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

[Parley]

Caramac, I was talking about myself and myself only and what I'm doing.

 

If you want to ignore it and smoke and drink to excess go ahead.

 

Cancer doesn't come out of thin air though, something causes it.

 

Anyway it is a healthy lifestyle for me which I think is a lot more likely to protect me against cancer than not doing so.

[GiveAGirlShoes]

Why did you quote me when your post had nothing to do with my comment, which was:

 

>>Why is this charging scheme OK for water, but isn't OK for Medicare? I can go for months without Medicare, but I won't last to the end of the week without water.

 

If you're acutely thirsty, you can't go 4 hours without water, bla bla bla.

 

Try to follow along. We have 2 absolutely essential services required for us to survive and thrive. One is based on a pay-as-you-consume model. One is based on a free-at-the-point-of-consumption model. Which model is the correct one in a "fair and just society"?

 

Either you have to conclude that paying for water is unjust, or that paying for Medicare is justifiable. Or, if you're able, construct a logical argument why the status quo should be preserved. But don't simply quote a post then ignore the content, as if doing so somehow rebuffs the argument.

 

I quoted a part of your post that was relevant to what I thought.

 

I understand you were making a point about water, but in that you stated that YOU can go months without needing Medicare.

I wasn't arguing with you, or saying your point of view or your opinions were incorrect. If you are upset that I chose one particular part that's a shame but I wasn't pointing any fingers!

 

Water is a basic necessity to survive, a point that no one would argue, and what you say implies that those who use an excessive amount are charged accordingly.

 

12 visits to YOUR doctor per year plus 12 prescriptions, 4 blood tests and 2 visits to an endo probably is excessive for you. If YOU were charged a lot of money for this excessive use (as you would be with water) that would probably be fair.

 

My point is that those visits, tests and prescriptions are a minimum requirement for both survival and to maintain a lifestyle free of the associated pathologies of my condition, so for ME those charges would seem very unfair if charged in a similar manner to water.

 

Of course some people may need more water than others, but in answer to your question I would say that estimating a baseline for water usage is perhaps more quantifiable than estimating a baseline for access to healthcare (I stress again that I'm sure I could and would be able to afford this, but it may deter others from doing so)

 

Had this been an actual conversation the quote I took would have been where I picked up my cue to speak.

Edited May 20, 2014 by GiveAGirlShoes

[Guest Guest16631]

........@parley cross..........whilst a healthy lifestyle does ....help.....protect against cancer....

........it is not a guarantee.......

........and distressingly someone who has lived their life healthily......in all ways......

.........even gone out of their way to live like this......

..........can develop a cancer....!

...........I too was of the glib opinion that healthy lifestyle ensured healthy living......

...........sadly pc.........this is not always the case.....

............so while I pray and hope your journey is a smooth one......

.............do spare a little thought for those who's isn't.......

..............through no fault of their own............tink x

[Shellybingobingo]

Caramac, I was talking about myself and myself only and what I'm doing.

 

If you want to ignore it and smoke and drink to excess go ahead.

 

Cancer doesn't come out of thin air though, something causes it.

 

Anyway it is a healthy lifestyle for me which I think is a lot more likely to protect me against cancer than not doing so.

 

 

I think ink parley cross what you mean is a healthy lifestyle may keep it at bay , doesn't say you haven't inherited the genes , my friend my best friend died last year at 46 , her dad at 40 and her brother at 49 , all of same thing because they inherited , my auntie never smoked and drinked , but was unfortunate

 

when I used to work with learning disabilities , I use to look after a lady who was quadraplegic age 40 had a brain stem aneurism , never smoked and drinker , you never now , good on ya for keeping healthy . And yes cancer will come out of nowhere if you inherited .

[GiveAGirlShoes]

........@parley cross..........whilst a healthy lifestyle does ....help.....protect against cancer....

........it is not a guarantee.......

........and distressingly someone who has lived their life healthily......in all ways......

.........even gone out of their way to live like this......

..........can develop a cancer....!

...........I too was of the glib opinion that healthy lifestyle ensured healthy living......

...........sadly pc.........this is not always the case.....

............so while I pray and hope your journey is a smooth one......

.............do spare a little thought for those who's isn't.......

..............through no fault of their own............tink x

 

This brings to mind some now dated opinions about HIV.

 

While nobody is wrong, there was a time when many people believed that by not having unprotected sex, you would not contract the virus.

 

It is true that by having safe sex you can protect yourself, and this should be advocated.

But it is also unfair to assume that a person has caught the virus by some poor decision making, as was discovered when HIV was contracted via blood transfusions.

[Skani]

Anyway Tony Abbott has said it won't happen at all.

 

 

 

Which means, going by every other promise he's made, that it will be a certainty.

[caramac]

Caramac, I was talking about myself and myself only and what I'm doing.

 

If you want to ignore it and smoke and drink to excess go ahead.

 

Cancer doesn't come out of thin air though, something causes it.

 

Anyway it is a healthy lifestyle for me which I think is a lot more likely to protect me against cancer than not doing so.

 

 

I'm not ignoring anything and I don't smoke and rarely drink, but having had people who have led healthy lives around me suffer, and some die, from cancer I know it's a lottery and no matter how healthy a lifestyle some have, it's no protection. Cancer can be caused by a multitude of things - faulty genes, viruses, faulty immune systems etcand it's mainly a disease associated with age, so your recipe may help, but it may not be enough to mean you 'not getting cancer'.

[Skani]

As people get poorer, they get fatter. In Australia at least.

 

And certainly in the US...and probably in the UK judging by what I see on TV these days.

 

Chips - cheap, filling...and fattening. Full of transfats and carbs - but the best bang for your buck for satiety. In an age when most people don't grow their own food and cheap fast food is available everywhere, it actually costs more to eat a healthy diet.

[Parley]

I'm not ignoring anything and I don't smoke and rarely drink, but having had people who have led healthy lives around me suffer, and some die, from cancer I know it's a lottery and no matter how healthy a lifestyle some have, it's no protection. Cancer can be caused by a multitude of things - faulty genes, viruses, faulty immune systems etcand it's mainly a disease associated with age, so your recipe may help, but it may not be enough to mean you 'not getting cancer'.

 

Unfortunately that is the rationale that many smokers live by.

 

They say they know of healthy people who have never smoked and got cancer. This is their justification for continuing to smoke themselves.

[Shellybingobingo]

Unfortunately that is the rationale that many smokers live by.

 

They say they know of healthy people who have never smoked and got cancer. This is their justification for continuing to smoke themselves.

 

 

I smoke parley cross , I'm not proud of it don't even like the smell of it lol , but I do it tried giving up but I miss it lol , yes I do know healthy people who have never smoked and drinked and got cancer , I'm not a big drinker only Tia Maria and baileys I will drink but a bottle will last me a month , or if I go a barbie maybe a day lol .

 

yes I understand the risk , life is a choice everything you do with it is a choice , but understanding the consequences that may go with it , me grandad was a smoker blimming lung bleeders he smoked lived till he was in his ripe old 90 s .

 

life is a lottery .

 

By saying what I say by the people who I know and have heard of many more is not my justification for continuing to smoke , I live by the fact that I could get knocked down tomorrow , or just simply drop down dead , I hope not like but , smokers get enough stick

 

I'm outside in the open not hurting anyone , not down the pub necking a bottle of vodka smashing someone over the head with the bottle . Like I say I'm not proud of smoking , but I enjoy a fag gotta be honest :biggrin:

[Guest]

And certainly in the US...and probably in the UK judging by what I see on TV these days.

 

Chips - cheap, filling...and fattening. Full of transfats and carbs - but the best bang for your buck for satiety. In an age when most people don't grow their own food and cheap fast food is available everywhere, it actually costs more to eat a healthy diet.

 

That's rubbish. Buying a family of 4 Mcdonalds is not cheaper than cooking healthily.

 

Go into any Mcdonalds and it is full of poor people. It's probably because they can't cook as many seem to have zero life skills.

[Que Sera Sera]

Fast food is definitely the problem I reckon how cheap is a Hungry Jacks or Maccy D's ? Whilst I think they taste like rubbish they are quick cheap and for busy working parents very easy.When I was a kid convenience food was beans on toast which by comparison is much healthier. Mind you we also had beef dripping on bread so not sure it was much better :wink:

[VERYSTORMY]

I will also say that I think the 2% levy is unfair. I will just miss it, so not an issue for me, but, these people are already paying a higher rate of tax, they also pay a lot more total amount in tax and in general will take less out of the system for it. They are unlikely to be eligible for any state benefits, they probably have private health care, they probably send their kids to private school. Yet, they are, again being told to prop up the rest of society. The only reason being that they can afford it more.

[Tina2]

Tina, I think you're making all that up.

None of that has ever been suggested.

 

Best to wait and see rather than guessing a whole lot of doomsday scenarios.

 

But you can be sure they won't make surprise changes effecting people close to retirement.

Like the pension age change coming in 2035 it recognises the reality of people living longer and leaves plenty of time for planning.

Actually it has. Hockey prior to the last election was raving on about how access to the super had to change because people were wasteing it on overseas holidays and then sponging off the pension. We will wait and see.

[Xenon4017]

I understand you were making a point about water, but in that you stated that YOU can go months without needing Medicare.

 

 

Great. We're back on track.

 

Actually, it's not just me. Most people resort to Medicare quite infrequently. If it were otherwise, the system would collapse. That's OK. I look upon it like an insurance. Most of the time I don't need it, but if something major happens, then I can draw on the resource at a far greater rate than I contribute. It's in the nature of insurance that some people contribute more than they consume, and some people consume more than they contribute. Again, that's all good, because by and large, people don't choose to be ill, and certainly not to be ill with the kinds of conditions that require expensive treatment.

 

Rather helpfully, you brought up the issue of dealing with excessive use/consumption. With water, I'll pay directly for that. This might tend to modify my behaviour. It certainly has for my neighbour, who built a pool and installed a rainwater tank to top up the pool evaporation.

 

There's a big difference between the provision of clean water and the provision of healthcare. We all need to drink about 2 litres of water per day. And we shower, wash clothes, and maybe have a pool. But our consumption is relatively inelastic. I'm not going to drink 6 litres per day if it's cheap, and I'm not going to drink 1/2 litre is it's expensive. If it were free then maybe some stupid people would leave the taps running, creating waste, but let's ignore them for now.

 

With healthcare, there's no real limit on my consumption, even for people who aren't trying to rort the system. Medicare doesn't just step in when I've got an imminent disease to battle. It'll also provide me with drugs to balance my metabolism, hip replacements, etc etc. Each year there's more that can be done to prolong my life and increase the quality of my life. The health service, in any country, under any government, can absorb as much money as is thrown at it. The question is then: how can we ensure that the limited resources are directed for the greater common good? One way, and not a bad way in my opinion, is to pass on a nominal cost to the consumer. I say nominal, because a visit to the doctor costs far more than 7$. Perhaps an ideal solution would be to hand over 20 mins of whatever your hourly wage is, then richer people pay more. The essential point is that people understand that the more they consume, the more they pay. This is in line with everything else they consume in life, so it's a model with which they are familiar.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Xenon4017

[Xenon4017]

Fast food is definitely the problem I reckon how cheap is a Hungry Jacks or Maccy D's ?

 

Is it a coincidence that the 7$ doctors fee is about the same as a Happy Meal?

[akiralx]

National News

 

 

Salvation Army study shows almost a quarter of Australian welfare recipients cannot afford medical care

 

 

 

 

ALMOST a quarter of Australians on welfare are currently unable to afford medical treatment when needed and a third are unable to buy medicines prescribed by a doctor.

 

The findings, contained in the Salvation Army’s annual Economic and Social Impact Study, to be released today, have raised fresh concerns about how some of Australia’s poorest families will cope when the federal government’s new $7 GP co-payment and changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme come into effect on 1 July next year.

 

 

The Salvation Army’s Bruce Redman said the $7 co-contribution for routine doctors’ visits ignored the economic circumstances of the poor.

 

“While for most Australians a fee of $7 might not sound like much, for someone who lives on less than $35 a day, including their housing costs, this is yet another burden on their already fragile financial position,” Dr Redman said.

 

 

The study, which surveyed 2500 Salvation Army clients, found more than 60 per cent of welfare recipients are unable to afford dental treatment.

Another 23 per cent say they cannot afford medical treatment when needed and almost 40 per cent of people receiving the Newstart allowance say they have been unable to buy medicines prescribed by a doctor.

 

Single parents, many of whom will be hit by the federal government’s changes to Family Tax Benefit part B, are also making difficult decisions to balance their family budget.

 

Almost half of the parents admitted they go without meals because they cannot afford to eat, while almost 40 per cent say they sold or pawned possessions to make ends meet.

 

 

Their children frequently have to forgo hobbies and leisure activities because of financial constraints, and more than 40 per cent of the children of single parents on welfare are going to school without up to date schoolbooks, uniforms and equipment.

[Shellybingobingo]

That's rubbish. Buying a family of 4 Mcdonalds is not cheaper than cooking healthily.

 

Go into any Mcdonalds and it is full of poor people. It's probably because they can't cook as many seem to have zero life skills.

 

 

Mcdonalds is not full of poor people , my kids would live in there , I carnt cook but I have life skills I'm not a great cooker should I say ,

 

 

I can can run rings round most people who have these so called life skill because they tend to have no common sense .

 

my youngest won't eat salad or fruit only banana he has everything plain , I end up cooking separate meals because he won't eat onions , mushrooms , ect ... He won't eat beef but he will eat a meat and potato pie lol , kids will change when they are ready , my eldest wouldn't touch salad when he was younger , he does now loves it . Kids are kids .

 

But out macdonalds to say it's full of poor is rubbish .:biggrin:

[akiralx]

I will also say that I think the 2% levy is unfair. I will just miss it, so not an issue for me, but, these people are already paying a higher rate of tax, they also pay a lot more total amount in tax....

 

Not necessarily - if they have negatively-geared investment properties.

[Guest]

Mcdonalds is not full of poor people , my kids would live in there , I carnt cook but I have life skills I'm not a great cooker should I say ,

 

 

I can can run rings round most people who have these so called life skill because they tend to have no common sense .

 

my youngest won't eat salad or fruit only banana he has everything plain , I end up cooking separate meals because he won't eat onions , mushrooms , ect ... He won't eat beef but he will eat a meat and potato pie lol , kids will change when they are ready , my eldest wouldn't touch salad when he was younger , he does now loves it . Kids are kids .

 

But out macdonalds to say it's full of poor is rubbish .:biggrin:

 

I'm sorry to be offensive but McDonalds does attract a large proportion of lower socio economic types.

 

Maybe Your child likes bland food because he is fed fast foods?

[Katie22]

I will also say that I think the 2% levy is unfair. I will just miss it, so not an issue for me, but, these people are already paying a higher rate of tax, they also pay a lot more total amount in tax and in general will take less out of the system for it. They are unlikely to be eligible for any state benefits, they probably have private health care, they probably send their kids to private school. Yet, they are, again being told to prop up the rest of society. The only reason being that they can afford it more.

 

I work in the private health system and come across quite a lot of people on not large incomes, especially pensioners, who budget and do without to pay their private insurance premiums for their own protection and peace of mind. In fact I used to have it myself but it got to the point that I had to choose between private health insurance or school fees, the school fees won so I had to give up that insurance as just couldn't afford it anymore. So not everyone who has private health insurance is wealthy and the same with school fees. My daughter's friend, has a part-time job to pay towards her own fees as her mum is on a low income - she's 16 yrs old.

 

I can't say if I think this 2% levy is unfair or not, maybe if I was earning that much and seeing that money being taken away then I would be angry. But sometimes I think people should be thankful for what they have rather than what they don't have, sure they're being hit by the budget but if you compare income, are they being hit harder than the poor? Denying benefit to someone under the age of 30 who may become unexpectedly unemployed is just criminal, and if that person was on a low income anyway, there's very little chance of them having had enough income to put away to be able to support themselves and possibly their family too until they find another job. Of course people who have health insurance and private education relieve some of the pressure from the public system but they also may need that public health or education system one day - life is fickle and unpredictable - one day you can have everything and a moment in time can take it all away and then you'd be very grateful for a little help.

[Que Sera Sera]

Most families will have a mixture of all though. We will be subject to the 2% and its not a problem, we are fortunate but I've two hard working daughters who are only on just above the minimum wage , living away from home so they really can't afford to take any hits. I really don't think this budget will see any winners but then do budgets ever?

[Shellybingobingo]

I'm sorry to be offensive but McDonalds does attract a large proportion of lower socio economic types.

 

Maybe Your child likes bland food because he is fed fast foods?

 

 

No no no offense taken at all , my kids can have what they want to a degree , they have proper meals cooked for them , don't get touched . I buy fillet steaks , lasagne I cook , curry , potato beef or chicken dinners , chop dinners , I give em carrots has baby's and fruit never touched them .

 

Kids ds will be kids put a potato dinner in front of my kids when they were younger they wouldn't touch it , what I'm I suppose to do let them starve , give them a sausage they eat it .

 

I take ale my kids out for meals too all the time not just macdonalds proper sit down meals , but I will guarentee you , they would rather have a Big Mac without the stuff just cheese and meat .

 

I've tried everything with my kids , my older two will eat dinners and salads and fish and steak now they are older but when they were kids wouldn't touch it ,

 

my my youngest still won't touch stuff he likes what he likes and that's it , I'm not going be cruel to be kind because they will grow out of it .

 

My my kids only have to say what they want and need I will do what ever I can for them . But I don't force them to eat something they don't like ,

 

they drink 4 cases of diet coke a week between them , not great for them I know but carnt get them out the habit of it . You might say don't buy it , I've tried that

 

I think maybe from my childhood it stems , were not allowed pop / soda . We couldn't have a chocolate biscuit without asking , my mum and step dad would have fish chips and peas on a Friday just for them two fish on a Friday they called it .

 

Me me and my other brother and sisters got 2 rounds of bread and butter on a Friday with a packet of crisps . How was that fair I have done the reverse with mine , never had to ask for something to eat pop galore in my house .

 

My my parents hav em allowed in old age now , but when we were growing up I couldn't wait get the hell out of there .

 

Times change and and people change I love em now so good to my kids and my grandson they are wouldn't see em short of anything .

 

Im im just saying being right or wrong in peoples eyes what I do with my kids they are short of nothing food wise they can have what they want eat but I'll never force them to eat something they don't like .

 

Does that hat make me of lower socio economic , I've been there has a kid , won't want it for mine . And yes if I let them they would look like a chip lol . But no offense taken .

[Xenon4017]

I've two hard working daughters who are only on just above the minimum wage , living away from home so they really can't afford to take any hits. I really don't think this budget will see any winners but then do budgets ever?

 

Only the budgets where you borrow the money to give out.

 

If I were to suggest that your daughters could ease their current financial burden by taking a bank loan, then taking another loan to pay off the interest, you'd think I was mad. Yet this is effectively what the nation has been doing. On a personal level, the holes in this argument are obvious, yet on a national level the folly of it hardly penetrates.

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Ok Pom Queen, my recipe for not getting cancer is as follows:

 

1. Don't Smoke

2. Don't take illicit drugs

3. Partake in alcohol only moderately

4. Eat a balanced low fat diet

5. Avoid adding salt to any food

6. Minimise sugar intake

7. Exercise regularly.

8. Don't hang around in environments that have known carcinogens - avoid petrol fumes, paint fumes any other fumes

9. Protect yourself from the Aussie Sun appropriatly.

 

I think doing these will protect me from cancer.

I'm nearly 50 and no cancer yet so time will tell, but if you go against these you are probably a lot more likely to get cancer than me.

Ok I have never done any of the above, smoke, drugs, alcohol I use to have one glass a year, no where near fumes, Aussie sun, low fat diet, hate sugar, but ended up with Cervical cancer twice and esophagal cancer and now they have found a lump in the 10% of stomach I have left, I currently live on 400 calories a day, ok I can't exercise now because I'm to weak.

I have been told I have the lungs of a 80yr old in the past yet I've never in my life smoked.

So according to you its all my fault and I should have been able to stop this happening?