Medicare rebate cut by $20 - from $37.05 to $16.95 for under 10 min consult
- Thread starter Beanie Girl
- Start date
True, but it's $20-$25 and they can only write a certificate for one day. No good for me as my cold's usually last at least 3 days. Very rare that I'd only take one day off when sick.
So a common cold stops you in your tracks for 3 days?
If I think Im getting a cold I take 1 asprin, 1 demazin and a good lie down, then 4 hrs later if its still coming on, repeat above dose and lie down.
9 out of 10 times Im back to work the next day fully recovered.
No need for DR cert, Im self employed.
If I think Im getting a cold I take 1 asprin, 1 demazin and a good lie down, then 4 hrs later if its still coming on, repeat above dose and lie down.
9 out of 10 times Im back to work the next day fully recovered.
No need for DR cert, Im self employed.
So a common cold stops you in your tracks for 3 days?
If I think Im getting a cold I take 1 asprin, 1 demazin and a good lie down, then 4 hrs later if its still coming on, repeat above dose and lie down.
9 out of 10 times Im back to work the next day fully recovered.
No need for DR cert, Im self employed.
Yea you've got a ******* employer
Yes.
This was the system before Medicare was introduced in Australia and certainly a prevailing system in some Asian countries. A view certainly backed by many in the medical profession.
However, in Australia, there is a left wing, socialist Labour entitlement mentality where everything needs to be provided free of charge. And this concept was cemented by the introduction of medicare - a scheme strongly opposed by doctors at the time. Over time, it has become obvious to successive governements, that medicare in its original form is unsustainable, unaffordable and inefficient. However, for electoral survival, no government can outright dismantle it in a full frontal way and hence we have the recent underhanded manoeuvers to "save money" by preserving the facade of medicare.
The truth is we need subsidised health care system.
Health care should be one of the 'pillars' of our society.
As a libertarian, its my view (and only my view) that a healthy society is a productive society. A productive society is a society that produces incremental 'real' benefits. Those real benefits are given to our descendants.
It is these real benefits that define our lives. It is our real purpose in life. We only live for such a millisecond in terms of the cosmos. Yet when we look back through time, it was our descendants that gave us our current quality of life. They only achieved this through micro incremental steps in productivity enhancements.
Generalised health cover is good.
Some can pay more than others, and this fact is covered by the original intention of medicare where the levy is based on a % of income.
So the theoretical principle is good.
The impact on this by the 'wealthy' paying more is offset by the productivity of a healthy nation, the benefits of which flow through more efficiently to the owners of capital.
Think of this is basic terms, if I am an employer with a healthy workforce I can extract more productivity. If I am a landlord, my tenants are healthy, and therefore can find it easier to obtain productive employment.
If I am an investor in shares, the company employs workers, they are healthier, therefore they are more productive, therefore the marginal productivity per employee will be higher than if they were not healthy.
The problem lies in the balance between 'user pays' and common subsidisation.
Basic economics is quite clear on the 'free' system.
A free system over time will lead to 'over usement' (because its free)
And under-investment (because its not market based, so the fundamentals of market based interaction between demand and supply is distorted).
Health care should be one of the 'pillars' of our society.
As a libertarian, its my view (and only my view) that a healthy society is a productive society. A productive society is a society that produces incremental 'real' benefits. Those real benefits are given to our descendants.
It is these real benefits that define our lives. It is our real purpose in life. We only live for such a millisecond in terms of the cosmos. Yet when we look back through time, it was our descendants that gave us our current quality of life. They only achieved this through micro incremental steps in productivity enhancements.
Generalised health cover is good.
Some can pay more than others, and this fact is covered by the original intention of medicare where the levy is based on a % of income.
So the theoretical principle is good.
The impact on this by the 'wealthy' paying more is offset by the productivity of a healthy nation, the benefits of which flow through more efficiently to the owners of capital.
Think of this is basic terms, if I am an employer with a healthy workforce I can extract more productivity. If I am a landlord, my tenants are healthy, and therefore can find it easier to obtain productive employment.
If I am an investor in shares, the company employs workers, they are healthier, therefore they are more productive, therefore the marginal productivity per employee will be higher than if they were not healthy.
The problem lies in the balance between 'user pays' and common subsidisation.
Basic economics is quite clear on the 'free' system.
A free system over time will lead to 'over usement' (because its free)
And under-investment (because its not market based, so the fundamentals of market based interaction between demand and supply is distorted).
very well said.
The government is panicking because of where the health budget is headed. Not just because of the ageing population but (almost) more importantly, they have increased the number of doctors they have produced by a huge factor in the last decade. all these new medical schools producing new doctors and they all get their own provider number. the government increased the production of doctors because they tried to fix the issue of rural health care. unfortunately, not many of these new doctors are headed to the rural areas.
the government knows that with so many doctors out in the community all billing patients the health budget is going to EXPLODE in the next 10-20yrs. thus they are trying to reduce the rebates.
actually I was trying to say that there needs to be a partially user based payment system.
It should be subsidised (for the reasons I outlined), but it shouldn't be free because 'free economics' don't work over the long term.
The difficulty lies in determining the relative proportionment of the user pays component.
The higher the user pays component the higher will be the efficiency of individual usage. But the higher the user pays component the potentially lower efficiency on society productivity (because individuals don't use medical services which lead to all sought of problems for society later on).
Therefore the theoretical balance would be the point at which these two competing aims cross.
It is obvious that it needs to be an element of user pays at point of service. A "pricing signal" has become essential and urgent. There is enormous waste and over servicing.
The difficulty doesn't lay in determine what that amount is, the difficulty is having a mature debate in Australia. It is almost impossible, the recent $7 example proves this.
We have devolved into a welfare state where people not only don't want to pay their way, they actually believe they shouldn't have to.
absolutely there should be a user pays element.
if haircuts were free we'd have a shortage of hairdressers.
there should also be a fee for those that present to ED departments for non emergency issues.
The introduction of Medicare has convinced many Australians that healthcare is free when it is one of the most expensive entities around.
Imagine if people expected plumbers to be free. So lets say the health of your toilet bowl is defective and it is overflowing and leaking crap. You call the plumber. He says that he will put you on a public waiting list for a few years until he gets around to it. But it will be free.
And then you ask what to do in the meantime. He says that you can always use the public toilets in the local park or free dump it in your backyard. So you continue and your house is lined with overflowing brown crap but you are reasonably contented because the plumber is going to be free.
Two years down the track, the appointed day comes when the free plumber is meant to come around. You wait all day but no show. You call plumbers office and get fobbed around. You go to the plumbers office and wait six hours to be seen by junior receptionist and then you are told that they are busy dealing with real emergencies and they will get back to you.
At this point are you still happy with your expectation of free plumbing care or perhaps you are willing to pay dollars for it to be fixed? So if plumbers are not free why should health care be free.
terribly analogy is terrible
more could be saved by an efficient public service, but I suppose it does provide some with employment.
more needs to be spent on clinical care and less on bureaucracy. example we were sent a 2nd cheque today from Medicare to post to the doctor, for the same date/service. we contacted Medicare who said they have had this problem since Christmas, posting duplicate cheques. told to destroy the 2nd cheque.
cheques are so old fashioned these days but its still being done that way and now in duplicate.
more needs to be spent on clinical care and less on bureaucracy. example we were sent a 2nd cheque today from Medicare to post to the doctor, for the same date/service. we contacted Medicare who said they have had this problem since Christmas, posting duplicate cheques. told to destroy the 2nd cheque.
cheques are so old fashioned these days but its still being done that way and now in duplicate.
Totally correct. Without a 'pricing signal' the market doesn't value the service because there is not 'price'. But there is a cost.
When there is not 'price' but there is a 'cost', over the long term it will become unsustainable (so long as its a mainstream service, i want to mention this because otherwise some will nit pick and talk about something that hardly any one uses and use it as a justification why this argument is wrong).
There HAS to be an element of user pays in the health system. Its too big a component of government expenditure for there not to be. It has to be paid by EVERYONE.
But what that 'fair amount' is i don't know. I am the first to admit that i am not an expert in this area.
I also don't agree with the current liberal government about diverting funds to some 'medical research fund'.
Abott is not the right leader for the current times.
You cant ask the average person to sacrifice, and then talk about 'dames and knights, research funds etc'.
If there is not enough money in the kitty, there is not enough money. But simplify it. Don't start taking money for your own ideological purposes and then complain that other political views of taking money for ideological purposes is not the right way (for funding alternative social projects).
Either their is enough money or their isn't.
If there is not, then there is no money to create your own ideological piggy bank, there is not to fund international international terrorist removal campaigns (remember how Abott talked about the need to cut back, and yet said there was money in the kitty to help fund international war efforts in the middle east, how can there be a buddet emergency and then no bugget emergency).
It is certainly shaping up that way. But neither was Rudd or Gillard. The question is, who is the right leader for the current times? I am getting a sinking feeling that we are not going to see a great PM for a very long time.
The budget emergency was just political rhetoric to get elected. There never was a 'budget emergency' but there is an underlying structural deficit that needs to be addressed. 'Budget emergency' represents the level of hysterical political discourse we have reached in this country. Of course this has been going on for decades. I recall the opposition to the GST, claiming it would be the end of Australian society as we know it, that we would have this horrid 10% tax on everything we bought... ignoring the fact that the lowest rate of sales tax was 12% and the standard rate was 22%.
Now we have 'killer' changes to Medicare and PEOPLE WILL DIE!!!
Really? That's not a mature discussion about how to ensure Medicare will be sustainable for our children.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...medicare-changes/story-fneuzlbd-1227183018192
If that is true, I think that it really sad.
I don't want to high jack this thread PG but personally I think we'd be much better served as a nation with Turnbull and plibersek as the leaders of their respective parties instead of the 2 idiots we have now.
Ultimately irrespective of who is in power it's important to not only have a good PM but a good opposition leader too
Ultimately irrespective of who is in power it's important to not only have a good PM but a good opposition leader too
I don't know how they would go but at this point it seems like they would be better than the incumbents. Plibersek seems intelligent and generally articulate. Although, she tripped herself up on Labors carbon pricing scheme on Q&A, which was hilarious. "So we support a market-based price signal that takes money from big polluters and [awkward pause] re-distributes it our economy"
When you put it like that actually... why?
I think it is relevant to discuss alternative/preferred leaders, just like it is good for a democracy to have a strong (but sensible) opposition.
For example, are Turnbull and Plibersek prepared to tackle the tax reform required to address the structural deficit? If so, we might not be in the mess we are with changes to Medicare rebates. Which brings us back to the topic at hand.
Is anyone really buying the line that these changes to Medicare will really kill people?
Another article claims the Senate can block the changes:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/259...rease-costs-and-end-bulk-billing-say-doctors/
It will be interesting to see how this oppositional Senate pans out in the long run. People may see the government as ineffective if they can get their agenda through the senate and vote them out at the next election, or they may get sick of the Senate blocking everything the government is trying to do and vote more for the coalition in the Senate at the next election. I'm not sure I would like to see this government hold both houses.
