Bulk billing is dead. Not a good time to be in Australia if you are sick

[Skani]

Wrong again.

On first prefs, Liberal won 58 seats to Labor 55.

 

So they would still have won without the Nationals.

 

Harpo's question was "who elected this mob of nutters?" I don't think he's particularly interested in seats...unless he's planning to nuke individual electorates?

(In which case he can target northern Tasmania...but leave Hobart alone. Only 23% of nutters here. :wink:)

[Skani]

I have been paying $70 a visit to the doctors (ok medicare paid $50 of it) plus prescription fees, so i will be better off won't i?

 

You being funny? :unsure: Bit worried that you might not be. :huh:

[Guest Guest66881]

You being funny? :unsure: Bit worried that you might not be. :huh:

 

I had a brain fart mate, looks like i will be flipping out over a $100 a time at the docs on average:cry: and i couldn't vote:mad:

[silencio]

Paying 7 bucks per visit the one thing, the other thing is the medicare levy with the tax return. Why they didn't abolish this, when 'they' decided that we're going to get 'American conditions' in our health care system without voters consent.

If they want us to pay to see a doctor that's fine, but it's unfair to charge again in the tax return. To invoice twice like tricksters. What comes next a 'hospital bed tax' when people are admitted to hospital?

[Guest The Pom Queen]

I have been paying $70 a visit to the doctors (ok medicare paid $50 of it) plus prescription fees, so i will be better off won't i?

:laugh: They need to pay me for keeping them all in a job. To be honest I haven't looked at the medical things in the budget but is the $7 just for if you go to a bulk billing Dr? To be honest since my Dr moved clinics recently I've been paying the $70 as well so I don't think we will have to pay $77 now. I do agree with people being charged for going to A and E if they haven't anything serious, in fact I think they should pay around $100 for every non urgent visit. The prescription thing will affect me because for some silly reason over here you have to pay for each medication and they put them on a separate prescription. At present I spend probably $200 per month on meds. I keep forgetting to sort out the safety net as well for the meds as its totally different to the Medicare safety net, why can't they run both together

[MichaelP]

No the copayment only applies to bulk billing practices. GPs say the copayment will make it unviable for them to offer bulk billing, as they will also lose other Medicare incentives if they waive the copayment for needy patients. So the Liberal program is really about stopping bulk billing. Many GPs will actually welcome this as it will allow them to charge much bigger 'gap' fees. In other words, it will soon cost everyone $70 to see a doctor, with a $32 Medicare rebate.

[MichaelP]

The $7 fee for an emergency visit is bad policy for three reasons

 

1. Emergency departments are not overun with patients who should really be seeing a GP. They make up only a small proportion, and many are there for good reasons, eg because GPs are not available or they don't have a GP. In some regional areas there is a 2 week wait to see a GP (if you can get on their books)

2. Collecting the fee will be a admin nightmare and also cost more than it raises.

3. The fee may well deter the very people who should be encouraged to go immediately to the emergency department - such as parents whose kids show early signs of meningococcal disease (which can kill in 24 hours) and older people with stroke symptoms.

 

Don't forget that some states already charge $300-$800 for an ambulance to emergency department. Many people die or are severely disabled by heart attacks and strokes each year in Australia because they don't get to the emergency department within the 90 minute 'treatment window'. Extra fees will just make this problem worse.

Edited May 15, 2014 by MichaelP

[Harpodom]

The $7 co-payment as I understand it will act as a means to dissuade GPs from bulk billing.

 

Previous govts have tried to maintain high rates of bulk billing for obvious reasons, by using incentive payments: a GP who BBs a concession card holder, gets an extra payment of around $9. Bulk billing rates have traditionally been around 80% for GP consultations.

 

In the proposed system, we will have the perverse situation where a GP will only get a 'Low Gap Incentive' payment if they charge the co-payment. If the GP waives the co-payment and just BBs the patient, not only does the GP miss out on the $9 incentive and $7 co-payment, but will also miss out on the medicare rebate which will decrease by $5.

 

So effectively the GP has a choice of getting paid around $47 or $31 for the same consultation, depending on whether or not they waive the co-payment. This is turning GPs into tax collectors (as suggested by Shorten), in a bid to try and discourage (poor) people from seeing the doctor. All of this was heavily rejected by the Royal Australian College of GPs prior to the budget, but unfortunately and importantly NOT rejected by the Australian Medical Association.

 

Now, you may think GPs are fair game and should just take the hit. But GPs operate in a private system whereby their main/only source of income is through medicare rebates. They're not (all) stupid: many will pass on the extra cost to patients.

 

Net result, bulk billing a thing of the past. Poor people, who already suffer some of the highest healthcare and prescription/drug costs in the world, will get sicker, and avoidable deaths will ensue.

 

Of course, 'private' patients will be largely unaffected: they will be charged the same, but of course they will receive $5 less in rebate from Medicare.

 

It is perverse in the extreme. Anyone who voted for this mob should feel very ashamed of themselves.

[amibovered]

It's going to put doctors in a terrible position, if a mother brings a sick child in but can't afford to pay, what is the doc supposed to do?

[Diane]

It is perverse in the extreme. Anyone who voted for this mob should feel very ashamed of themselves.

 

To be fair, I presume they voted at least partially on the basis of what Tony Abbott promised beforehand - i.e. no new taxes, no cuts to education or health care or pensions, no cuts to the ABC or SBS....

 

There are Marches taking place across the country tomorrow (Sunday) to protest - try and find your local one and join in. This happened (I think on a smaller scale) in March and got hardly any coverage in the media, despite the numbers being in the thousands at each March, but I have a feeling there will be a lot higher turnout tomorrow, and will be interesting to see if it gets more coverage.

 

Abbott is obviously happy with his own handiwork - this is a picture that his people tried to have removed from the internet apparently, of him celebrating with daily Telegraph reporters after the budget delivery

 

[Guest]

Honest question. Do these changes need to be approved by the Senate in order to become law?

They certainly do. To be fair i think Mr Abbott and co are going to have a hard time getting this through the senate. I'm fairly certain Mr Shorten and the Greens and co will not let this one slip through.

[Harpodom]

They certainly do. To be fair i think Mr Abbott and co are going to have a hard time getting this through the senate. I'm fairly certain Mr Shorten and the Greens and co will not let this one slip through.

 

Which begs the question, what on earth were they thinking? They must have known how unpopular these measures would be, or are they THAT out of touch?

[Guest]

Here's my take on what i think will happen. The co payment will not get pass the senate, the fuel excise levy thingy will be passed, the changes to benefits will go either way, the means test changes to family benefits will most likely get through. The deregulation of uni's will go through. Changes to the indexation of age pensions doubtful. All the other cuts etc will be subject to wheeling and dealing in back rooms. Just my opinion. However i wouldn't trust any of them not to throw us all under the bus really. Shorten has already stated publicly that labor will not support the co payment or changes to the indexation of pensions. However he also said he supported Rudd And Gillard at various times and we all know they both got knifed by Shorten so who knows????

[Harpodom]

Here's my take on what i think will happen. The co payment will not get pass the senate, the fuel excise levy thingy will be passed, the changes to benefits will go either way, the means test changes to family benefits will most likely get through. The deregulation of uni's will go through. Changes to the indexation of age pensions doubtful. All the other cuts etc will be subject to wheeling and dealing in back rooms. Just my opinion. However i wouldn't trust any of them not to throw us all under the bus really. Shorten has already stated publicly that labor will not support the co payment or changes to the indexation of pensions. However he also said he supported Rudd And Gillard at various times and we all know they both got knifed by Shorten so who knows????

 

Shorten may be a bit dim, but I don't think he's dim enough to do anything other than block the co-payment idea.

[Skani]

Which begs the question, what on earth were they thinking? They must have known how unpopular these measures would be, or are they THAT out of touch?

 

As unbelievable (and painful) as it is, they really must be THAT out of touch. It seems to be confirmed every time they open their mouths....eg Hockey's comment about the $7 co payment or this stunner:

"I'd expect you'd have a job" when asked how someone was supposed to live on NOTHING for 6 months.

 

The last time I looked there were 140,000 job vacancies in Oz - and 720,000 people looking for employment.

Can't he do the maths? Or can no one do them for him? His wife seems to have done very well as an investment banker...you'd think she, at least, would have a calculator and could explain it to him.:rolleyes:

So where are the extra 580,000 jobs? Didn't notice any mention of a Magic Pudding creating those in the budget. In fact their slash and burn method is going to destroy more jobs - and quickly.

 

They look like spoilt rich brats with a right wing agenda who have never lived in the real world....at least the world inhabited by 95% of Australians. Someone should banish them from Canberra and North Shore Sydney and send them into exile in the rest of Oz for a year or two.

 

I think they're thinking "the peasants won't like it....but they'll get used to it...we'll have two more budgets to sweeten them up...and they'll forget".

They might have under estimated the peasants this time.

 

If you haven't already seen it, this article sums it up nicely:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbotts-name-is-mud-20140515-zrd9w.html#ixzz31vxoBH00

[Mike@Bonbeach]

It's my understanding that the $7 co-payment is not just for a visit to the doctor. If he sends you for a blood test then another $7, go back to the Doctor's for the results, another $7, results are indecisive so he sends you for an X-ray, another $7, back to the doc for the results, another $7. If you've got some mysterious illness you could soon rack up a fair bit when in the past it wouldn't cost a thing.

Why don't they just increase the Medicare surcharge on a persons salary?, after all there then will be no need for doctors to become tax collectors at an additional cost to them.

I know that the proposal is to limit it to $70 per year, but is that per person, per family or maybe per practioner, will it be $70 p.a per person and $70 per doctor and $70 per x-ray dept and $70 per blood testing. There are a lot of things to be clarified.

Mike

[Skani]

Why don't they just increase the Medicare surcharge on a persons salary?, after all there then will be no need for doctors to become tax collectors at an additional cost to them.

 

 

Of course. Which is why so many people are suspicious that it's actually not about raising extra money for a "budget emergency" but about destroying Medicare and accessible healthcare for everyone.

[Parley]

Hey guys, I hear the NHS is really good.

[Shellybingobingo]

Well it's going cost me a fortune then , son is insulin dependant , bllod tests , then results , prescriptions , ect.... Free prescriptions on the NHs for life if on meds for life I do miss that lol .... But if you've got pay it , you've got pay it , not great but health comes first . :biggrin:

[wrussell]

They will live to regret it!

 

Perhaps not, if they cannot find $7 +++

[wrussell]

Of course. Which is why so many people are suspicious that it's actually not about raising extra money for a "budget emergency" but about destroying Medicare and accessible healthcare for everyone.

That is correct.

[Diane]

Of course. Which is why so many people are suspicious that it's actually not about raising extra money for a "budget emergency" but about destroying Medicare and accessible healthcare for everyone.

 

Actually I heard on the radio this morning that none of the $7 is to raise any money for this manufactured 'budget emergency' but will in fact be used for the 'medical research donation' Abbott is offering (which I am sure will go to big pharmaceutical companies - such as maybe the one that sponsors Abbott's cycling shirt? #justsaying.... especially as the CSIRO budget has been cut in the budget too), so what you are saying sounds more and more likely

Edited May 18, 2014 by Diane

[Tina2]

It's going to put doctors in a terrible position, if a mother brings a sick child in but can't afford to pay, what is the doc supposed to do?

 

It will be like the US where you dont get seen by a doctor if you dont have money or insurance.

[Tina2]

To get back to my point ... you will now be paying an extra $7 for the doctor, $7 for the blood test, $7 for the X-ray and $5 for each prescription - easily an extra $30 - 40 each visit. Family with two or three kids, five to ten GP visits a year each. Do the math, as the Septics say.

And then you have to go back to the doctor for the results of those tests. My prescription bill ( using the less expencive brands is around $124 but as some medications last 3 months, every 3rd month is is $184. Just to get a repete perscription you will have to pay $7. Liberals have always been the same they want a huge surplus so they can claim to be the best government in the world, the fact that many citizens live inpovety is irrelevant.

Its going to get interesting as Palmer has made it very clear he will block the GP tax, as have Labour and The Greens. So back to the poles to vote on Abbotts Australia, the one he refused to tell the people about prior to the last election.

[JJJB]

It will be like the US where you dont get seen by a doctor if you dont have money or insurance.

 

Total Americanization of Medicare is under way.

 

The irony of people not being able to go to the doctor unless they can afford to pay into the biggest medical research fund in the world is lost on these pollies. Australia is just 1/350 of the world's population, why do we have to fund such a large research fund anyway, that will mostly benefit international pharma companies?

 

The cost of people not going to the doctor is going to be very expensive in the long term.