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