VAT on the way?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1335323
Quote:
Don't know about your AMA, but the Australian Medical Association directly controls the numbers of doctors and specialists in the market.

I'd like to see how this happens under a private group when they have nationalized health care.


They control who has licences and who can practice.

Pure and simple.

Speaking of simple, we don't have nationalised health care...

I pay $2040 in PRIVATE health insurance...where's the nationalised in that, or haven't you read certain of my previous posts, while cherry picking others ?

http://www.ama.com.au/node/2596
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
So the US has "nationalised corn" ?
LOL.gif

pretty much!
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow

They control who has licences and who can practice.

Pure and simple.

Speaking of simple, we don't have nationalised health care...

I pay $2040 in PRIVATE health insurance...where's the nationalised in that, or haven't you read certain of my previous posts, while cherry picking others ?

http://www.ama.com.au/node/2596

Quote:
In Australia the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984. It coexists with a private health system. Medicare is funded partly by a 1.5% income tax levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance. As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that heavily subsidises prescription medications. In 2005, Australia spent 8.8% of GDP on health care, or US$3,181 per capita. Of that, approximately 67% was government expenditure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia
Is this incorrect?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your link. It talks about the AMA urging "the implementation of national assessment standards". Who writes and enforces these standards?
 
Is that nationalised like you keep ranting about ?

Is it the poor "Govt controlled care" that you keep ranting about ?

edit...is 67%=100%
 
Last edited:
If gov. is taking money (taxes) and directly providing health care (like a business would), YES.

Most of your doctors are paid directly by the gov. are they not?
 
It's hard to understand the difference between nationalized health care and baseline national health insurance.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
It's hard to understand the difference between nationalized health care and baseline national health insurance.

Paying taxes does not provide you "insurance". Just as they don't guarantee you SS or Medicare...
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
If gov. is taking money (taxes) and directly providing health care (like a business would), YES.

Most of your doctors are paid directly by the gov. are they not?


No
 
Very interesting. After having some more time to research:
Quote:
What are the consequences of these forces of self selection? First, they distort government choices regarding the resources devoted to the public system. Until recently, the private system was losing. There was a steady decline in the proportion of Australians taking out private insurance. These people drifted back into the public system. This drift included many younger Australians who were able to afford private insurance but did not find it worthwhile. This had both the effect of increasing congestion in the public system but also degrading the risk profile of those taking private insurance. Market forces took over, premiums rose and the tide continued.

http://www.mbs.edu/home/jgans/papers/afrhealth.htm
This very real result that you guys encountered is the very thing our gov. is counting on here. And private hospitals cannot treat gov. insured cases and vis-versa? That could create a log jamb. Also, no choice of doctor in the public system?

Having to pay twice must be great! And gov. decides prices that will be paid.

It also appears that your largest "private" health insurance is gov. owned and serves about 1/7 of your population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medibank_Private
But only half of your population has private insurance so it's 2/7 of the people that buy.

It appeared that public hospitals (and their equipment)are indeed owned by the government?
 
A few facts from 2005 that seem to dispute what I was lisening to on the radio yesterday:
Quote:

The United States spends more on health care per capita than other industrialized nations but does not receive more services, according to a study published on Tuesday in the July/August issue of... Health Affairs, the Los Angeles Times reports. For the study -- led by Gerard Anderson, a health policy professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health -- researchers analyzed the health care costs of 30 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The study found:

* The nations examined spend a median of $2,193 per capita on health care;

* The United States spent $5,267 per capita for prescription drugs, hospital stays and physicians visits in 2002, compared with $3,446 per capita for Switzerland, the next highest spender;

* Health care spending accounted for 14.6% of the U.S. gross domestic product in 2002, a time when only two other nations -- Switzerland and Germany -- spent more than 10% of their GDP on health care;

* The United States has 2.9 hospital beds per 1,000 residents, compared with a median of 3.7 beds per 1,000 residents among the other nations examined;

* The United States had 2.4 physicians per 1,000 residents in 2001, compared with a median of 3.1 physicians per 1,000 residents among the other nations examined in 2002;

* The United States had 7.9 nurses per 1,000 residents in the United States in 2001, compared with a median of 8.9 nurses per 1,000 residents among the other nations examined in 2002;

* The United States has 12.8 CT scanners per one million U.S. residents, compared with a median of 13.3 scanners per one million residents among the other nations examined;

* The United States appears to have more magnetic resonance imaging machines per capita than many of the other nations examined, but the machines are used only 10 hours daily in the United States, compared with a median of 18 hours daily in other nations; and

* The average medical malpractice payment, which included both settlements and judgments, was $265,103 in the United States in 2001, compared with $309,417 in Canada and $411,171 in Britain.

Anderson said, "We pay more for health care for the simple reason that prices for health services are significantly higher in the United States than they are elsewhere." Karen Davis -- president of the Commonwealth Fund, which supported the study -- said that the United States "does not get commensurate value for its health care dollar" (Girion, Los Angeles Times, 7/12).


from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/27348.php

Also interesting stats in this book, pp 45-49
http://books.google.com/books?id=VwepWgI...snum=1#PPA47,M1
 
Last edited:
So, essentially, no matter how "unfair" or "nanny state" or whatever, all of our contemporaries manage it (holding guns to doctor's heads .. that were forcibly educated and carted off to medical school to be enslaved by the state while they could have been janitors if given "free will" and liberty) at lower costs and higher standard...

..WE'RE GETTING BONED...
 
That's why I assert that we already have socialized medicine. We only have variable distribution of services. The costs are being borne by producers ..as all costs must. Our system appears to have the specific purpose of enhancing the lifestyle of medical practitioners and their various ancillary support networks.
 
And quite well at that, especially the insurance companies as one of those ancillary supporters, as you stated previously.
 
Commonwealth foundation is a big time supporter of nationalized health care. The "plan" they propose is a multi level program similar to Oz with both a private and public system.

How do they cut costs on the public side? Simply pay doctors less! That will surly provide better medical care.... They rely on the private insurance companies to provide better care.

And the plan STILL requires copays and higher taxes. It also states that health care costs will STILL outpace GDP and wages.
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/02/th...-on-part-1.html

And of course employers won't figure out that they are now forced to pay extra taxes for people that don't work for them... But once they do, they will simply drop the private coverage they are also paying for so more and more people will be forced into the lesser public side. This will eventually kill the private insurance companies and providers and we will all be stuck with the cruddy government provided system...just as happened in Oz.

And I didn't see antthing about wait times in your post?


Gov. is now looking to cook the books on health care to make it look less costly.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-brace-for-cbo-score-2009-06-11.html
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tempest
and we will all be stuck with the cruddy government provided system...just as happened in Oz.

And I didn't see antthing about wait times in your post?


If I ring for an appointment at the GP, I'll wait 3 days. If it's a child or pregnant woman, they'll get in that day.

We pay $65 cash, and medicare reimburses $28...the clinic sets their "market" rate, and we get some back.

Son broke his arm, it was fixed, in Sydney, under the instruction of a professer, and it cost us absolutely nothing (couple days lost wages, and $20/night accomodation costs in the hospital)

Son needed an allergy test, a MacQuarie Street specialist visits here every fortnight...consult and test $150, private health picks up $120.

Better half needed knee work. We had the choice of going public, waiting a year and having no choice of doctor/timing, or going private. Private insurance picked up 90% of it, we had a doctor who's number plated are kn33s (and is held on retainer by the major footbal clubs).

When we had our children, we could choose public or private. They would be born in exactly the same birthing rooms, with exactly the same midwives. Public meant the we would have the doctor on duty, and a recovery room of 4 women.

Private meant that our doctor (if he wasn't the duty doctor) would attend...we chose private, better half had the doctor who had been supervising the pregnancy for the deliver (6 hours)...He's also a medical imaging specialist, so when our son got "stuck", he wheeled the bed into radiology and performed an ultrasound on the spot.

3 days in private room...cost us in total $250.

My brother CHOSE not to have insurance, and paid cash for the birth of his 2nd son...$5k all up, including ACT's top gyno at the time.

And anybody who doesn't have private insurance WILL be treated for life threatening conditions, FREE and NOW.

I can see why you think our system really sucks, and are so scared of it.

How can you justify the US model, with it's higher costs, and poorer overall outcomes ?
 
Quote:
How can you justify the US model, with it's higher costs, and poorer overall outcomes ?


Because the greed of self interest is given freedom to reign.
 
Quote:
How can you justify the US model, with it's higher costs, and poorer overall outcomes ?

Poorer outcomes? Really?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1463449
As to why I'm fearful:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1462134
And:
Quote:
I have proposed a Federal Health Board that would be a foundation from which we could address all three problems. In many ways, the Federal Health Board would resemble our current Federal Reserve Board for the banking industry. Just as the Federal Reserve ensures certain standards, transparency and performance for our banking industry, the Fed Health would ensure harmonization across public programs of health-care protocols, benefits, and transparency. Ultimately, the Fed Health would offer a public framework within which a private health-care system could operate more effectively and efficiently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-tom-daschle/progressive-solutions-to-_b_89590.html
The FED is transparent and effective???
And just flatly, our government has an extraordinary bad track record of running the medical programs that they do have. Hello Medicare? Yeah, that worked out well... Why in the world should anyone think things will be different now?

We are already running $2 trillion deficits. Many states are of money and their "safety nets" are broke or close to it. Why would I think they could run their health care programs better?

Imagine if California had socialized medicine? The State is literally days away from not being able to pay it's bills! Any of them! Why should I feel comfortable with people that can't do the basics of running a state like police, fire and roads running health care for me?

Also, our system is ALREADY 45% controlled by government. That is by FAR the largest payer of health care so they influence the quality, results and PRICE more than any other entity. And yet prices continue to skyrocket! Why should it change under a different gov. program?? There are also mandates by gov. in terms of what companies must cover, paperwork, etc. So I don't justify our model, but it is legislated for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom