the payment plan monies each month...
mabye both of you dont understand how loan monies are invested to benefit the loan's person?
sorry you are so griped about my personal situation its like you carry this weight on your back.Mabye you work in Gvt?
Sometimes it takes someone with a fresh view on things to tackle the problem, hmmm

Mariah,

Yes, you want to receive your health care now and pay for it later. That's clear enough. What you seem determined not to grasp is that such a system won't work. People without assets will get the health care they want, and will then default on the repayments. Unlike a car, or a house, it's not possible to repossess someone's health when they fail to make payments on time.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

Why couldn't it work the same way HECS (Higher Education Contributory Scheme) does? It could be offered as an alternative to medicare for people who need treatment early. Sure, some will default (which also happens with HECS) but those losses would likely be offset by reducing medicare funding.

The formula would be something like this:

Wait and medicare picks up the tab.

Get treatment now under this new Medical Loans scheme, but you have to pay half (or some other proportion) the cost back by installments (or from your estate assets if you die before repaying the debt).

Even if half these peole default, the money saved on medicare by having the other half pay 50% of their medical bills would offset the defaults.

Of course, some people would complain this was a backdoor way of undermining medicare but I think it would be very sensible for those cases where leaving problems untreated makes the ultimate treatment cost much higher.

Go Mariah.

Cheers Kalin
if i wasnt so busy i'd muster up every bill that is attributed to my knee
all in all it exceeds the surgery cost ALREADY and i still have two months wait ti have my 2nd MRI sca
that costa tax payers $5oo..so nothings been sorted and already ive cost over 2grand and with further costs will most likely exceed 3 thousand, when initially it would probably only been 1 thousand. Im sure you will agree thats alot of extra money that more than likely could be avoided with a shorter waiting list AND people CHOOSING to take on the financial responsability, especially if it is a manageable debt with realistic instalments..such could be geared towards one income even, rather like a HECS debt , (like you pointed out).
and Kalin i have three sisters and myself with HECS debts and we all own our own properties_so OUR debts will be reclaimed(with INTEREST) i might add, when we die.And yes the health care debt could be geared in a similar way mabye.

Kalin,

It's far from clear that the 50% outcome is what would happen.

The people using the scheme would divide into three groups.

a) People who can borrow funds in the normal way, and will make their repayments. Presumably they would do so in the absence of the scheme, which means that the scheme does not reduce Medicare's costs. Some may attempt to default on repayments but it's highly probably that the debt is recoverable.

b) People who cannot borrow funds, but who would nevertheless make the repayments. These people would reduce Medicare's costs.

c) People who cannot borrow funds, and who would default on their repayments. These people represent no benefit to Medicare, and probably represent a cost, because private treatment is more expensive.

The proposed instalment scheme would be primarily of interest to those who have not made provision for private health insurance, who do not have the cash for their treatment, and who cannot access borrowed funds. These people would be a poor credit risk.

As to the HECS scheme, it works in part because higher education helps make a person employable, thus increasing the likelihood of repayment of the debt. To the extent that HECS loses money, this is seen as an acceptable subsidy to ensure that the country has a pool of qualified people.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

"Far from clear" is just about in the ballpark of revenue neutral. In may not quite work out revenue neutral on the basis I've suggested but that just means we should tweek the variables to that end.

Frankly though, I suspect the scheme would be most attractive to those who have conditions which if treated now, can be dealt with relatively cheaply. There's an awful lot in medicine that is of this kind. For example, Cancer. Sadly, even under our present system, people get diagnosed with cancer and have to wait for surgery. Yes they do get a degree of priority, but it could be quicker. Treating Cancer pre-emptively will produce better and cheaper outcomes on average than waiting.

Mariah's case is another plain example. Her surgery upfront will be expensive, but if, as she has suggested, a failure to operate results in her losing her leg, this will result in more expensve care options for her for the rest of her life (which in many cases the government ends up paying). Her employability will decline perhaps result in a dependancy on a disability pension plus the loss of tax revenue which she provided government as an employed citizen. The cost of this over time will almost certainly exceed the cost of the surgery, even if at private rates.

My son's condition (autism) is another example. There is now mountains of research that shows intensive intensive early therapy DRAMATICALLY improves outcomes for autistic children. A child who would otherwise grow up to sit rocking in a corner unable to care for themselves even in a basic toilet trained sense, would, with these treatments be able to feed and clothe themselves. Yes, they'll still require support and may never be gainfully employed, but the latter group will cost a third or less of the cost to care for the former. My point is that $100,000 spent on these kids when they are young children will save the state millions in the years ahead.

Sylvia, I'd be very slow to dump to hard on Mariah's idea. It has merrit

Sylvia
i also know of another situation where a young boys hearing disorder was not properly diagnosed until he was three years old, because of this his speech is impaired_he cannot sound out words the way 'normal' hearing children can, this may improve after time yet he may never be sounding out his words (speaking) as hearing kids can.
this is an example of delayed medical intervention.
this kids parents diddnt know what was wrong with him
it took doctors three years to work out
his parents had jobs so i dont think payment plans were any concern
but my point being that EARLY intervention will usually benefit the patient.
this family now has a long rehabilitation process to get back on track.
there will be much cost involved both socially,and within their family as well as the cost of speech therapists, not to mention hearing aids etc.
fortunatly there has recently been made a law mandatory hearing tests for all new_born babies at three months or so along with all the previous normal health check ups.
My point is efficient, appropriate, professional care is an immediate necessity for all if we want to get on with life.
And Kalin
sure different plans according to many varied circumstances is generally the choice..... people will decide what suits suit them and then sign the instalment plan