On so-called socialised medicine

[CSM]

One problem I see with socialized medical care is that the government is ultimately the one who chooses which conditions are "life-threatening" or not, by the approval of payment. The government is the one who chooses which patients are treated and in what order. A patient may have a non-life-threatening condition that becomes life-threatening as he waits for treatment.

Aw cmon, Mom. As soon as the condition becomes life threatening, it gets immediate attention! Why do you have to bring flies to the ointment?

 

[Diuretic]

Your explanation makes perfect sense. I am often caused to reflect that such "socialist" attitudes are a luxury of wealthy, more successful nations. I also think such situations are temporary. As the economic belt tightens, then nations cannot afford such idealism. As you pointed out, the reality of the fiscal situation truly regulates ow much and for how many.

Well we have had this since 1972. We have been through a couple of recessions and a bit of belt-tightening for governments of all persuasions but we have kept our system intact. We really value it

Edited to add - yes the Medicare tax levy has been increased over the years to ensure the programme continues to work for us.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Tax contributions. LOL. That's another lie.

 

[Diuretic]

One problem I see with socialized medical care is that the government is ultimately the one who chooses which conditions are "life-threatening" or not, by the approval of payment. The government is the one who chooses which patients are treated and in what order. A patient may have a non-life-threatening condition that becomes life-threatening as he waits for treatment.

Not in our system. I had to go to the ER a few weeks ago. I drove myself. I went in and spoke to the Triage Nurse. She took my details. I went and presented myself to the registry and was given a card and told to wait. I waited five minutes exactly. I was taken into the ER and given the usual. Heaps of blood tests, various ECG tests, consulting with two doctors. I had to wait ten hours in ER for the tests to come back negative then I left. No bills.

 

[CSM]

You're right, messing with it would be political suicide. Our PM would love to dismantle it but he knows he would lose his job.

It is a very good system. If we didn't like it we would demand it be changed.

It's far from "bread and circuses". It's part of our social values that everyone who lives here is entitled to free medical treatment in an emergency (and other situations) and to subsidised treatment. I added a couple of links to my previous post after I posted it.

Understood. The fact that your PM would love to dismantle it tells me that not EVERYONE is enamored of the system. The term "bread and circus" was meant tongue in cheek. I was implying that every government has to make concessions to the nation's population; choosing which ones the masses are most concerned about is what allows an administrtion to stay in power (regardless of the type of government).

It may well be an inherent social value for your country but that does not mean it is fit for every other country.

 

[Diuretic]

Tax contributions. LOL. That's another lie.

Now look, I'm being nice but don't call me a liar.

The scheme is funded by a levy which is paid by all taxpayers.

 

[CSM]

Not in our system. I had to go to the ER a few weeks ago. I drove myself. I went in and spoke to the Triage Nurse. She took my details. I went and presented myself to the registry and was given a card and told to wait. I waited five minutes exactly. I was taken into the ER and given the usual. Heaps of blood tests, various ECG tests, consulting with two doctors. I had to wait ten hours in ER for the tests to come back negative then I left. No bills.

Is the availability of doctors and treatment the same in the larger urban areas? or is the opposite situation (less populated areas) a detriment? I am trying to determine the equality of treatment throughout your country. I suspect things like population and geographical location have an impact on availability and cost (either directly or indirectly).

 

[Nienna]

I'd also like to bring up this point: It seems to me, and I have no data to back this up, but it seems as if the US has the most breakthroughs in medical technology and drugs. Is this bc it is comparatively more "free-market" than a country with socialized medecine?

 

[Diuretic]

Understood. The fact that your PM would love to dismantle it tells me that not EVERYONE is enamored of the system. The term "bread and circus" was meant tongue in cheek. I was implying that every government has to make concessions to the nation's population; choosing which ones the masses are most concerned about is what allows an administrtion to stay in power (regardless of the type of government).

It may well be an inherent social value for your country but that does not mean it is fit for every other country.

Our PM is ideologically driven but he isn't suicidal (politically speaking). As for those enamoured - it's lasted since 1972, it has never been seriously under threat.

On bread and circuses - yes every government has its policy darlings. Our Medicare system though transcends mere politics.

No - I would never say it should be for every country, I merely said it works for us.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Medical care should be put on a strictly market oriented paradigm. We should even take insurance companies out of the mix. People should comparison shop between service providers and procedures on a per procedure basis, if desired.

 

[Diuretic]

Is the availability of doctors and treatment the same in the larger urban areas? or is the opposite situation (less populated areas) a detriment? I am trying to determine the equality of treatment throughout your country. I suspect things like population and geographical location have an impact on availability and cost (either directly or indirectly).

You might know that our country is highly urbanised. Most of the population lives in cities. They have access to hospitals, doctors, etc. Those in regional, rural and isolated areas have access but not to the same level. As a society we're very conscious of that. You can't force a doctor to go to a certain town to practise (as confirmed earlier our doctors aren't slaves). So there are all sorts of recruitment and retention programmes in place. The high cost of treatment is evened out. It's still the same programme, it's just that the scheme meets those higher costs. For emergency evacuations we have the Royal Flying Doctor Service http://www.flyingdoctor.net/ and various state-based air ambulance services. There are other charitable organisations that help out as well at no cost to the user - this is one http://www.angelflight.org.au/

Also there are other organisations that have brought medical care to the outback such as http://www.bushchurchaid.com.au/

It all works in.

 

[CSM]

Our PM is ideologically driven but he isn't suicidal (politically speaking). As for those enamoured - it's lasted since 1972, it has never been seriously under threat.

On bread and circuses - yes every government has its policy darlings. Our Medicare system though transcends mere politics.

No - I would never say it should be for every country, I merely said it works for us.

I suspect if the fiscal burden became too great, your Medicare system (as well as ours in a similar situation) would go down faster than we could blink. Of course, the fiscal burden would have to be extremely severe and lots of other things would disappear first. rality has a way of influencing things that way.

Truthfully, what you describe is not that much different from here in the US, though the conservatives would argue we give away too much free care (take a peek at one of the mainstays of the "illegal alien burden") and the liberals think it is not enough (free everything for everybody!...unless you are "rich" then you have to pay for yourself and everyone else too).

 

[Diuretic]

I'd also like to bring up this point: It seems to me, and I have no data to back this up, but it seems as if the US has the most breakthroughs in medical technology and drugs. Is this bc it is comparatively more "free-market" than a country with socialized medecine?

Firstly I don't know if the US does have the most breakthroughs. However it does have some of the best medical research centres in the world for sure. But other countries also have fine research centres. I'm not trying to make defensive comparisons here. Let me say that I'm alive because a Swiss research centre developed a particular surgical technique. I don't care where the knowledge comes from But the US is recognised as a world leader, for sure.

But the finest care in the world is useless to someone who can't afford it. And that is my point.

 

[CSM]

You might know that our country is highly urbanised. Most of the population lives in cities. They have access to hospitals, doctors, etc. Those in regional, rural and isolated areas have access but not to the same level. As a society we're very conscious of that. You can't force a doctor to go to a certain town to practise (as confirmed earlier our doctors aren't slaves). So there are all sorts of recruitment and retention programmes in place. The high cost of treatment is evened out. It's still the same programme, it's just that the scheme meets those higher costs. For emergency evacuations we have the Royal Flying Doctor Service http://www.flyingdoctor.net/ and various state-based air ambulance services. There are other charitable organisations that help out as well at no cost to the user - this is one http://www.angelflight.org.au/

Also there are other organisations that have brought medical care to the outback such as http://www.bushchurchaid.com.au/

It all works in.

Good on ya'll! Thanks for providing info in a sane rational manner! I will try to do the same with you in the future!

 

[Diuretic]

Medical care should be put on a strictly market oriented paradigm. We should even take insurance companies out of the mix. People should comparison shop between service providers and procedures on a per procedure basis, if desired.

And how do the poor pay for it? We're not talking comparison shopping for a car.

Medical care should be available to all who need it at no cost to them. It should be paid for by taxpayers.

This is exactly what I meant by ideology. That statement is pure ideology completely disconnected from reality.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Now look, I'm being nice but don't call me a liar.

The scheme is funded by a levy which is paid by all taxpayers.

But "contribute" typically means money given of free will, not confiscated by the Beast.

 

[Diuretic]

I suspect if the fiscal burden became too great, your Medicare system (as well as ours in a similar situation) would go down faster than we could blink. Of course, the fiscal burden would have to be extremely severe and lots of other things would disappear first. rality has a way of influencing things that way.

Truthfully, what you describe is not that much different from here in the US, though the conservatives would argue we give away too much free care (take a peek at one of the mainstays of the "illegal alien burden") and the liberals think it is not enough (free everything for everybody!...unless you are "rich" then you have to pay for yourself and everyone else too).

If it's not much different then why not copy it - go that little bit further to give everyone taxpayer-funded health care at no cost to them as a consumer?

As for the fiscal burden. We're planning now. It's only sensible to do so. We know that there's a greying population that will need more care and we have to fund it. We're not abandoning it, we're preparing for contingencies. But we can do that - we're a small population - this is a core social value.

 

[Diuretic]

Good on ya'll! Thanks for providing info in a sane rational manner! I will try to do the same with you in the future!

And thank you for a rational discussion.

 

[CSM]

...Medical care should be available to all who need it at no cost to them. It should be paid for by taxpayers....

Why? Why should it be available to all and why should the taxpayer pay for it?

Ideology is indeed the crux of the matter!

 

[Diuretic]

But "contribute" typically means money given of free will, not confiscated by the Beast.

We pay tax. We know that. Our tax burden isn't as high as some European countries and it isn't as low as it is in the States. But there's only 20 million of us, we know we have to shell out. Our social values are such that when a tax cut is announced (we've just had tax cuts announced in our federal budget) many people will publicly state that it is far better to have socially funded things like health care, education, law and order etc than a small tax cut. It's a social value.