Health Reform: Where is it heading?

[Calliope]

This writer to "The Punch" has a good point about paying for private health insurance.
If we are to believe Mr Rudd's assurance that waiting times for elective surgery will be magically reduced, if necessary by utilising private hospitals, then why would we continue paying the ever increasing private health premiums, along with subsidising our fellow citizens who choose to have no private cover?

It will be interesting to see Whiskers weasel his way out of this one. I doubt he will even try...probably more small print.

I am still waiting for his answer to my question;

Why don't you get a job? Or are you paid to spread party propaganda?

 

[noco]

This writer to "The Punch" has a good point about paying for private health insurance.
If we are to believe Mr Rudd's assurance that waiting times for elective surgery will be magically reduced, if necessary by utilising private hospitals, then why would we continue paying the ever increasing private health premiums, along with subsidising our fellow citizens who choose to have no private cover?

Julia, would you really expect Rudd to think that far down the track and if he had, he would not worry about cost or the consequences hitherto so long as he thinks he has conned the public; that's his game.
Rudd says the buck stops with him on health reform, but inevitably the Hospital Boards will be resposible, which in turn, will release the Feds and the states from any blame.
I keep asking the question,"why did Rudd not take over the National Hospital system in July 2009 like he said he would"? Whiskers answers with his usual Rudd like rhetoric, that Rudd can't do without a referendum. Rudd has the constitutional power but is frightened to use it in case he defaults.
I just cannot see his so called plan being carried out with any efficiency.
It's bound to finish up another Labor Party bungle far worse than the BER and Home Insulation debacle.

 

[Whiskers]

...why would we continue paying the ever increasing private health premiums, along with subsidising our fellow citizens who choose to have no private cover?

Good point. I asked myself that question mant years ago and being a healthy person (never smoked and very light drinker) decided to cancel private health insurance and keep some emergency funds available for unforseens and try to further improve my healthy lifestyle.

I have had one elective surgery a few years ago where I paid out of my own pocket for my private doctor in his private hospital and more recently one relatively urgent proceedure that was done in the public system.

While still miles in front of paying ever increasing private health premiems I have had another look at private insurance recently, but decided to continue my emphasis on prevention rather than cure.

I know increasing numbers of people who have left private insurance or are seriously considering it because of the expense even though they are a bit worried about emergency care in the public system.

It's interesting how people become more conscious of their lifestyle when they start to consider what if I drop private health insurance.

That WA young woman with kids who was a drug addict, had a previous organ transplant due to drug abuse and continued to abuse and was funded by the public to go overseas for another (but died anyway) is the sort of thing that gets up my nose and I think contributes to overly expensive health costs and insurance.

I wish the premium reduction for non smokers and non or light drinkers was greater and extended to other healthy lifestyle markers.

In other words more incentives for people to live healthy lifestyles rather than just paying an insurance premium and carelessly enjoying oneself in the expectation that you can be patched up whenever you need one.

Cholesterol levels and obesity, for example, seems to be other important health markers and easy enough to monitor and quantify. I'd score very well on the former and pretty well on the later, so I think people like me should be given further benifits in insurance premiums or the others penalised more.

While the increased tax on cigarettes and alcohol goes some of the way towards that catch phrase 'user pay', it doesn't help the average person when it comes to insurance premiums that are surely still scued towards the healthy subsidising the unhealthy lifestyles.

It will be interesting to see Whiskers weasel his way out of this one. I doubt he will even try...probably more small print.

What is there to weasel out of!

I am still waiting for his answer to my question;

I've said repeatedly, but maybe it's time to repeat since some of you are very short on reading and research and long on useless comments... I'm not aligned nor particularly interested in any political party.

I thought some of you might have been initially, maybe you are, but as I said before, regardless, I gave up responding to useless and silly comments.

So lets see if we can get some usefull commentry.

Calliope, how much of a burden are you on the health system, ie do you smoke, drink alcohol, have high colesterol and are you obese etc?

Do you think someone like this should pay higher private health insurance and regardless, be pushed to the back of public hospital waiting lists or even refused in extreme cases like the repeat drug addict aforementioned?

 

[trainspotter]

The 30% is a nominal average amount that the states already spend on health that the fed wanted to quarantine for health permenantly.

It is implied in the words of par 14 particularly "as outlined in this Agreement", in other words state funding will continue as per current SPP's and, normal proportion of GST, nominal 30%, plus additional fed funding as specified through the transition period and 'efficient price' establishment.

You will note that there is a requirement for the interchange of documents and statistics through the transition period... so if anyone tries to significantly sway their spending to distort the transition calc's they will not only face the wrath of the fed, but the other states.

I couldn't resist correcting this utterance. WA spends 5.4 billion on Health every year. Rudds Health reform offer was to give up 30% GST state revenue and WA's share is only 1.7 billion in return?? This seems at odds with the statement that the 30% (which is still not in writing ANYWHERE on the COAG agreement) nominal or outlined or otherwise is the "nominal average amount that the states spend on health" ?? Small shortfall of 3.4 billion certainly seems odd to say the least?

So we now have to create 2 new Departments to handle the pooled funds, in other words another layer of Bureaucracy which will fill the hospitals with desks and not beds IMO

I am sure you have the best intentions Whiskers of trying to elucidate your thought process's into writing BUT perhaps it is you who is slightly short on the reading and comprehending skills?

 

[Whiskers]

Trainspotter, I believe the west has a bit of a perculiar problem in that the Commonwealth Grants Commission penalised WA because of the state's booming resources industry revenue.

To that extent I can understand that some variation needs to be worked out there.

But the basic general concept is that Rudd wanted to quarantine about 30% of existing GST going to the states for health, ie so they couldn't divert GST based health funding to other areas and squeeze the fed for more health funding above the GST take.

I mentioned 'implied'... as I understand, the 30% principle, ie current commitments to health by the states and fed is implied in all that transitional proceedure, formula stuff... so you may not find 30% specified in the final agreement, but the implication of the agreement in it's entirety is that current commitments and levels of funding especially by the states (Rudds original nominal and whatever the actual implied value by the agreement) will continue through the transition and not be reduced as the fed increases it's funding.

I've still only had a quick read but the gist in numerical terms seems that the fed is committing to 60% of health funding plus continuing those areas that it already funds (appears to imply about 10%) and the states commit to the other implied about 30%.

 

[trainspotter]

Thank you Whiskers ! Very eloquently put and I am very happy to take on board such information. It has completely cleared up the murkiness in the detail for me now. Once again thank you for bearing with the topic.

 

[Calliope]

I gave up responding to useless and silly comments.

So lets see if we can get some usefull commentry.

Calliope, how much of a burden are you on the health system, ie do you smoke, drink alcohol, have high colesterol and are you obese etc?

Do you think someone like this should pay higher private health insurance and regardless, be pushed to the back of public hospital waiting lists or even refused in extreme cases like the repeat drug addict aforementioned?

A question is not a comment. I am merely curious how anyone who can waste so much time proselytising on this thread, could actually be in gainful employment.

I have a DVA Gold Card so I guess in a way I am as big a burden on society as you. It is nice to see you take an interest in my health even though it is none of your business.

However for you information I am healthy and place very little strain on medical or hospital resources.

Although retired I get no pension and still pay sizeable taxes for your hero Mr Rudd to waste on his support base, which you are obviously part of.

 

[Julia]

I know increasing numbers of people who have left private insurance or are seriously considering it because of the expense even though they are a bit worried about emergency care in the public system.

Not just emergency care in the public system, any care at all, such as it is.

That WA young woman with kids who was a drug addict, had a previous organ transplant due to drug abuse and continued to abuse and was funded by the public to go overseas for another (but died anyway) is the sort of thing that gets up my nose and I think contributes to overly expensive health costs and insurance.

Agree completely. It was an insult to all the other people on the waiting list who have not even been offered an initial transplant. She made her decisions.
She should have lived (or died) as a result of those decisions.

In other words more incentives for people to live healthy lifestyles rather than just paying an insurance premium and carelessly enjoying oneself in the expectation that you can be patched up whenever you need one.

Cholesterol levels and obesity, for example, seems to be other important health markers and easy enough to monitor and quantify. I'd score very well on the former and pretty well on the later, so I think people like me should be given further benifits in insurance premiums or the others penalised more.

It's a bit of a stretch to assume that everyone paying for private cover is doing so in order that they may take no responsibility for their own health outcomes!! What nonsense.
As above, I think I'm fairly typical of people with private cover in that the reason is lack of faith in the public system. Just reflect on the Jayant Patel saga for a start.

I and most people I know are very conscientious about healthy diet and good exercise. That doesn't necessarily guarantee you will not have the need for medical treatment, for heaven's sake.

While the increased tax on cigarettes and alcohol goes some of the way towards that catch phrase 'user pay', it doesn't help the average person when it comes to insurance premiums that are surely still scued towards the healthy subsidising the unhealthy lifestyles.

How could you satisfactorily offer price advantages for people who don't smoke, drink excessive amounts of alcohol and eat rubbish?
How hard would it be (especially given the basic lack of honest disclosure in so many people) to declare on some form that the claimant is a paragon of healthy living? And who is going to go and sit on their shoulder for a year to determine otherwise?
Let's at least be a bit realistic here.

 

[Julia]

Earlier I linked to an article by Alan Kohler suggesting recent negotiations were less to do with health and much more to do with clawing back the GST.

It seems Dr Rosanna Capolingua, ex President of the AMA, feels similarly.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles...nl&emcmp=Punch&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

 

[Calliope]

Where is it heading? In the same direction as all Rudd's other failed schemes. When it goes belly up Rudd will say "Yes, but we had to spend the money fast".

Former ally David Penington savages Kevin Rudd's 'status quo' health reforms

ONE of the nation's eminent medical experts has turned against the Rudd government's health reforms, declaring they will make little difference to how hospitals are run.

David Penington, a senior fellow at Melbourne's Grattan Institute who initially backed the deal Kevin Rudd struck with the states, said yesterday he was "appalled at the lack of any agreement on governance that differs from the status quo", and had little faith any real change would be forthcoming from the reforms.

He also deplored the fact there was no commitment to the key issue of "a vastly better interface" between the hospital sector and primary care, or aged care and mental health - "all issues of critical importance for the longer term"

.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...o-health-reforms/story-e6frgczf-1225859644876

 

[noco]

Where is it heading? In the same direction as all Rudd's other failed schemes. When it goes belly up Rudd will say "Yes, but we had to spend the money fast".

Former ally David Penington savages Kevin Rudd's 'status quo' health reforms

ONE of the nation's eminent medical experts has turned against the Rudd government's health reforms, declaring they will make little difference to how hospitals are run.

.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...o-health-reforms/story-e6frgczf-1225859644876

Caliope, Health Reform is old hat now, Rudd has diverted our attention to stop smoking so we can save money on Health Reform.

What Rudd did not tell you is there is a News poll out this weekend and the diversion is to help boost his ratings. That's our Prime Minister with his historical monotonous beguiling behaviour.

 

[Calliope]

Caliope, Health Reform is old hat now, Rudd has diverted our attention to stop smoking so we can save money on Health Reform.

What Rudd did not tell you is there is a News poll out this weekend and the diversion is to help boost his ratings. That's our Prime Minister with his historical monotonous beguiling behaviour.

Noco,
A certain poster to this thread accused you and me and trainspotter of being
"ignorant rabble-rousers" when we dared question his superior intellectual grasp of Rudd's scheme.

I suppose he will now brand Dr Penington as an "ignorant rabble-rouser", who hasn't read the fine print.

 

[noco]

Noco,
A certain poster to this thread accused you and me and trainspotter of being
"ignorant rabble-rousers" when we dared question his superior intellectual grasp of Rudd's scheme.

I suppose he will now brand Dr Penington as an "ignorant rabble-rouser", who hasn't read the fine print.

That poster your refer to is a monomaniac. I think he has been reading too many incunabula books.

 

[noco]

Caliope, Health Reform is old hat now, Rudd has diverted our attention to stop smoking so we can save money on Health Reform.

What Rudd did not tell you is there is a News poll out this weekend and the diversion is to help boost his ratings. That's our Prime Minister with his historical monotonous beguiling behaviour.

The new packaging idea on cigarettes was raised by Senator Fielding 10 months ago and Rudd put it aside to conveniently bring out now as a Labor Party initiative before the weekend poll. That's our Prims Minister!!!!!!

 

[trainspotter]

Read somewhere the other day AMA also wants the Medicare Levy increased to cover costs. What happened to the so called 30% GST black hole funding arrangements between the states and the Feds? Apparently Govt is considering a 1% increase to assist funding??? WTF?

 

[Calliope]

The new packaging idea on cigarettes was raised by Senator Fielding 10 months ago and Rudd put it aside to conveniently bring out now as a Labor Party initiative before the weekend poll. That's our Prims Minister!!!!!!

He's desperate for diversions;

 

[Whiskers]

It's a bit of a stretch to assume that everyone paying for private cover is doing so in order that they may take no responsibility for their own health outcomes!! What nonsense.
As above, I think I'm fairly typical of people with private cover in that the reason is lack of faith in the public system. Just reflect on the Jayant Patel saga for a start.

No, noo... that's not what I said at all. My point was that people who don't look after themselves by smoking and drinking excessively, should pay more for insurance premiums than those who do look after their lifestyle.

How could you satisfactorily offer price advantages for people who don't smoke, drink excessive amounts of alcohol and eat rubbish?
How hard would it be (especially given the basic lack of honest disclosure in so many people) to declare on some form that the claimant is a paragon of healthy living? And who is going to go and sit on their shoulder for a year to determine otherwise?
Let's at least be a bit realistic here.

Realistic! The US (and I think maybe some other countries) charges premiums by health status including higher health insurance premiums for smokers. http://www.usinsuranceonline.com/health-insurance/articles/health-insurance-for-smokers.php

Noco,
A certain poster to this thread accused you and me and trainspotter of being
"ignorant rabble-rousers" when we dared question his superior intellectual grasp of Rudd's scheme.

Yes, and you are still rabble-rousing, ie stirring up passions for your stated hatred and objective to do whatever you can to get rid of Rudd. As I also said previously, crititism for crititism sake is futile... especially when you exaggerate, overly generalise and even condemn attempts to decipher the economic and legal detail and implications that we are going to have to live with and make the most of.

You can continue in a hypercritical mode with your heart full of hatred and head up your @rse and fail to try to understand the economic implications of it or find anything that you can use to improve your lot if you like, but I think most people would like to try to get an objective understanding for what it all means for them.

To trainspotters credit, he acknowledged a misunderstanding of what I/he was trying to say and I respect him for that.

 

[drsmith]

He's desperate for diversions;

On the front of that cigarette packet there should still be the usual health warning and on the back "Go ahead. Make the national budget balance".

 

[Calliope]

As I also said previously, crititism for crititism sake is futile.

What the hell is "critiitism"? Your superiority doesn't extend to spelling or grammar.

You can continue in a hypercritical mode with your heart full of hatred and head up your @rse .

My goodness! What a rant! I certainly hit the target If you are trying to provoke me to match your nastiness you have failed.

but I think most people would like to try to get an objective understanding for what it all means for them.

Which they won't get from you. They will have to go to someone who knows what he is talking about, like Dr Penington, for that.

Why don't you get a job?

 

[Whiskers]

What the hell is "critiitism"? Your superiority doesn't extend to spelling or grammar.

Sure I miscued and mispelt 'criticism' as 'crititism', but I've never purported to be an authorative exponent of grammar... and anyway people know what I meant.

You on the other hand fall over your own feet in your haste to criticise and nit-pick anyone that gets up your nose and what's worse you obviously don't bother to get your facts right before you put hypercritical mouth/mind into gear (you misquote - two 'i's) .

I rest my case!