Uni Health Care

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Australia has had universal health care for over 40 years, called "Medicare".


ALL emergency treatment is free in public hospitals.There can be a wait of over 2 years for elective treatment.(for conditions not immediately life threatening)

All doctors are paid a set fee for all services,but may (and most do) charge above the set fee. Some doctors accept the government payment,(mine does) this is called "bulk billing".The patient pays nothing for a consult. Doctors operating on public patients are paid a set fee.

A great many(not all) prescription medicines are subsidised,the price capped at $30 max.There is a safety net of $1500,after which the cost is reduced to $3.50 , which is what pensioners pay.

Ambulance services are private ,non profit, partly volunteer and unsubidised. A suburban service will cost about $600. Ambulance insurance is a flat $50 a year.

FUNDING; Medicare is funded partly by a 2.5% income tested tax levy. Low income earners pay nothing.

We have a private health insurance system,which the government encourages with a rebate of 30% of premiums. There are no cost penalties due to pre existing conditions,apart from a 2 year waiting period. BUT from this year,premiums will be based on age for NEW members.

I have private cover,which also includes some optical,some dental ,and some alternative treatments such as chiropractic. The cost to me is $120 a month. Cost to a family of two people and ANY NUMBER OF CHILDREN under 17years is simply double.

My opinion is that of course all emergency treatment should be free,but that non emergency treatment should attract SOME fee, even if only token. I think people tend to abuse free services.

[Kyuuketsuki]

That's not win/win ... that's an equitable deal (and, in the real world, more than likely the buyer gets stung by the seller). As I said I do not accept the win/win scenario ... for someone to "win", someone else has to lose. If there re no apparent losers then all the affected parts have not been taken into account. The implication of the win/win scenario is that you get something for nothing and, let's be brutally honest here, that just doesn't happen ... not in science not in the real world, someone always loses.

Win/win means that both parties win something, not that anyone gets something for nothing. Not everything is a zero sum game.

And that is not win/win that is an equitable deal where both parties make a reasonable bargain e.g. A buys a car off B ... A gains a car but loses cash, B gains cash but loses car ... equitable NOT win/win. A or B can get the better deal but not both.

I'll go further and ask the question, why should rich people get paid as much as they do? I mean I'm all for some differentiation to reward those with brains, vision, skill (I'm not a communist, I'm a socialist but, as I said earlier, not the nuLabour type) and so on but there is something offensive about a guy getting several million a year compared to someone getting maybe 20 grand ... TBH brutally honest I don't give a flying [expletive deleted] what Mr/Ms Wealthy does for a job, there is no why this side of hell that he/she is worth THAT much more than the guys at the bottom of the pile.

I hear what you are saying on this one, but you have the answers in your paragraph. The fact remains that they positioned themselves to achieve great wealth. The problem I have with some of the extremly wealthy, would be the unethical ways some of them made their money. They should be handled on a case by case basis by the court system.

That doesn't answer the points I made. I didn't ask why are they clever enough to exploit the systems that exists I asked why the system was so inherently unfair in the first instance.

The system is not perfect, and I ponder ways to more equitably distribute wealth. Free market is the way to go, with social programs and laws created by the governement to level the playing field.

Damned right the system isn't perfect ... a socialist system is much fairer even if you wrap some elements of the free market into it.

Personally I think it rather more childish to pay those who do maybe twice (how do you measure how much effort someone puts in?) as much as those at the bottom perhaps hundreds of times more. And that doesn't even begin to deal with those people who by sheer accident of birth are born into billions of pounds/dollars ... who the [expletive deleted] gives them the right to be parasites on society for their entire lives?

Ahh, "old money" yeah, that sucks, but people who have no ability to aquire wealth have proven to be amazingly good at losing it. I love the idea of some rich kid with too much money; they will buy what I sell them . It is by organic processes that rich people have gotten rich and there are plenty of examples of lobby groups being used to prevent entry into an industry by raising the standards far above what a start up company can afford. Change is necessary to move toward a better solution.

Again that doesn't answer the question I asked (which was much the same as the other one you didn't answer) ... still at least I asked it twice and you failed to answer it twice.

Ah! The sympathetic approach! Has it occurred to you that those people might be genetically unable to control their weight, or perhaps they are depressed because they were thrown out a job by some dick who has more money than a thousand of these people will see in their lives all together, or perhaps that the food they are eating is deliberately designed to be unhealthy or .. or ... or ...

Yeah, well, I am overweight so it was more about me taking responsibility for my burden on the healthcare system.

So am I (though I'm working on it) but I have to say at this point that you're not really answering my points, just skirting around them.

Rich people should pay more because they get paid too [expletive deleted] much in the first place.

Lol, take that you greedy fat cats!

I am not delusional enough to think that "the system" is perfect as it is, but I just hate it when people go after the rich with such fervor simply based on the fact that they have more money.

That they have a disproportionate level of wealth seems fair enough to me.

To me the difference is simple ... I have no personal objection to being wealthy (granted in my case it would have to be by lottery) but there comes a level of wealth where, IMO, you have so much it becomes near pointless to simply possess it. Obviously that's an arbitrary distinction but I have always thought to myself that if I did have enough money (and TBH brutally honest I can't envisage personally using much more than a couple of million in my life) I would do something with it that I genuinely believed befitted society. That's not altruism (I don't believe in that) but it has a certain level of "feel good" and I would be helping others ... though I'm guessing the majority of theists wouldn't agree

Kyu

[Rhizomorph13]

Kyu,

The reason that the system is so unfair is because it developed organically and people are always looking for loopholes. As people find loopholes, new legislation is created to patch up those holes. Laws are tools to balance things so there won't be a fast track to wealth for only a few people. We are doing the best we can.

Some people believe there is a group of people that are manipulting society for their own gain, but I do not believe that people can be that clever and stay so well hidden.

My whole reason for posting in this thread was to express my concern about targeting rich people. My collar is as blue as any, but I would like to think that building wealth is something I could do without being targeted by the proleteriat. I am getting a degree in business management so I have the potential to build some wealth.

Rhizo

[Samson]

Samson,

At no point did I say that people with more money are "better" than anyone else. They have more money, and I am just saying that they shouldn't be targeted to pay extra healthcare costs simply because they make more money.

One way to have a successful healthcare system is to control costs through preventitive care and another is to have people that engage in risky behavior pay a small tax on the things they do that are risky. It should not be a punative cost just a small cost associated with risky behavior. This will bite me on the ass if they start taxing climbing equipment but such is life.

My solution would be to legalize pot and tax the hell out of it . It would still be way more affordable than it is now and would let a bunch of people out of jail so they could be productive and pay taxes instead of burning them up while sitting in a small room.

Rhizo

Again, trying to put a higher % on someone because they smoke, skydive, or eat more is ridiculous. You might as well be a hermit never going outside because it would put you at risk.

Hell, driving a car is high risk...Having a child is high risk....If we start putting higher %'s on infamous activities, then every time someone get's hurt doing something out of the ordinary it's going to become an amendment within the health care form. That's not the way to go and sure as hell isn't the way to pay for a Universal Health Care...

However, I do agree with you on the legalization of Marijuana. This would release many from prison who did not deserve to be there for something as petty as weed. And you are correct; if they were able to start work, then this would be more taxes etc. etc. etc.

As far as the "Rich" paying more to health care because they are rich??? No, I believe the rich should be paying more because they are rich, plain and simple.....What's done with the extra tax money coming in is up to the people we the people elect.

Don't get me wrong, I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy, but at the same time I do see the need and where it helps when money has came through the system in aid forms. I have also seen where it lacks....

[Rhizomorph13]

Samson,

Most of the things you mention have taxes or extra cost associated with them already. Smoking has an associated tax, insurance companies charge higher premiums to smokers and skydivers. There are costs associated with driveing in the form of licensing and vehicle taxes (depending on the state). Actually the only one you mention that doesn't have an associated cost would be eating which is indirectly handled by sales tax in some states.

Granted none of these are specifically targeted to pay for healthcare costs right now but they all generate revenue that could be tapped to pay for any healthcare system that comes into existence. We are at the bottom of the slippery slope you described.

Rich people do pay more money but I am sure you understand that. I just think it is faulty thinking to want to tax them even more to pay for healthcare.

Yay legalizing pot... did we just become best friends? No? ok, well, at least we have something in common.

Rhizo

[leo-rcc]

Putting aside the whole taxation thing for a moment. I have read somewhere that the US is throwing the most money per capita at healthcare in the world but it is not working as efficiently as it does in other countries. So if the US would adopt a system that has shown to work better than the system they have in place now I would assume that it would even save them money in the long run, not cost more.

[Rhizomorph13]

Leo,

I've heard that too, "...the most money per capita..." although analysts seem to think Obama's plan will cost more. I think it is worth the risk to go forward with his plan which is just a single-payer option that will compete with current healthcare options i.e. insurance provided by employers. Obama's plan will eliminate discriminatory practices based on previous medical conditions.

Here is a link to the act:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.ph...&Itemid=85

Rhizo

[Samson]

I've heard the same in the "Throwing Money" towards H.C. for the U.S.

Rhiz, I agree we should go ahead with Obama's plan and hope for the best. We have to start somewhere, because what we currently have is pure shit and for the past 17 years that I have been dealing with it, I have became fed up with the system we have.

Also, as far as the tax that is already associated with the things I listed, that money is already being used elsewhere (As I'm sure you know).

Regardless those types that I listed already have to pay more in Life Ins. etc. I do not believe it is ethnically just to tax a smoker, drinker, sky diver, etc. more for their choices, which is already taxed to death, and then completely dismiss the fat ass down the road who shoves McD's down his/her throat on a daily basis and call their symptoms when having a stroke simply a little over-weight and a pat on the back for being able to shove down more food in a day than a heifer.

Let us also not forget the habitual paranoid morons who go to the doctor every time they sneeze more than once in a day.
Now, I'm not saying the rich is not already taxed, but the tax they have had in place for the past 8 years was a joke. This needs to be looked at first and then go from there...

[binny]

I haven't read all the comments in this tread so forgive me if I repeat something already said. The only reason the US does not have universal health care is because the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies are crooks and have their hands in the pockets of government, or should I say government has their hands in the pockets of the insurance companies. I am totally for universal health care. I see no con. There are plenty of 'socialist' programs in the US, police, fire, schools, why not health care?
I do have health insurance at this time, but our cost threw my husbands employer have gotten so high we had to opt for the $1250.00 deductible and on top of that we have to pay a $40.00 co-pay and one my son's medications cost $125.00 for a 90 day supply. That's just the co-pay. I wonder how much that stuff costs someone without insurance who needs it? What's my son suppose to do when he is no longer covered under our plan? He has Aspergers Syndrom (autism), health insurance companies don't cover that.

[Samson]

binny, I feel your pain...I have INS. through my company, but I pay about 280.00 a month just for the Health and another 50.00 a month for dental.. Our co-pay is 40.00 in network, and twice that if we go out of network...

And lets not forget the BS hassle you get when you do everything legit and the Ins. company wants to act retarded in forms of not recognizing your "In-Network" doctor and file it wrong by "Accident"...(Emphasis on the Accident)....

Then takes another 6 months 50 calls back and forth between your doctor and Ins company before the bill is actually paid..

I'm sick of it...