Health Care: A Right or a Privilege? (page 13)

barry

Here in Australia everyone is covered because everyone pays one and a half percent on there taxes every year. Of course with what we call medicare sometimes there is a wait for non essential surgery but it seems to work very well. Some people opt to pay there own insurance and are able to use private hospitals an not have to be on a waiting list.For people on welfare everything is free.in hospitals sometimes doctors charge more than the scedual fee which means the patient pays the difference. for medicines we have the PBS where everyone pays a slightly larger fee for cheap medicines and expensive medicines say 6 thousand a year are only charged at maybe 100 a year

barry

I recall a few years back we had some american politicins over to study our health system but I dont know of any reccomendations they had for the american system.

LDH

for medicines we have the PBS where everyone pays a slightly larger fee for cheap medicines and expensive medicines say 6 thousand a year are only charged at maybe 100 a year

Barry,

I don't understand. Who pays the other $5900?

barry

The government charges cheaper medicines at higher fee while high priced medicines are discounted the government pays the shortfall. eg my wife may need a 6000 per year medicine for her arthritus but she will only pay maybe 200 a year. Her doctor witll apply to the government PBS scheme for her case and will say the cheaper medicine isnt working. Actually I know many retired americans living here in canberra because of the health care facilities here

LDH

the government pays the shortfall

Now, who is the Government, again, people? Say it with me. That's right, all taxpayers.

Barry, over there is it a percentage tax or a head tax?

Some people opt to pay there own insurance and are able to use private hospitals and not have to be on a waiting list.For people on welfare everything is free

So even in a country where there is socialized medicine, it looks like there are Yugos and Cadillacs. Shocking! You mean, a certain portion of the population can actually choose to have a higher level of care? NO!!!! Say it ain't so.

Thank you for telling me what Australia is like. I'd like to hear how it works in the Orient, most especially. They are a society who is struggling to integrate Western ways with their own.

Lisa

barry

Even people on higher incomes are happy to have the lower level of care including the many americans that live here . our former prime minister Paul Keating didnt see the need to pay more for himself and family for private insurance.

LDH

our former prime minister Paul Keating

although with that name, is it possible that just maybe, the 'wait list' for elective procedures was like, um, two days?

My point wasn't to criticise your system, it was to demonstrate that no matter what country people live in the health care system caters to those with either 1. great insurance or 2. disposable income 3. Power in the form of a great family name.

I have friends in Canada (grew up in NY) who complained of waiting 6 or 7 months for elective procedures. That would scare me.

czarofmischief

I think Health Care should be available as a percentage of earned income; ergo, a voluntary participation in a gov't HMO that could come straight from your paycheck, with a sliding premium scale based on income level - and just have the best possible service in order to attract the wealthy to the program; ie, "It costs a bit more, but at least I don't have any damn copays or referrals, or have to change companies if I go three months between jobs." Such high standards would also raise the performance bar for private insurance.

The benefit is that insurance fraud would be treason and could incur the death penalty in the US of A.... yee haw! Don't screw with Uncle Sam Health Group, amigos...

The grim reality is that the poor just can't and don't pay their hospital bills and the costs are spread out over those who can and do. So why not systematize it a bit? I'm not a jerk enough to say to somebody who is sick and needs help that I won't. Ergo, national health care, while no doubt a violation of property rights, etc, is still a damn good idea. Like federal highways, if you will. We need healthy soldiers with good teeth for that all-American devilmaycare grin and educations, ergo, we should pay for dentists and inoculations and school.

Rights? No, nobody has any rights in this matter. But is it a good idea? Sure.

CZAR

Terry

But capitalism in its purest form will destroy the people as well

I can't begin to agree with this.

We don't have Capitalism right now; we have a "mixed economy".

Pure Capitalism means you have the right to ownership of what you earn and that ownership consists of YOU controlling it yourself without the government telling you how.

You don't consider ownership is important?

Pure Capitalism allows people of talent and ability to earn what they deserve through the effort the expend. No paternalism, no favoritism, no nepotism, no government interference, no Senate Lobbyists!

What you make, what you earn, what you own is YOURS to do with as you consider best.

Whay would you think this is bad?

Terry

barry

ive had to read more of this thread to educate myself a little. I see here the arguement about capitalism v socialism etc I see the issues in a different way that is getting the best 'bang for youre buck'. Capitalism is an efficient system in most areas of the economies of the world and we all reap the bennifits. From what Ive learnt from the American health care model efficiencies exist but Im no expert and dont even work in the medical field. At the end of the day the system tha t works efficiently will best meet the needs of everyone. Barry

Health Care: A Right or a Privilege?

Share this