Rallyman Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Quinkla, People don't want to pay anything here there was enough out cry when fuel went up 1cent a litre ,less than 1 cup of coffee a week , also the extra payment to see the doctor if people are on benefits then fair enough they should not have to pay ,the country is not in a position to keep giving free hound outs, if you want the equivalent of the NHS then it has to be paid for with more tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 if you want the equivalent of the NHS then it has to be paid for with more tax. Sounds good to me - where do I sign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Quinkla, People don't want to pay anything here there was enough out cry when fuel went up 1cent a litre ,less than 1 cup of coffee a week , also the extra payment to see the doctor if people are on benefits then fair enough they should not have to pay ,the country is not in a position to keep giving free hound outs, if you want the equivalent of the NHS then it has to be paid for with more tax. it's not that people don't want to pay its that many cant pay, and for those who need to see a doctor and cant pay the risk is that they will be come far sicker and then need more expensive treatment. Perhaps if the Medical co-parent was re looked at so those that can pay do but there is exemption for those that cant it may have a chance of being past. Groups I would exempt, Over 60 with a yearly income less than $60,000. ( older people need to keep on top of there health as it starts to deteriate as they get older) Single parents with children under 12. (Many cant work as children under 12 cant be left on there own legally) All children under 16. Those with a medically confirmed "chronic" illness. Also needs to be only on visits to the doctor not every medical service as you can see the doctor then need, Xrays, blood tests etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rallyman Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Fair points made Tina2 agree with what you have said Quinkla what don't you understand Australia could not afford to set up a totally free equivalent NHS system here how much would you be willing to pay ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Rallyman, this is the problem with this whole budget, it has been written with a one size fits all approach. Take no dole for 6 months, maybe if they said - you have 6 months to find a job then your payments get cut by 50% there maybe more support but again there must be exemptions. Single parents bound by Family Court Orders cant just pack up and move to get a job, young people with no training, those who are not physicaly capable need to be supported. Still come back to the option of 1/2 dole payments or 12 months Aus based military service. They get accomadation, food, and training and do something worth while Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Quinkla what don't you understand Australia could not afford to set up a totally free equivalent NHS system here how much would you be willing to pay ? Well, I pay over $6000 a year in private health cover and I still seem to have to pay well over 50% of all medical costs from my own pocket, so I imagine if that were turned into tax it would go a long way. As it goes, though, personal taxation seems to be broadly equivalent in Australia and the UK but it seems to cover a lot more in the UK. That is a bit of a conundrum. Australia has many good points, but the health system is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Take no dole for 6 months, maybe if they said - you have 6 months to find a job then your payments get cut by 50% there maybe more support but again there must be exemptions. You can't live on the dole in Australia at 100% so not sure how it would work at only 50%. If you take away people's means of buying food and shelter, they will take it by whatever means necessary. That would not make for a pleasant society. Therefore it is in society's interests to have a safety net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted December 6, 2014 Author Share Posted December 6, 2014 The AMA came up with a similar suggestion to yours but the govt didn't like it because it rubbed out 95% of the savings! Which says everything about whom the govt targeted to do the 'heavy lifting' when it comes to healthcare expenditure. If the govt was serious about curtailing spending there are many ways of doing this, like cracking down on dodgy prescribing habits of GPs (eg statins and PPIs), over investigating the 'worried well', fraudulent medicare billing practices (ever wondered why a consultant requests a 'new referral' every 12 months for a chronic illness?), and of course raising the medicare levy. But all those avenues aren't as easy as picking on the young, the sick, the old and the poor. it's not that people don't want to pay its that many cant pay, and for those who need to see a doctor and cant pay the risk is that they will be come far sicker and then need more expensive treatment. Perhaps if the Medical co-parent was re looked at so those that can pay do but there is exemption for those that cant it may have a chance of being past. Groups I would exempt, Over 60 with a yearly income less than $60,000. ( older people need to keep on top of there health as it starts to deteriate as they get older) Single parents with children under 12. (Many cant work as children under 12 cant be left on there own legally)All children under 16. Those with a medically confirmed "chronic" illness. Also needs to be only on visits to the doctor not every medical service as you can see the doctor then need, Xrays, blood tests etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Down Under Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 The AMA came up with a similar suggestion to yours but the govt didn't like it because it rubbed out 95% of the savings! Which says everything about whom the govt targeted to do the 'heavy lifting' when it comes to healthcare expenditure. If the govt was serious about curtailing spending there are many ways of doing this, like cracking down on dodgy prescribing habits of GPs (eg statins and PPIs), over investigating the 'worried well', fraudulent medicare billing practices (ever wondered why a consultant requests a 'new referral' every 12 months for a chronic illness?), and of course raising the medicare levy. But all those avenues aren't as easy as picking on the young, the sick, the old and the poor. The private system needs a good shake out. Recent case is our daughter who had a baby a few months ago. Some concerns about him, so referred by the GP to a paediatrician. Paediatrician takes a quick look at the referral, says "Not my area" and refers on to a neuro specialist, but still hits them with a bill for a couple of hundred dollars for about one minutes look at the referral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted December 6, 2014 Author Share Posted December 6, 2014 The private system needs a good shake out. Recent case is our daughter who had a baby a few months ago. Some concerns about him, so referred by the GP to a paediatrician. Paediatrician takes a quick look at the referral, says "Not my area" and refers on to a neuro specialist, but still hits them with a bill for a couple of hundred dollars for about one minutes look at the referral. Completely agree, the medicare billing system is a mine field. The specialist charging that amount for a 1-2 minute consult is an absolute piss take, and medicare would have had to pay a significant percentage of that $200. Consultants requiring a 'new referral' every 12 months enables them to bill the patient (and medicare) and 'new patient' fee instead of just a follow up fee, which would be considerably less. Add to that the cost to medicare of the patient having to see the GP just to get a letter, and you get the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 The private system needs a good shake out. Agreed. I have private health insurance. I can give two horror stories: 1. I had a hernia. I had to get it operated on. I had to pay $150 to see a specialist. Medicate provided a rebate of about half of this; I paid the rest. Health insurance paid nothing.I then got booked in for an operation. I was sent an "informed financial consent" to sign which said that I would have to pay $200 from my own pocket to the surgeon that would not be met by health insurance. It also said that I would get other bills and out of pocket expenses of unknown magnitude. How that contitutes informed financial consent, I don't know. Anyway, I rock up to the hospital and am told that I have to pay $250 out of pocket expenses for the hospital. This is the excess. How would I like to pay? Then the anaesthetist comes along and says I will have to pay her $250. This will not be covered by insurance or medicare. On discharge, I am given a sack of painkillers. I find a bill for the medicine in that sack. I have to see the specialist two weeks later - another $150 fee of which Medicare will give me half back and the insurance will give me nothing. All in just under $1000 out of pocket. And I pay insurance. 2. I snore and have sleep apnoea. I had to see a sleep specialist. That's $150 of which medicare hives me back half. Then I have to go for a sleep study. That's $250 excess. I get a letter from the health insurance telling me that they paid $300 for the sleep clinic, so I am currently out of pocket about $325 having received $300 worth of insurance cover. Then I have to see the specials again - that's another $75 out of pocket. Then another sleep clinic - another $250 excess. Then specialist again - $75 more out of pocket. I am prescribed a CPAP machine, mask and chinstrap. That's $1950 that I have to pay - but good news, if I pay $75 out of pocket to the specialist, my insurance will give me $500 back. By my calculation, that's $2250 out of pocket and the health insurance has paid benefits worth $1100. In other words, my insurance has covered under a third of my expenses on this one. For the privilege, I pay $6000 a year in insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Same with repete perscriptions, I take the same pills every day and have for several years but still have to go back to the GP every 3 months for a repete. $60 for no more than 5 minuets. Saw a Cardiologyst. $245 for another 5 minuets and get around $70 back from medicare again health fund pays nothing. Years ago you could claim on health fund for out of hospital specialists now you can only claim in hospital treatment, but guess what health funds are thinking of bringing back payment for the gap out of hospital - but at an additional cost. About time there was a cap on specialist fees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest241083 Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 ..........the health care system can be a mine field..... ..........even with private health.....choose the wrong inclusions.... ..........and your not covered..... ..........need it now surgery.....with out it......pay through the nose.... ..........or go on the waiting list.... ...........and it's dependant on surgeons available...... ...........and amount of those waiting for the same in your area..... ...........I've used both......recently.... ............and the specialist charges are horrendous..... ...........so many things not included in rebates....... ...........and once you've been treated for something.... ...........to then get private cover .....the fees are higher or not available .... ............thank goodness for the OH's credit card....lol...! ...........because this year I could of bought a new car for the amount spent...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 I have just read this article and am so ashamed of what this government has been allowed to do http://theaimn.com/immoral-act/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 The other issue is the availability and not just specialist but GPs. In Glenn Innes the situation is so bad you face a 12 month wait on the list to get onto the waiting list ! Only option is a 30 minuets drive to Armidale . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Years ago you could claim on health fund for out of hospital specialists now you can only claim in hospital treatment, but guess what health funds are thinking of bringing back payment for the gap out of hospital - but at an additional cost. About time there was a cap on specialist fees But even then, the health fund doesn't pay the full cost of hospital treatment. How did we ever allow companies to sell health insurance that doesn't cover the cost of health care? People say - ah, but if you ever had a really serious illness you'd get the benefit of the health fund. But if you ever got really sick, you'd lose your job and ability to pay the health fund premiums, let alone pay the co-payments. Truly, Australia is not the place to have poor health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 I have just read this article and am so ashamed of what this government has been allowed to do http://theaimn.com/immoral-act/ A 15 month long hostage crisis, created entirely by Messrs Abbot and Morrison. Those kids could have been released at any time, but Morrison kept them in detention as leverage for when he really needed them. A truly despicable act. As SHY said in the senate, he is a sociopath. Hopefully this monster will face justice one day. Unfortunately this is real life and not Hollywood. He'll probably go the grave, totally unpunished for his crimes and still believing he is a hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramot Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 A 15 month long hostage crisis, created entirely by Messrs Abbot and Morrison. Those kids could have been released at any time, but Morrison kept them in detention as leverage for when he really needed them. A truly despicable act. As SHY said in the senate, he is a sociopath. Hopefully this monster will face justice one day. Unfortunately this is real life and not Hollywood. He'll probably go the grave, totally unpunished for his crimes and still believing he is a hero. not intentionally being controversial, but am interested in how long and how many children have been held on Manus etc. as the inference is only since the Abbott gov. Was elected? What was the previous policy of the labour gov.? Were no children there? and if there were, how long did they stay for as I really don't know, as I didn't notice the publicity previously. not in any way agreeing with children held there, but do feel thank goodness the numbers aren't being added to now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 There aren't (intentionally) any children on Manus. Children and their families are sent to Nauru. I don't agree with locking up children under ANY circumstances, whether by Labor or LNP. It seems that a bloke named Paris Aristotle, who is (or was) apparently some sort of refugee advocate but is now a govt advisor, created the 'no advantage' framework for asylum seekers, whereby there should be 'no advantage' given to asylum seekers in Australian detention centres compared to refugees in UNHCR camps. Hence a spurious and vague figure of 5 or 6 years in detention was suggested to the Gillard govt. as being an acceptable period to hold people (including kids) in detention. Both major parties are therefore guilty of evil on this issue. The difference regarding Morrison seems to be that he physically used kids in detention to phone Ricky Muir (the last remaining undecided senator) and beg him to pass the legislation, so that they could be released from detention (after 15 months). Muir cracked under the pressure. It sounds like a hostage situation to me. Bearing in mind these kids have been self harming, witnessing their parents self harming etc, you can see how damaged they are. The great irony is that although these kids will now be released into the community, they aren't actually guaranteed a TPV, for that requires the granting of refugee status. Morrison's bill has actually made it significantly less likely for them to be granted refugee status, and MORE likely to be sent back to whence they fled. not intentionally being controversial, but am interested in how long and how many children have been held on Manus etc. as the inference is only since the Abbott gov. Was elected? What was the previous policy of the labour gov.? Were no children there? and if there were, how long did they stay for as I really don't know, as I didn't notice the publicity previously. not in any way agreeing with children held there, but do feel thank goodness the numbers aren't being added to now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 A 15 month long hostage crisis, created entirely by Messrs Abbot and Morrison. Those kids could have been released at any time, but Morrison kept them in detention as leverage for when he really needed them. A truly despicable act. As SHY said in the senate, he is a sociopath. Hopefully this monster will face justice one day. Unfortunately this is real life and not Hollywood. He'll probably go the grave, totally unpunished for his crimes and still believing he is a hero. Most of those kids came because Krudd changed the perfectly working immigration policy to deliberately encourage people to think they could pay to come here illegally. Morrison did not create the problem, and of course you carry on the hypocrisy of caring nothing for the hundreds of people drowned, and others traumatised, including those Australians who had to try to rescue them. In terms of the Australia's health policy, I'm not sure if it is worse or much the same as the UK. You do not have to take out medical insurance, but if you have a really expensive operation, you can have it done privately, (just as you can do in the UK via the likes of BUPA) if you don't want to wait for the public hospital operation. I chose to pay for my hernia operation as I do not (yet) have hospital insurance, but I could have waited, just as if I was in the UK. I chose to pay for a private dentist in the UK, at much the same rates as I do here in OZ. I mostly use 'bulk-billing' doctors here, so that is the same as the UK, but with the added benefit of being able to get almost 24X7 access to GP's, rather than basically Mon to Fri, office hours in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rallyman Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Before Rudd and Gillard came into power were there only 4 people in detention ? ,the policy was changed and we find ourselves with the situation as it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 There aren't (intentionally) any children on Manus. Children and their families are sent to Nauru. I don't agree with locking up children under ANY circumstances, whether by Labor or LNP. It seems that a bloke named Paris Aristotle, who is (or was) apparently some sort of refugee advocate but is now a govt advisor, created the 'no advantage' framework for asylum seekers, whereby there should be 'no advantage' given to asylum seekers in Australian detention centres compared to refugees in UNHCR camps. Hence a spurious and vague figure of 5 or 6 years in detention was suggested to the Gillard govt. as being an acceptable period to hold people (including kids) in detention. Both major parties are therefore guilty of evil on this issue. The difference regarding Morrison seems to be that he physically used kids in detention to phone Ricky Muir (the last remaining undecided senator) and beg him to pass the legislation, so that they could be released from detention (after 15 months). Muir cracked under the pressure. It sounds like a hostage situation to me. Bearing in mind these kids have been self harming, witnessing their parents self harming etc, you can see how damaged they are. The great irony is that although these kids will now be released into the community, they aren't actually guaranteed a TPV, for that requires the granting of refugee status. Morrison's bill has actually made it significantly less likely for them to be granted refugee status, and MORE likely to be sent back to whence they fled. And once those kids are released into the community they will need extencive and on going therapy to help them adjust . Comes down to the same thing as the medicare co payment, prevention is better and (cheaper) than a cure. Will cost a fortune now to help these kids and parents get over what they have been through in that hell hole. Abbott should be charged with acts endangering life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Do you think they should be left inside then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Do you think they should be left inside then Of course not they should not have been locked up in the first place then they wouldnt need help to get over all they have been through Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 The most immoral part of the whole thing is the highlighted bits below (from the article I linked to earlier). I have already written to Nick Xenophon asking why he voted in favour of this Bill, and telling him that by doing so he has lost my vote from hereon. The release of the children was just one aspect of the bill which was used to blackmail the independents into supporting it. “At 8.06 this morning it was done: the House of Representatives passed the government’s Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, following its passage and amendment just after midnight in the Senate. Parliamentarians then got to go home for Christmas, having delivered the Immigration Minister extraordinary powers that in effect obliterate any further pretence that Australia regards asylum seekers as human beings. The bill restored the failed Howard-era policy of temporary protection visas, a mechanism that actually increased boat arrivals when last attempted. Whether Clive Palmer seriously believes that there is a pathway to citizenship contained in a kind of homeopathic form within the legislation — or it merely suits its purposes to pretend there is — we don’t know, but Scott Morrison has been crystal clear that TPVs will never provide permanent protection. But the bill goes much further, freeing Australia from any obligations associated with the Refugee Convention, including giving Morrison and his department — which has repeatedly demonstrated it is profoundly incompetent and resistant to the most basic forms of accountability — the power to return people to torture and persecution without judicial review.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.