Clirus, you seemed to miss my rather fundamental question:
In what sense has the Australian health care system failed?
The statements that I posted stated the Australian Health Care system had failed, and I was interested in what other people had to say about this. So far no one has stated the statements were not true.
My purpose in all this is that the systems of other nations have been held up as a model for America. If America wants to go the route of socialized medicine, it should be done with a knowledge that there is much price controls, service controls and reduced expectations.
Apparently the Public Option being discussed in America would be patterned after Medicare where the government specifically defines the prices, services, and procedures. The statements about the Australian Health Care state the Medicare of Australia had failed. Many doctors in America are refusing Medicare and Medicaid patients because the amount the government will pay is too low.
A key thing is that price controls do produce reduced services, or reduced quality of service.
I believe an Economic Rationed Health Care System would work if government and churches were to make an effort to reduce the component of health care cost associated with evil/sin.
Churches should rebuke sin/evil in obedience to God and the State should rebuke evil/sin because of health and economic reasons.
I questioned what you meant by failed by means of implicating that the Australian health care system hasn't failed.
Bascially, you have just passed judgment on our system with no knowledge of it at all.
Where did your statements come from? There is nothing within them that proves that the system has failed - just repeated rhetorical assertions that it has.
1. Medicare isn't just a safety net for the poor - it provides services to all Australians.
2. You could always buy private health insurance on top of your coverage by medicare. It wasn't "brought back" because medicare had failed.
3. Blue Cross isn't a major part of our health care system - it is a small residential care company that has around 1500 clients in a nation of over 20 million people. I'm not sure why that was included in your post
4. Of course much private health care is for profit here, just like elsewhere. That doesn't mean our public system has failed, it just means we provide people with basic cover and they can chose to pay for more cover if they wish. Freedom of choice is a good thing, isn't it?
5. Where is the proof that Australian hospitals are "run down"?
6. We have cheap prescription drugs. My sister's boyfriend is American, he just stayed with us for a few weeks before heading on to India for a month. He was able to get all his vaccinations here for around $150. In the US he said he wouldn't have been able to get all of them and the ones he would have gotten would have been over $400. Seems to be providing a good service. The scheme doesn't cover all medications, naturally, but it does cover most.
7. Where is the evidence that the health care system which continues to look after Australian people was run down 20 years ago? Where is the evidence that we use obsolete equipment? I know for a fact that we don't. I have worked in the health care industry, both my parents have worked in the private and public spheres of health care, I can tell you this rhetoric is empty. If the system had failed, I would know about it.
8. Your last statement in the first post is bizarre - we have had a failed system for 20 years but most Australians are content?
So, your warning about "price controls, service controls and reduced expectations" - what evidence have you provided for any of this? All I can see is that you pointed out we have subsidized prescription medicine. That is bad? Other than that you have shown no evidence because there is no evidence. The only price controls you have discussed help people that would otherwise not be able to afford treatment to be able to receive it at an affordable price.
In Australia our mixed system means that doctors can charge whatever they like in private practice - you can charge triple the amount medicare will give back, but if your patients aren't willing to pay that then you won't get patients. Simple market economics. If patients don't want to pay that there are many public centres which charge nothing (or rather, charge the rebate price, so there is no out of pocket expense for patients).
I'm not going to touch the evil/sin argument because it has no place in a discussion of health care.
My auntie was cured of cancer under the Australian system, receiving care and expensive drugs for as long as was needed, didn't have to sell their house or succumb to a painful death.
How's that praying not to sick American system working for ya?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
In Australia, the primary source of income for healthcare provides funds for teaching hospitals.
But here, the primary source is the profit hungry big insurance racket and they don't.
==
They have a universal government run scheme called Medicare. It is funded by a levy on wages, like FICA. Like all such schemes it has failed and has become a safety net for the poor, who can wait up to four years for treatment.
Most people buy private health insurance, which was re-introduced on the failure of Medicare. Since the private health insurance users also pay the Medicare levy they get a small component of their private insurance claim from Medicare.
A principal insurance company in Australia is Blue Cross. Health insurance is a for profit operation.
Teaching hospitals are associated with Universities which are funded by student tuition fees and general tax revenue. Teaching hospitals are public hospitals and are funded by revenue from patients and money from state governments.
Australian health care facilities are run down from the government health years. Private investment in hospitals and clinics is slowly filling the gaps.
Health care for old people is a separate system funded from tax revenue and kicking in at about age 75 if I recall. Prescription drugs are handled by another program. A list of low cost generic type drugs is profived to a flat $30 fee. Drugs not on the list are sold at market prive.
The Medicare system was introduced around 1980 and had basically failed by 1990. Initially it was very popular because it seemed inexpensive and available to all. That only lasted until the existing hospitals and clinics, which had been of a high standard, were run down and worn out. Before long the fine health care system was a shanbles of unmaintained buildings, obsolete equipment and staff cuts.
Do NOT follow this pattern.
Overall Autralians are reasonably content with their system but very upset at the run down state of hospitals.
...... Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.
Rank country (years) Date of Information
********************************
********************************************************** According to the CIA World Factbook (a branch of the US government), the life expectancy of the average Australian is 81.63 years, ranking 7th in the world.
That's not bad for a system that, according to "clirus," had basically failed by 1990 and whose facilities were "a shambles of unmaintained buildings, obsolete equipment and staff cuts."
Little do the Australians know that they are missing out on the benefits of an American private healthcare system with its average life expectancy of 78.11 years, ranked 50th in the world.
I'm sure each and every Australian would willing forgo a mere 3.52 years in their lives and those of their loved ones, in return for the luxury of having those well maintained US style hospitals, state-of-the-art equipment and full medical staffs.
Last edited by jgarden; 10th September 2009 at 02:28 AM.
I do not know about the Australian Health Care system, and that is why I am asking questions.
The statement I posted implied Medicare in Australia had failed. You stated Medicare had not failed, but then you stated that people could purchase private insurance, which would imply that the people that purchased private insurance were not pleased with Medicare. In America, doctors were not allowed to charge Medicare patients more than the Medicare prescribed amount. Many doctors chose to not treat Medicare patients. This reduced the cost to Medicare people, but then the overall costs of health care increased to make up the difference. If America goes on a Universal Health Care system like Medicare, I believe the quality of care will decrease significantly for everyone. If people are allowed to have private insurance those on Medicare will demand the same quality of service as the people with private insurance.
My question to you is, "Are people satisfied with the Medicare plus private insurance concept?"
Another questions are, "What do you mean by Medicare providing "basic cover"?" Does the Australian Medicare provide only emergency room services or is it a total care system?
My first hint that there were price controls and reduced expectations can from a PBS show that evaluated health care systems around the world. Many of the posts on this board have now confirmed that socialized health care systems are very restrictive. There are individual cases where people get care, but most of the socialized health care systems are under sever pressure to reduce costs.
I do not believe any health care system will work unless everyone does everything possible to reduce the need for health care and uses health care as little as possible.
Health care and sin/evil are closely linked because sin/evil leads to most of the disease, death, destruction and poverty that requires health care/welfare.
As the influence of religion as decreased, the cost of health care/welfare have risen.
I do not know about the Australian Health Care system, and that is why I am asking questions.
You are not just asking questions, you are resorting to your preferred position of making statements about subjects you know nothing about. You do not know if the Australian system has failed, but that is not going to stop you saying that it has.
Originally Posted by clirus
Health care and sin/evil are closely linked because sin/evil leads to most of the disease, death, destruction and poverty that requires health care/welfare.
No it does not. We've been through this before and your arguments simply do not hold water.
Originally Posted by clirus
As the influence of religion as decreased, the cost of health care/welfare have risen.
Actually it is nothing to do with religion, if you notice - since welfare was introduced the year number has consistently increased by one per year. This is what is the main factor here - if we renumbered the years the cost would go down again.
__________________
My Boy!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I do not know about the Australian Health Care system, and that is why I am asking questions.
There wasn't a single question in your OP. It was all statement. Baseless statement.
The statement I posted implied Medicare in Australia had failed. You stated Medicare had not failed, but then you stated that people could purchase private insurance, which would imply that the people that purchased private insurance were not pleased with Medicare.
The fact that many Australians chose to have private health care is not evidence that medicare has failed. It doesn't mean that people are not pleased with medicare. Everybody in Australia uses and benefits from medicare. If people want greater coverage than that providing by the public system, they can purchase it. The public system covers most things, but it doesn't cover everything - no system can cover everything.
In America, doctors were not allowed to charge Medicare patients more than the Medicare prescribed amount. Many doctors chose to not treat Medicare patients. This reduced the cost to Medicare people, but then the overall costs of health care increased to make up the difference.
That is not how it works here. Either doctors are employed within the public system, and are therefore earning a wage that is not directly linked to the charging of the patient and therefore patients are covered by the prescribed rebate, or they work privately, in which case they can charge whatever they like (obviously tempered by the supply and demand of the market). If you want to see a private doctor, you need to pay their fees, which will generally be more than the prescribed rebate - the government pays up to the rebate, you pay for the rest. Within the private sphere there are still many doctors that will only charge the rebate price to pensioners/students/unemployed people. There is no problem here of people being unable to get treatment because doctor's aren't prepared to work at the rebate level.
If America goes on a Universal Health Care system like Medicare, I believe the quality of care will decrease significantly for everyone. If people are allowed to have private insurance those on Medicare will demand the same quality of service as the people with private insurance.
Why will it decrease?
The people only using medicare in Australia do get the same quality of service to people with private insurance here - a lot of the time the public system has got people with and without insurance right next to each other receiving the same treatment at the same cost - nothing up front. The main reason to have private insurance is to either get coverage for things that aren't covered by medicare at all, because they have specific problems that they want greater coverage for, and for the ability to have greater control and choice over who treats you and where you are treated - obviously that is some difference (if it wasn't a difference people wouldn't pay for it), but it isn't particularly great. If you look below I give a link for things not covered by medicare (eg. glasses, acupuncture, cosmetic surgery, a lot of dental work) - insurance is good if you need/want to use those things, but the vast majority of health needs that everyone faces are covered. In Australia private insurance is about those things on top of medicare, rather than not using medicare at all.
My question to you is, "Are people satisfied with the Medicare plus private insurance concept?"
In my experience, definitely yes.
Another questions are, "What do you mean by Medicare providing "basic cover"?" Does the Australian Medicare provide only emergency room services or is it a total care system?
The Australian idea of basic is different to the American idea of basic.
If you look at the list on that site of what isn't included, it is basically all privately sought, elective/unnecessary/cosmetic procedures, glasses and contact lenses and most dental work. Physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, eye therapy, chiropractic services, podiatry or psychology aren't necessarily covered, but general practioners can give patients referrals under certain health plans which then allow patients to get rebates for those services too, at least partially. The PBS is separate to medicare, but it is another subsidised part of our system.
Anything else you can think of is covered by medicare - that includes preventative medicing all the way to after-care and rehabilitation.
My first hint that there were price controls and reduced expectations can from a PBS show that evaluated health care systems around the world. Many of the posts on this board have now confirmed that socialized health care systems are very restrictive. There are individual cases where people get care, but most of the socialized health care systems are under sever pressure to reduce costs.
All systems have limited resources and therefore want to cut costs. Your current system is no different. "Rationing" occurs in all health systems in the world - the difference is how things are rationed. Here, it is mainly rationed by need. For you in America it seems that the rationing is more determined by wealth. I think our way is better.
I don't think our system is particularly restrictive at all.
I do not believe any health care system will work unless everyone does everything possible to reduce the need for health care and uses health care as little as possible.
Our government agrees, which is why they subsidise a lot of preventative medicine - a recent initiative allows people that are overweight to see a general practioner who can refer them to see dieticians and exercise specialists at rebate prices. It is much more cost effective to do this than treat all the illnesses that would be caused by that poor health later in life. Do Americans have access to anything like that? I'm guessing the answer is no.
The fact of the matter is that people need help to help themselves when it comes to health issues. Our socialised system provides that to all. It will reduce our health costs in the long run.
Health care and sin/evil are closely linked because sin/evil leads to most of the disease, death, destruction and poverty that requires health care/welfare.
Rubbish.
As the influence of religion as decreased, the cost of health care/welfare have risen.
Did you also know that the rising of the earth's temperature is in direct proportion to the number of pirates?
I do not know about the Australian Health Care system, and that is why I am asking questions.
But you didn't ask any questions... you made a judgement of "failure."
__________________ "If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high,
You'd laugh and say 'Nothing's that simple!' But you've been told many times before,
Messiahs pointed to the door, And no one had the guts to leave the temple!" -- The Who
The original post did not have any questions, but did request comments. I did not get any good comments, so I stared asking questions.
I frequently state my position on a subject because people can better respond when they know what I am thinking.
I still believe the fact that there is a two level system (which is also a economic rationing system) in Australia indicates that many are dissatisfied with the basic health care (Medicare and PHS) and want more if they can pay for it.
In America, the people who cannot afford health insurance are given free emergency room care, welfare, child care, etc. It is basically an un-formalized two level system because people in America like to talk equality but practice inequality. All nations practice inequality, but just will not discuss the inequality.
Do you accept the two level system and agree that the Australian system is an economic rationing system?
If the private doctors get more for their services than the public doctors (employed by the state -wow) don't you think there would be a tendency for the better doctors to go into private practice than to go into public practice?
I really do not see a lot of difference between the American economic insurance rationing two level system and the Australian private and public two level system. In both cases, the people get care, but some get better care. The reality in America is that most get better care and some get just basic care. You need to listen closely to Obama when he talks. He never says people do not get health care, he just says they do not have insurance. Universal Health Care would force responsible people to pay for the irresponsible people through equal insurance policies.
You state that "The fact of the matter is that people need help to help themselves when it comes to health issues. Our socialized system provides that to all. It will reduce our health costs in the long run."
I do not believe you can help a person that does not want to be helped. They want to be helped in the sense they complain, but they will not make the effort to change what they are doing. America was founded on the concept of "no work, no eat" and stayed that way until Roosevelt introduced socialism into the American government in the 1940 to 1945 time period.
Religion has steadily declined in America since 1945, and health care/welfare costs have steadily risen. I believe there is a obvious link between evil/sin and disease, death, destruction and poverty.
I believe the only real method of changing people is for them to accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and to commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. If a person does not accept Jesus Christ, then they are not doing everything possible to prevent the need for health care/welfare.
Linear Mode
