Last chance to see a GP for free: 7 days to go before $20+ gap fees

[Quinkla]

The scheme has been dropped, so the points below are purely academic. But...

My understanding is that there are exemptions e.g. pensioners, children under 16 etc.

No there weren't. There is a flat rate of rebate for bulk billing doctors based on the length of consultation. The proposal was to reduce the level of rebate for the most common form of consultation. Since the rebate was based on the doctor and not the patient - and blind to the level of payment that might be made by the patient - there was no mechanism to offer a rebate.

I think that there is a lot of rabble rousing going on about this.

I am sorry you think that people who can't or don't want to pay for GP visits are rabble. I think your comment says quite a lot about people on the right wing of politics in Australia right now.

The country cannot afford the cost of universal health care, so something has to change before it sends us broke.

Of course it can. If you take the line that the payments would not deny people access to healthcare then all that is happening is that the country is paying for healthcare at the point of use rather than through general taxation. The overall cost would remain the same. On the other hand, if you think that "user pays" would reduce the overall amount paid, it would be because less healthcare was being consumed - and it would be the poorest people losing most.

I don't know what the score is now with children's jabs but years ago you just had to front up to the local council chambers and they were done for free.

Good luck with that one. I find it generally more useful to form my political opinions based on what happens now, not what happened a few years ago.

[Ellie 2]

The scheme has been dropped, so the points below are purely academic. But...

 

No there weren't. There is a flat rate of rebate for bulk billing doctors based on the length of consultation. The proposal was to reduce the level of rebate for the most common form of consultation. Since the rebate was based on the doctor and not the patient - and blind to the level of payment that might be made by the patient - there was no mechanism to offer a rebate.

 

That was not what I heard stated.

 

I am sorry you think that people who can't or don't want to pay for GP visits are rabble. I think your comment says quite a lot about people on the right wing of politics in Australia right now.

 

I did not say that people who couldn't pay were a rabble, I said that there was rabble rousing going on. That means some people were not telling the whole truth about the changes, but that's nothing new!

Of course it can. If you take the line that the payments would not deny people access to healthcare then all that is happening is that the country is paying for healthcare at the point of use rather than through general taxation. The overall cost would remain the same. On the other hand, if you think that "user pays" would reduce the overall amount paid, it would be because less healthcare was being consumed - and it would be the poorest people losing most.

 

The old system worked very well but I guess you know little,if anything, of that. UK with its huge population are making cut backs in the NHS,so I would like to hear how Medicare can be afforded here in is present form, considering the size of the country, relatively small population, the labor party leaving a deficit and refusing to pass any bill that would help cut the debt.

 

Good luck with that one. I find it generally more useful to form my political opinions based on what happens now, not what happened a few years ago.

 

Oh, we are now adopting a superior intellectual tone, are we? How you came to the conclusion that I base my opinions only on what happened in the past I don't know. My comment on children's jabs was in response the comment about nurses clinics that perform this service now. However, anyone who bases a political opinion only on the present has, in my opinion very little substance. Surely one should look to the past and present to compare, judge,evaluate the changes and then make the decision where your preferences lie politically.

[Parley]

Of course the critics never put up any alternatives. They just criticise and never offer any solutions.

An extremely annoying trait.

 

!0 years ago Medicare was costing us $8B a year to run, today it is costing $20B a year to run, in 10 years time it will cost $34B a year to run.

 

It will ultimately collapse if it is not reformed.

[MichaelP]

Of course the critics never put up any alternatives. They just criticise and never offer any solutions.

An extremely annoying trait.

 

!0 years ago Medicare was costing us $8B a year to run, today it is costing $20B a year to run, in 10 years time it will cost $34B a year to run.

 

It will ultimately collapse if it is not reformed.

 

The 'critics' have put up some much more workable and fair alternatives. For example, there are huge savings to be made in the hospital system, whereas primary care is run on the smell of an oily rag by comparison. The LNP rejected this option. In fact, the last Labor health minister tried to rein in some of the most expensive specialist fees but her move was voted down by guess who ... Peter Dutton.

 

The Libs have cut $3.5bn from primary care, which is the most cost effective part of the health system. At the same time the LNP have sworn to defend the $6bn annual taxpayer subsidies for private health insurance, which have been shown to have been ineffective in keeping people out of public hospitals. (Private health groups such as Ramsay are among the biggest donors to the LNP).

 

Oh and the increases you cite in Medicare are in line with population growth and GDP growth. In real terms spending on GPs has DECREASED.