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

[HappyHeart]

ad hominem - as expected. Carry on

Are you Flag in disguise...or have you just taken the baton for a while?

[Sammy1]

when I get an idiotic answer, and a rude one at that, downright insulting, I respond harshly. I have made some comments that bear close examination, and I see low level pushback and sheer ignorance. If you cannot take a robust response, rethink the answers

 

The reply you gave HappyHeart was not robust, quite the reverse, it was merely lazy and insulting.

[HappyHeart]

The reply you gave HappyHeart was not robust, quite the reverse, it was merely lazy and insulting.

 

Thats what I thought:wub:

[wakeboard1980]

Now now kids

[caramac]

when I get an idiotic answer, and a rude one at that, downright insulting, I respond harshly. I have made some comments that bear close examination, and I see low level pushback and sheer ignorance. If you cannot take a robust response, rethink the answers

 

 

I'm sorry, but stating that 'simple answers are needed' in response to someone who disagrees with you was the first insult and very arrogant.

We were looking at your post and questioning it because we can see flaws in the argument. Just because we don't agree doesn't make us 'simple'.

[Tina2]

Is he sure he is a Doctor? That would be my reply too, Happy Heart.

If he is a doc dont think I would like him treating me.

[Harpodom]

Question to the gallery. Should pensioners and concession card holders be forced to pay a co-payment?

 

Simple yes or no

[Tina2]

Question to the gallery. Should pensioners and concession card holders be forced to pay a co-payment?

 

Simple yes or no

NO !

[weaver]

Question to the gallery. Should pensioners and concession card holders be forced to pay a co-payment?

 

Simple yes or no

 

Simple answer (even if it means I'm called simple) - NO

[Xenon4017]

If he is a doc dont think I would like him treating me.

 

Well, if you're not prepared to pay your 7$, you might not get a choice.

 

In spite of all the...well, spite, I've yet to see a logical rebuttal of his initial claim. Namely that the funding model currently in use is unsustainable. Anyone care to have a go?

[Harpodom]

Well, if you're not prepared to pay your 7$, you might not get a choice.

 

In spite of all the...well, spite, I've yet to see a logical rebuttal of his initial claim. Namely that the funding model currently in use is unsustainable. Anyone care to have a go?

 

Did you see the question I asked? Care to answer it?

[Xenon4017]

Did you see the question I asked? Care to answer it?

 

You mean this one:

 

>>Should pensioners and concession card holders be forced to pay a co-payment?

 

OK, my answer: make it means tested.

 

So, back to the slightly larger elephant in the room. How are we going to fund the concessions? Still no takers?

[Harpodom]

You mean this one:

 

>>Should pensioners and concession card holders be forced to pay a co-payment?

 

OK, my answer: make it means tested.

 

So, back to the slightly larger elephant in the room. How are we going to fund the concessions? Still no takers?

 

But....IT'S ALREADY BLOODY MEANS TESTED!!!!

[Sammy1]

But....IT'S ALREADY BLOODY MEANS TESTED!!!!

 

Thank God you said that, I just hit my head in frustration.

[Tina2]

How can the LNP followers expect people to take their "budget emergency" seriously when they are splashing out $100,000 for picture of Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and Peter Slipper to hang in the halls of Parliment house. ? How many hungry or homeless people would that help ? How many $7 contributions would that cover ? Do we need these pictures or do we need health cover for the most vunerable ?

[Xenon4017]

But....IT'S ALREADY BLOODY MEANS TESTED!!!!

 

So leave it as it is? Where's your problem?

 

Anyway, can somebody- anybody?- answer the original question that has been iterated several times throughout this thread but body swerved by those who praise the idea of free healthcare for all.

 

Edit.

......15 minutes go by and the silence is as dead as bulk billing is purported to be. Must remember not to ask such awkward questions......

Edited May 26, 2014 by Xenon4017

[Harpodom]

So leave it as it is? Where's your problem?

 

Anyway, can somebody- anybody?- answer the original question that has been iterated several times throughout this thread but body swerved by those who praise the idea of free healthcare for all.

 

But it's not free healthcare for all at the moment, is it??

 

So yeah, I'd leave it as is, and make savings elsewhere.

 

Cutting out unnecessary prescribing costs associated with prescribing non generics or unnecessarily expensive drugs (if a proven and valid alternative exists) would be a good start.

 

Cutting out the practice of specialists requiring new referral letters each year for ongoing chronic disease would be another.

 

Exerting pressure on doctors to reduce unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics, statins, PPIs etc would be another.

 

Negating the need for people to require a medical certificate from their GP for a day off sick from work would be another.

 

Discouraging the practice of GPs making patients return to discuss their entirely normal results would be another.

 

Do you see my point? There's lots of ways to save money, rather than just picking on the weak and defenceless

[HappyHeart]

But it's not free healthcare for all at the moment, is it??

 

So yeah, I'd leave it as is, and make savings elsewhere.

 

Cutting out unnecessary prescribing costs associated with prescribing non generics or unnecessarily expensive drugs (if a proven and valid alternative exists) would be a good start.

 

Cutting out the practice of specialists requiring new referral letters each year for ongoing chronic disease would be another.

 

Exerting pressure on doctors to reduce unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics, statins, PPIs etc would be another.

 

Negating the need for people to require a medical certificate from their GP for a day off sick from work would be another.

 

Discouraging the practice of GPs making patients return to discuss their entirely normal results would be another.

 

Do you see my point? There's lots of ways to save money, rather than just picking on the weak and defenceless

 

Common sense reigns supreme..my faith in humanity restored

Edited May 26, 2014 by HappyHeart

[Xenon4017]

But it's not free healthcare for all at the moment, is it??

 

 

You can say that again. Some people pay an awful lot.

 

You seem to be implying that doctors themselves are responsible for the health service budget blowout. Is that really fair?

[Harpodom]

You can say that again. Some people pay an awful lot.

 

You seem to be implying that doctors themselves are responsible for the health service budget blowout. Is that really fair?

 

GPs, employers, specialists, pharma co's, demanding patients. The list is long, it doesn't just include poor people

[HappyHeart]

Society..and evolution of modern healthcare has created the patient as a critical and demanding consumer of health resources....now society demands we go back to doing as told...paternalism is best..I can see this from both sides of the fence but surely cost cutting starts with policy makers and providers not service users?

[Xenon4017]

GPs, employers, specialists, pharma co's, demanding patients. The list is long, it doesn't just include poor people

 

Demanding patients? You mean people who occupy the doctors time with minor ailments? What could be done about such consumptive folk? I hope you're not about to suggest that their demand could be throttled back by the application of a modest financial contribution on their part.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Xenon4017

[HappyHeart]

I don't think making hard pressed people pay encourages a wellness approach and pro-active patients..quite the opposite

[docboat]

But it's not free healthcare for all at the moment, is it??

So yeah, I'd leave it as is, and make savings elsewhere.

Cutting out unnecessary prescribing costs associated with prescribing non generics or unnecessarily expensive drugs (if a proven and valid alternative exists) would be a good start.

Cutting out the practice of specialists requiring new referral letters each year for ongoing chronic disease would be another.

Exerting pressure on doctors to reduce unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics, statins, PPIs etc would be another.

Negating the need for people to require a medical certificate from their GP for a day off sick from work would be another.

Discouraging the practice of GPs making patients return to discuss their entirely normal results would be another.

Do you see my point? There's lots of ways to save money, rather than just picking on the weak and defenceless

 

OK!

 

Drug prescribing - little saving there. Unnecessarily expensive drugs - that could be addressed, but the pharma response is that they need 15 years to fund research for new drugs, and if you cut those first profits, drug research stops. Statins - big debate there, but say your uncle drops dead of a heart attack and had not been given a statin, could the grieving family not make a case that he would be alive if the evil doctors had not deemed his cholesterol 6.5 not enough to merit a statin? Antibiotics - grossly overprescribed. Main issue there is the imminent catastrophe of multidrug resistant bacteria as a result of profligate prescribing. PPI - and said uncle drops dead of an upper GI bleed after a wedding binge-related gastric ulcer, and hey presto! Lawyer feeding frenzy. But valid points made. Savings CAN be made, but not that great.

 

BTW, the pressure on GPs to prescribe said drugs comes from the population, which demands an antibiotic for a viral infection, and will travel to another doctor to get them. Losing revenue for the GP, of course - not a big deal, but the real issue is the word of mouth - "that bloody doctor didn't take my cold seriously, I'll never go back there ..." you get the picture.

 

Medical certificate - AMEN brother. Ditto referral letters, but results - they can be given over the phone, and are, if all is normal (at least at my practice) - need to be discussed as a continuation of the conversation about WHY they were needed in the first place. OK - the cholesterol is perfect, and the sugar levels are almost acceptable, and are you now going to look at cigarettes as the next step on your path to improved health? Etc etc ...

 

But what you are highlighting is a tinkering with the existing (failing) system. The gains are there, but minor. It is the system which is collapsing, and needs a radical overhaul. For example, if you need a higher dose of nexium for your ulcer, you need to get government approval from a person at the end of a phone - waiting time can be 5-10 minutes - for a box to be ticked by a non-medical office person. You pay for the consulting time lost, the salaries of the box-tickers and the administration of a system designed to save money but which costs money instead. And also implies that the doctor is not capable of knowing that the patient needs a higher dose of nexium in the first place.

 

Any comments as to the points I made on the earlier much-maligned post?

[jasepom]

To distinguish between alcoholism and alcohol abuse. One is a disease he other is irresponsible behaviour. My wife works in the field and sees it as a big problem here. At a time when more alcohol and drug workers are needed more cuts are being made. Was there anything in the budget to address this and the growing problem of mental illness?