Health Minister Peter Dutton has flagged an overhaul of Medicare, suggesting Australians who can afford it should pay more for their healthcare.

Mr Dutton used a major speech today to declare he wants there to be a frank, fearless and far-reaching discussion about the health system.

He argued the system is unsustainable and he wants to "modernise and strengthen" Medicare.

He has told the ABC's 7.30 program there needs to be discussion around co-payments.

"Commonwealth and state governments contribute 92 cents in the dollar for those treated in the public system," he said.

"Therefore, one important job of the Abbott Government is to grow the opportunity for those Australians who can afford to do so to contribute to their own healthcare costs.

One important job of the Abbott Government is to grow the opportunity for those Australians who can afford to do so to contribute to their own healthcare costs.
Peter Dutton

VIDEO: Watch the interview with Peter Dutton (7.30)

"If they have a means to contribute to their own healthcare, we should be embarking on a discussion about how that payment model will work.

"I want to make sure that for argument's sake we have a discussion about you or me on reasonable incomes [and] whether we should expect to pay nothing when we go to a doctor."

There has recently been debate over a proposal to charge patients $6 to visit their general practitioner.

A Commission of Audit, set up by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, received a submission recommending the co-payment system for GP visits.

Under the proposal, pensioners and concession card holders would be exempt from the fee, while families would be granted up to 12 bulk-billed visits annually.

The Australian Medical Association criticised the plan, saying it would discourage people from visiting a doctor if they are sick.

Dutton urges 'bold new ideas' from private sector

Mr Dutton says the private health sector also has a key role to play in making the system more sustainable.

"I believe significant productivity gains can, and must, come through a combination of improved public sector efficiency and bold new ideas from the private sector," he said.

"The private sector has a key role to play to ensure the required productivity gains are realised, including through innovation and technology."

Meanwhile Mr Dutton has defended his Assistant Minister, Fiona Nash, who is now facing calls to resign.

Senator Nash's chief of staff, Alistair Furnival, last week quit after Labor accused him in Parliament of breaching the code of conduct for his lobbying links.

The Greens are now calling for Senator Nash to stand down, saying she has failed to fully explain the extent of Mr Furnival's links to the food and alcohol industries.

Mr Dutton has told 7:30 Mr Furnival did not have a conflict of interest.

"I knew of course, as everybody else did, Mr Furnival's history," he said.

"As I'm advised, the appropriate declarations were made and signed and as I say, Mr Furnival has now moved on."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-19/peter-dutton-flags-medicare-overhaul/5270940

Medicare should be overhauled.
Why should people get free rides off the back of other peoples taxes.

I do not - and have never - supported universal free healthcare.

We don't want an American user pays type health system.  Where only the well off are looked after.  Leave Medicare and bulk billing alone.      :(   

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:30am:

We don't want an American user pays type health system.  Where only the well off are looked after.  Leave Medicare and bulk billing alone.      :(

Why should my taxes pay for someone else?

We can't all afford private health insurance.     :(

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:38am:

We can't all afford private health insurance.     :(

How is that my problem?

Why should the well off get a rebate, for private health insurance?.      :(

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:13am:

Medicare should be overhauled. Why should people get free rides off the back of other peoples taxes. I do not - and have never - supported universal free healthcare.

Of course you dont

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:36am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:30am: We don't want an American user pays type health system.  Where only the well off are looked after.  Leave Medicare and bulk billing alone.      :(    Why should my taxes pay for someone else?

your taxes dont pay for anyone - you dont pay any

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:40am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:38am: We can't all afford private health insurance.     :( How is that my problem?

Healthcare should be free or at least vastly more affordable for those who struggle to make ends meet. However, taxpayers should not subsidise those who are wealthy enough to fund their own healthcare outright or through private health insurance. Personally, I'd like to see a similar system to that which exists in Denmark (or it might be Norway) where the people are taxed more to fully fund the health system, meaning everyone gets free healthcare, no matter what their economic status may be.

What IS it going to take before people wake up to these maggots?

The filth have wanted to kill Medicare ever since Whitlam introduced it (as Medibank, in those days).

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:36am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:30am: We don't want an American user pays type health system.  Where only the well off are looked after.  Leave Medicare and bulk billing alone.      :(    Why should my taxes pay for someone else?

Because that's one reason you PAY tax.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:13am:

Medicare should be overhauled. Why should people get free rides off the back of other peoples taxes. I do not - and have never - supported universal free healthcare.

I don't believe in State Aid for schools either

Why should my taxes pay for you to send your kids to a private school

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:36am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:30am: We don't want an American user pays type health system.  Where only the well off are looked after.  Leave Medicare and bulk billing alone.      :(    Why should my taxes pay for someone else?

Quote:

Am I my brother’s keeper?

(Genesis 4:9) 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:36am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:30am: We don't want an American user pays type health system.  Where only the well off are looked after.  Leave Medicare and bulk billing alone.      :(    Why should my taxes pay for someone else?

Because you are a 'slave' to the masses.

The 'masses' are the majority and that's why the 'masses' don't pay for themselves.

They use 'democracy' to vote themselves money out of your pocket.  :(

Progressive taxation is legalised theft.


Kat wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 5:28am:

Because that's one reason you PAY tax.

Sorry the only one reason anyone pays tax is because they have a virtual gun pointed at their head by the Govt.

Pay tax or be prosecuted.

Legalised armed robbery.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:40am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:38am: We can't all afford private health insurance.     :( How is that my problem?

Mr Hicks:

1.  Do you pay tax in Australia?
2.  What ought the Australian Government do with that tax you pay (if any?)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:36am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:30am: We don't want an American user pays type health system.  Where only the well off are looked after.  Leave Medicare and bulk billing alone.      :(    Why should my taxes pay for someone else?

You do not live in Australia. Why are you pretending that you pay taxes in Australia?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:40am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:38am: We can't all afford private health insurance.     :( How is that my problem?

Because you have put people out of work and shifted their jobs offshore so you can make money out of it.

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:30am:

We don't want an American user pays type health system.  Where only the well off are looked after.  Leave Medicare and bulk billing alone.      :(

I agree ~ with certain reservations.

The Abbott government is now on a mission to scrap our First World socialised medical system that is the envy of the world, and why they rioted on Manus Island when they heard they'll be using witch doctors in PNG instead of Bulk Billing in Australia.

 

And of course the filthy Coalition told lies and distanced themselves from the $6 co-payment proposal during the Griffith by-election campaign. Now that this by-election is done, they have come clean.

Liars. They should be shot and their bodies put in chaff bags and dumped at sea.

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:30am:

We don't want an American user pays type health system.  Where only the well off are looked after.  Leave Medicare and bulk billing alone.      :(

And this proposal is NOT about bringing in an American user pays type system.

Unfortunately health is a bottomless pit.
Its also very $$$$ loaded towards those at the end of their lives.
The total government spend per person, for the whole of life spend per person, half of this cost will be incurred in the 12 months leading up to their death.
So with the number of 80 year olds expected to triple in the next 15 years , this cost alone (ie the cost of providing high tech , state of the art , treatment to an old broken down, often demented population) will bankrupt the system.

Trying not to be harsh, a $10,000 knee reconstruction on a 20 year old laborer makes good economic sense if it keeps him in work,
The same op on granny in the nursing home does not.
Is the system gutsy enough to say this?
Is the system gutsy enough to say, "we can only afford 10 ICU beds at $6000 a day. These will be going to the 20 year old MVA victim in casualty and the 90 year old cancer patient on chemo will be moved out.
These are tough decisions but the current system is unsustainable and a frank and fearless discussion is what we need.
Certainly a lot of end stage diabetics (there are 100,000's of these) with one leg missing, on dialysis, who have had a stroke would probably rather "gift" the $50,000 it would cost to have another amputation to their grandchildrens mortgage, then become a dual amputee on dialysis being tube fed.  I know i would.

Yes well said Bam, they sure changed their tune, didn't they?.      >:(    

They are really going after the wrong end of the system. Australias spend on primary care (GP's ) has declined as a percentage over time.
It is the spend on very very expensive high tech and high end pharmaceuticals that will cripple the system

If a drug to treat end stage breast cancer (ie prolong life by 6 months with no prospect of a cure) costs $100,000 a patient. Should this be listed on the pbs and paid for by the taxpayer. What if its 2 months, What if its 5 years.
These are the difficult questions that the government need to discuss with the public.
Doctors will not (and should not) be making decisions based on economics. They will always do what it best and bugger the cost. The taxpayer and the government need to decide what level of care they want and then provide it efficiently and equitably.

Medicare / Medibank was unsustainable from the outset and is even more unsustainable now and without reform will go belly up.

The 'levy' has rarely changed to cover the compounding cost.

The cost is going to continue to compound as the population ages and the number of income tax-payers as a proportion of the population declines.

F A C T

How is it going to be funded?  Labor always uses debt (which is unsustainable).  The Coalition use cuts to other services (which is also unsustainable)?

The Coalition proposes a co-payment and the Lefties have a dumby spit because apparently this is 'unfair'....bullchitt.

TAX reform and IR reform is the answer.

* Increase the GST
* Get rid of the stupid anti-enterprise IR policies such as penalty rates.
*  A user-pays co-payment is essential
*  Redistribute a percentage of the superannuation guarantee payment and / or earnings into a health insurance premium (super funds to it now with life insurance)

The bottom line is taxes need to be increased.  BUT if taxes are increased the non-income tax payers have to bear some of the cost as well with a token co-payment and an increased GST bill.

Non-income tax payers cannot continue to get a free ride off the tax-payer.

Tony Abbott's own words:


Quote:

We will be a no surprises, no excuses government, because you are sick of nasty surprises and lame excuses from people that you have trusted with your future...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/tony-abbotts-campaign-launch-speech-full-transcript-20130825-2sjhc.html#ixzz2toHeZXy0

Lying piece of mud.

IMO the "baby boomer" thing is BS propaganda anyway. It was a yank thing that our pollies adopted because it gives the impression there are a really big number of old ppl suddenly. Thing is population grows and the old ppl are growing @ the same rate as they always have. the govts have spent our pensions and are trying to blame it on us - as usual.

SOB

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 8:24am:

Medicare / Medibank was unsustainable from the outset and is even more unsustainable now and without reform will go belly up. The 'levy' has rarely changed to cover the compounding cost.

So put up the Medicare levy. No brainer.


Quote:

The cost is going to continue to compound as the population ages and the number of income tax-payers as a proportion of the population declines. F A C T How is it going to be funded?  Labor always uses debt (which is unsustainable).  The Coalition use cuts to other services (which is also unsustainable)?

End the ridiculous inconsistency where self-funded retirees are kept out of the taxation system while being a part of the cohort that consumes the bulk of the health care budget. That is what is causing the unsustainability.


Quote:

The Coalition proposes a co-payment and the Lefties have a dumby spit because apparently this is 'unfair'....bullchitt.

It is unfair because the largest consumers of the health care budget pay the least towards it even though many of them can easily afford to do so.


Quote:

TAX reform and IR reform is the answer. * Increase the GST * Get rid of the stupid anti-enterprise IR policies such as penalty rates. *  A user-pays co-payment is essential *  Redistribute a percentage of the superannuation guarantee payment and / or earnings into a health insurance premium (super funds to it now with life insurance)

These proposals do nothing towards addressing the sustainability of the health care budget but are just another tax grab to extort more silver from the poor by force to pay for the extravagant largesse of the wealthy.

A more sensible approach that goes to the heart of the sustainability issue is ending the taxation moratorium on self-funded retirees. This would raise more revenue than the entire health budget, so use some of this extra revenue to improve funding for aged care.


Quote:

The bottom line is taxes need to be increased.  BUT if taxes are increased the non-income tax payers have to bear some of the cost as well with a token co-payment and an increased GST bill. Non-income tax payers cannot continue to get a free ride off the tax-payer.

Start with the self-funded retirees. The ones that earn good income from investing their superannuation and paying very little tax on it while at the same time being some of the largest consumers of the health care budget.

* Make superannuation lump sums tax free
* Tax investment income from investing superannuation as normal and end the tax moratorium
* Phase this in over 10 years

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:36am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:30am: We don't want an American user pays type health system.  Where only the well off are looked after.  Leave Medicare and bulk billing alone.      :(    Why should my taxes pay for someone else?

They dont, unless you lie about where you live. ::)

What does "It didn't that long" mean?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:07am:

What does "It didn't that long" mean?

Whats wrong with a co contribution of  single digit dollars
for those not on a health care card eg  [,  teachers, GINA,
Clive , Public Service,  simple ! ;D ;D ;D ;D

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:07am:

What does "It didn't that long" mean?

Ask your English teacher if you have problems with English language comprehension.

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:20am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:07am: What does "It didn't that long" mean? Ask your English teacher if you have problems with English language comprehension.

So what does it mean  SA  ;)

Aust pays about 12 % gdp on health, USA about 16 %.
so private is not the answer.

NZ has a good system of co payments
kids free, adults about $9 a visit
but also a small co payment for hospital.

A totally free system is probably unsustainable.
I'd like to see some rewards for looking after your own health.
A small "no claims bonus" ;)

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:01am:

So put up the Medicare levy. No brainer.

Yes it is.


Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:01am:

End the ridiculous inconsistency where self-funded retirees are kept out of the taxation system while being a part of the cohort that consumes the bulk of the health care budget. That is what is causing the unsustainability

You'll have to expand on ''self-funded retirees are kept out of the taxation system'' ?

My sis is a self funded retiree but she still pays lots of tax.


Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:01am:

It is unfair because the largest consumers of the health care budget pay the least towards it even though many of them can easily afford to do so.

You'll need to elaborate there.  If you are again referring to self funded retirees I think you will find that they (most) are privately health insured and /or pay for their treatment outright.  Yes they can see a doctor for free but they also continue to pay the medicare levy.

The largest consumers of the health care budget by far would be the unfunded retirees.  Some see GPs every other day, it goes with the territory.  Obviously they couldn't afford multiple co-payments so anyone in this category would be subsidised much in the way prescriptions are now.  Over a certain amount of GP visits in a timeframe would be exempt.


Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:01am:

These proposals do nothing towards addressing the sustainability of the health care budget but are just another tax grab to extort more silver from the poor by force to pay for the extravagant largesse of the wealthy

You were doing well up to now but the stupid politics of envy had to emerge eventually I guess.

ANY additional revenue to the Govt has to improve sustainability for ANY Govt service.

Whilst we have a flawed democracy the so-called rich will always pay the lion's share of the cost of Govt services.  The down trodden pay just about effall and will ride on the backs.  That just goes with the territory.


Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:01am:

A more sensible approach that goes to the heart of the sustainability issue is ending the taxation moratorium on self-funded retirees. This would raise more revenue than the entire health budget, so use some of this extra revenue to improve funding for aged care

You think that is sensible?  I for one would drop any plans for being self funded.  I'll spend up now and ride on the tax-payers back when (if) I make it to old age.... ;D

Mind you the Tax-payer's back will likely be broken by then with all you lefties jumping on it.... :D


Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:01am:

Start with the self-funded retirees. The ones that earn good income from investing their superannuation and paying very little tax on it while at the same time being some of the largest consumers of the health care budget. * Make superannuation lump sums tax free * Tax investment income from investing superannuation as normal and end the tax moratorium * Phase this in over 10 years

This is where you Truebelivers fall down.

You need to recognise a simple fact.  If you incentivise something you get more of it and if you penalise something you get less of it.

Tax is a penalty.  Start taxing superannuation at the 'normal' rate and there will be less superannuation which will only COST the Govt.

Tax investment and you will get less of it.

Remove the incentives to be a self funded retiree and you will get LESS self funded retirees.

Justabout all your proposals compound unsustainability not improve it......... ::)

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:20am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:07am: What does "It didn't that long" mean? Ask your English teacher if you have problems with English language comprehension.

It's missing a verb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVT6YKxmCwE

Look, poor people should have thought about their health care options before they decided to be poor. Stop expecting hardworking taxpayers to fund your lifestyle choices when we have Rupert to pay and corporate welfare to fund.
</sarcasm>

This is how the Coalition view poor people and want us to be more like America!

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:24pm:

Look, poor people should have thought about their health care options before they decided to be poor. Stop expecting hardworking taxpayers to fund your lifestyle choices when we have Rupert to pay and corporate welfare to fund. </sarcasm> This is how the Coalition view poor people and want us to be more like America!

Do you know and understand Coalition voters come from all walks of life.. Or is just to hard for you to understand

;) ;) ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 8:18am:

They are really going after the wrong end of the system. Australias spend on primary care (GP's ) has declined as a percentage over time. It is the spend on very very expensive high tech and high end pharmaceuticals that will cripple the system If a drug to treat end stage breast cancer (ie prolong life by 6 months with no prospect of a cure) costs $100,000 a patient. Should this be listed on the pbs and paid for by the taxpayer. What if its 2 months, What if its 5 years. These are the difficult questions that the government need to discuss with the public. Doctors will not (and should not) be making decisions based on economics. They will always do what it best and bugger the cost. The taxpayer and the government need to decide what level of care they want and then provide it efficiently and equitably.

  Actually no, this is the difficult question you need to answer.  Let Tony Abbott speak for himself and you speak for you.  Because ultimately I expect your answer on this will be one of the issues that guide you when you cast your vote in the next Federal election.  So, lets try and answer it shall we. 

Should we let that woman die from breast cancer because she can't afford the medicine or should we, the tax payer, be prepared to pay for the medicine so she doesn't die? Whats your answer to that? 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:38pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 8:18am: They are really going after the wrong end of the system. Australias spend on primary care (GP's ) has declined as a percentage over time. It is the spend on very very expensive high tech and high end pharmaceuticals that will cripple the system If a drug to treat end stage breast cancer (ie prolong life by 6 months with no prospect of a cure) costs $100,000 a patient. Should this be listed on the pbs and paid for by the taxpayer. What if its 2 months, What if its 5 years. These are the difficult questions that the government need to discuss with the public. Doctors will not (and should not) be making decisions based on economics. They will always do what it best and bugger the cost. The taxpayer and the government need to decide what level of care they want and then provide it efficiently and equitably.   Actually no, this is the difficult question you need to answer.  Let Tony Abbott speak for himself and you speak for you.  Because ultimately I expect your answer on this will be one of the issues that guide you when you cast your vote in the next Federal election.  So, lets try and answer it shall we.  Should we let that woman die from breast cancer because she can't afford the medicine or should we, the tax payer, be prepared to pay for the medicine so she doesn't die? Whats your answer to that?

Your question leaves out the most important part:


Quote:

to treat end stage breast cancer (ie prolong life by 6 months with no prospect of a cure)

Your question leaving out the above would get a resounding NO

The question in full would get a resounding YES

Our problem as a society is that apparently we are all entitled & not allowed to die.

Entitled - example - any women over 40 on IVF- have your kids when your body is supposed to.
I laugh at my friends in their late 30's early 40's having their 1st child, Im 43 my daughters just turned 18 & guess what, so have my wife & I. :D

Not allowed to die - The countless examples of people being brought back even when they have stated Do not recus then linger as virtual vegetables for years.
The 90 year old Alzheimer sufferer, no idea where or what they are let alone who who has major medical intervention for anything really.

But of course we not only want the above, we want tax cuts as well.


On a personal note- my mother died from Breast Cancer  14/8/95, actually we don't know what eventually killed her as an autopsy was refused.
The breast cancer caused Peripheral neuropathy.
The screams that came from the bedroom as palliative care nurses moved her to bath her, the memory still bring tears to my eyes.

needless to say by 1/2/95 death was begged for instead of a cure or extension of life. :(

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:38pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 8:18am: They are really going after the wrong end of the system. Australias spend on primary care (GP's ) has declined as a percentage over time. It is the spend on very very expensive high tech and high end pharmaceuticals that will cripple the system If a drug to treat end stage breast cancer (ie prolong life by 6 months with no prospect of a cure) costs $100,000 a patient. Should this be listed on the pbs and paid for by the taxpayer. What if its 2 months, What if its 5 years. These are the difficult questions that the government need to discuss with the public. Doctors will not (and should not) be making decisions based on economics. They will always do what it best and bugger the cost. The taxpayer and the government need to decide what level of care they want and then provide it efficiently and equitably.   Actually no, this is the difficult question you need to answer.  Let Tony Abbott speak for himself and you speak for you.  Because ultimately I expect your answer on this will be one of the issues that guide you when you cast your vote in the next Federal election.  So, lets try and answer it shall we.  Should we let that woman die from breast cancer because she can't afford the medicine or should we, the tax payer, be prepared to pay for the medicine so she doesn't die? Whats your answer to that?

;) ;)  We pay for it now,, SO WHATS YOUR PROBLEM   >:( >:(

No $6 fee, at least yet. What a shame, neither party has the guts to scrap or at least reduce Medicare.

matty wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

No $6 fee, at least yet. What a shame, neither party has the guts to scrap or at least reduce Medicare.

I think before we start charging $6 to visit the doctor we need to recoup all that tax $$$$ the tax payer paid so that Matty could go to a private school instead of going to a public school like most everybody else.  Why are we starving medicare of funds to pay for this slime bag's elitist education so that he comes out of it thinking he's more entitled then everyone else.  I mean whats he done except hang off daddy's coat sleeves.  Didn't Hockey tell us that these people with their entitled attitudes need to be booted out of the country.   

I don't even know what you're talking about, I just don't see why health care should be free. But then again, I am talking to a far-left Green voter.

Mr Dutton, has let the cat out of the bag.  Leave medicare and bulk billing alone.      >:( 

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:20am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:07am: What does "It didn't that long" mean? Ask your English teacher if you have problems with English language comprehension.

Maybe you should, as it is not a complete sentence and does not make sense!

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

Mr Dutton, has let the cat out of the bag.  Leave medicare and bulk billing alone.      >:(

Not in my opinion. The $6 fee sounds like a great idea to me. Unfortunately it's not going to happen.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:20am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:07am: What does "It didn't that long" mean? Ask your English teacher if you have problems with English language comprehension. Maybe you should, as it is not a complete sentence and does not make sense!

Would you expect anything different from the wise one though? At least he seems to have come up with the title himself, everything else that he posts is just copied and pasted.

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

Mr Dutton, has let the cat out of the bag.  Leave medicare and bulk billing alone.      >:(

This is going to cost the Liberals a Senate seat in WA.

The Liberals denied the co-payment during the Griffith by-election campaign. Now that that by-election is done, they have announced that it is actually under consideration.

Then the High Court annuls the WA Senate result.

Talk about giving the ALP a loaded gun with the WA Liberal having targets painted on their foreheads. The voters of WA won't miss.

Yes Bam, l think your right on that.  Thanks for letting the cat out of the bag, Mr Dutton.      :)

Simple way for Dutton to make people that can afford to pay more, pay more as he said is to dump the 30% rebate and raise the levy. Simple and efficient.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:25am:

matty wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:45am: No $6 fee, at least yet. What a shame, neither party has the guts to scrap or at least reduce Medicare. I think before we start charging $6 to visit the doctor we need to recoup all that tax $$$$ the tax payer paid so that Matty could go to a private school instead of going to a public school like most everybody else.  Why are we starving medicare of funds to pay for this slime bag's elitist education so that he comes out of it thinking he's more entitled then everyone else.  I mean whats he done except hang off daddy's coat sleeves.  Didn't Hockey tell us that these people with their entitled attitudes need to be booted out of the country.

Total BS. If Matty went to a private school, he cost the taxpayer less than if he went to a public school. His parents should get a rebate moron

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:53pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:38pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 8:18am: They are really going after the wrong end of the system. Australias spend on primary care (GP's ) has declined as a percentage over time. It is the spend on very very expensive high tech and high end pharmaceuticals that will cripple the system If a drug to treat end stage breast cancer (ie prolong life by 6 months with no prospect of a cure) costs $100,000 a patient. Should this be listed on the pbs and paid for by the taxpayer. What if its 2 months, What if its 5 years. These are the difficult questions that the government need to discuss with the public. Doctors will not (and should not) be making decisions based on economics. They will always do what it best and bugger the cost. The taxpayer and the government need to decide what level of care they want and then provide it efficiently and equitably.   Actually no, this is the difficult question you need to answer.  Let Tony Abbott speak for himself and you speak for you.  Because ultimately I expect your answer on this will be one of the issues that guide you when you cast your vote in the next Federal election.  So, lets try and answer it shall we.  Should we let that woman die from breast cancer because she can't afford the medicine or should we, the tax payer, be prepared to pay for the medicine so she doesn't die? Whats your answer to that?  Your question leaves out the most important part: Quote: to treat end stage breast cancer (ie prolong life by 6 months with no prospect of a cure) Your question leaving out the above would get a resounding NO The question in full would get a resounding YES Our problem as a society is that apparently we are all entitled & not allowed to die. Entitled - example - any women over 40 on IVF- have your kids when your body is supposed to. I laugh at my friends in their late 30's early 40's having their 1st child, Im 43 my daughters just turned 18 & guess what, so have my wife & I. :D Not allowed to die - The countless examples of people being brought back even when they have stated Do not recus then linger as virtual vegetables for years. The 90 year old Alzheimer sufferer, no idea where or what they are let alone who who has major medical intervention for anything really. But of course we not only want the above, we want tax cuts as well. On a personal note- my mother died from Breast Cancer  14/8/95, actually we don't know what eventually killed her as an autopsy was refused. The breast cancer caused Peripheral neuropathy. The screams that came from the bedroom as palliative care nurses moved her to bath her, the memory still bring tears to my eyes. needless to say by 1/2/95 death was begged for instead of a cure or extension of life. :(

Can't think of anything worse than spending our 20s with kids.

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 7:34am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:40am: wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:38am: We can't all afford private health insurance.     :( How is that my problem? Mr Hicks: 1.  Do you pay tax in Australia? 2.  What ought the Australian Government do with that tax you pay (if any?)

My wife and I paid nearly $130,000 per year in tax through PAYE when we there.

The taxes should go on roads, police, prisons etc.

What I don't get is why we had to pay a fortune to fund some loser to have his family get free healthcare.
"It's my right to have it"

Well I tell you what buddy, how about get off your fricken ass get a job and pay for it like I do?

Sorry, but Australia does have a far greater Socialist mindset than anywhere else I've lived.
Oh and everybody knows Socialism became a very dirty word 30 years ago to now.

Setanta wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

Simple way for Dutton to make people that can afford to pay more, pay more as he said is to dump the 30% rebate and raise the levy. Simple and efficient.

What a shock.

Tax the Rich eh?

Because Australia doesn't already have a shocking reputation for that already.

I pay $10,000 less in tax in the UK than I did in Australia under regular PAYE.
The reason?
Your absurd higher tax rates and low kick ins.

One day, Boer, you may discover the world doesn't revolve around you.

But then again, maybe you won't.

I know what my money would be on.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:40am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:38am: We can't all afford private health insurance.     :( How is that my problem?

You really are an arsehole.

Quote:

The taxes should go on roads, police, prisons etc.

How are those things your problem.  After all, you only want roads or police or prisons where you are.....not where any other taxpayer might be.

You want to corrall the tax you pay to where it benefits just you.

Sorry......You are paying tax in Australia, and our system is not all about just you and yours.  We pay taxes here for the collective good, not for selective benefit.

I'm a Ghandi fan on this issue.


Quote:

The True Measure of Any Society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.

I put universal health care right at the heart of that.

You, on the other hand, could not care less about those vulnerable members, just so long as you are okay, hey Jack.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:20pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:57pm: Simple way for Dutton to make people that can afford to pay more, pay more as he said is to dump the 30% rebate and raise the levy. Simple and efficient. What a shock. Tax the Rich eh? Because Australia doesn't already have a shocking reputation for that already. I pay $10,000 less in tax in the UK than I did in Australia under regular PAYE. The reason? Your absurd higher tax rates and low kick ins.

Why blame me? Dutton said those that can pay more should pay more. Don't you hate our Lib govt.  ::)

I don't give an f what you pay Andrei and neither does anyone else here. You only keep sprouting this kind of stuff as some kind of "look at me, mum!" Get over it.

What better way to get the revenue do you have in mind rather than whine about taxes? Dropping the rebate would put 5.3 billion dollars back in govt coffers. Nothing is fairer than the medicare rebate.

Being a non paying non-citizen who pretty much adds nothing to my country.
I am not surprised to see you on the side of hard working people paying for your freeloaders - kiwis included.

I'd rather hear from people who actually contribute to Australia as opposed to washed up free riders thanks. Sane ones or not.

Sorry but in the United States I paid my own healthcare and had access to the best doctors and hospitals around.

My taxes were much lower than what I paid in Australia as a result.

I simply refuse to pay for non paying drop kicks to have something for free.

Novel concept eh? Paying for something.....

And you wonder why we call Australia Socialist?

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

You, on the other hand, could not care less about those vulnerable members, just so long as you are okay, hey Jack.

He's an A Grade nutcase.
Absolute sociopath.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

Being a non paying non-citizen who pretty much adds nothing to my country. I am not surprised to see you on the side of hard working people paying for your freeloaders - kiwis included. I'd rather hear from people who actually contribute to Australia as opposed to washed up free riders thanks. Sane ones or not.

Who is that aimed at? I work and pay taxes(IT Admin at a school) and have never moaned about it as I know that is the price of a civilised society. Maybe you would be more comfortable in Somalia?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:33pm:

Sorry but in the United States I paid my own healthcare and had access to the best doctors and hospitals around.

Aahaha look at this guy, thinking the US is a good example of healthcare.

Wow, just wow

Stratos wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:40pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 2:33pm: Sorry but in the United States I paid my own healthcare and had access to the best doctors and hospitals around. Aahaha look at this guy, thinking the US is a good example of healthcare. Wow, just wow

I stand by my assessment:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392827452/56#56

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392827452/61#61

How long have you lived in the USA?

I lived there years. Had superior healthcare coverage and paid far less tax and had a cost of living 60% of Australia.
Far better country and standard of living I had in San Diego than Melbourne.

Why?
I don't have to pay for society's losers!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

How long have you lived in the USA? I lived there years. Had superior healthcare coverage and paid far less tax and had a cost of living 60% of Australia. Far better country and standard of living I had in San Diego than Melbourne. Why? I don't have to pay for society's losers!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392827452/56#56

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

How long have you lived in the USA? I lived there years. Had superior healthcare coverage and paid far less tax and had a cost of living 60% of Australia. Far better country and standard of living I had in San Diego than Melbourne. Why? I don't have to pay for society's losers!

Did you pay for that healthcare coverage, or was it part of your salary package, Andrei ~ paid for you by your employer?

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 2:45pm: How long have you lived in the USA? I lived there years. Had superior healthcare coverage and paid far less tax and had a cost of living 60% of Australia. Far better country and standard of living I had in San Diego than Melbourne. Why? I don't have to pay for society's losers! Did you pay for that healthcare coverage, or was it part of your salary package, Andrei ~ paid for you by your employer?

Employers paying for "society's losers"?    :-/

The words "health care" and "comedy" aren't usually found in the same sentence, but in Academy Award winning filmmaker Michael Moore's new movie 'SiCKO,' they go together hand in (rubber) glove.

While Moore's 'SiCKO' follows the trailblazing path of previous hit films, the Oscar-winning BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE and all-time box-office documentary champ FAHRENHEIT 9/11, it is also something very different for Michael Moore. 'SiCKO' is a straight-from-the-heart portrait of the crazy and sometimes cruel U.S. health care system, told from the vantage of everyday people faced with extraordinary and bizarre challenges in their quest for basic health coverage.

In the tradition of Mark Twain or Will Rogers, 'SiCKO' uses humor to tell these compelling stories, leading the audience to conclude that an alternative system is the only possible answer.

    Get the 'SiCKO' DVD      ;)

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 2:45pm: How long have you lived in the USA? I lived there years. Had superior healthcare coverage and paid far less tax and had a cost of living 60% of Australia. Far better country and standard of living I had in San Diego than Melbourne. Why? I don't have to pay for society's losers! Did you pay for that healthcare coverage, or was it part of your salary package, Andrei ~ paid for you by your employer?

It was part of the package so I still paid albeit direct out of gross pay.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:58pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:25am: matty wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:45am: No $6 fee, at least yet. What a shame, neither party has the guts to scrap or at least reduce Medicare. I think before we start charging $6 to visit the doctor we need to recoup all that tax $$$$ the tax payer paid so that Matty could go to a private school instead of going to a public school like most everybody else.  Why are we starving medicare of funds to pay for this slime bag's elitist education so that he comes out of it thinking he's more entitled then everyone else.  I mean whats he done except hang off daddy's coat sleeves.  Didn't Hockey tell us that these people with their entitled attitudes need to be booted out of the country.    Total BS. If Matty went to a private school, he cost the taxpayer less than if he went to a public school. His parents should get a rebate nice person

Exactly, aqua, thank you, but no point in trying to tell a far-left Green voter that.

The comments on this thread indicate that it should be up to the rich and middle classes to pay for those who don't look after themselves. Why health care should be as free as it is in this country is completely beyond me. The left think that they're entitled to do whatever they want, and the rich/middle classes should pay for it.

For those that have not seen the DVD, it is well worth a look.  You will see why Australia, should not go down the American health care road.  Should be available to hire in most DVD shops.  Get the Sicko DVD.     ;)      

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 2:49pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 2:45pm: How long have you lived in the USA? I lived there years. Had superior healthcare coverage and paid far less tax and had a cost of living 60% of Australia. Far better country and standard of living I had in San Diego than Melbourne. Why? I don't have to pay for society's losers! Did you pay for that healthcare coverage, or was it part of your salary package, Andrei ~ paid for you by your employer? It was part of the package so I still paid albeit direct out of gross pay.

Your employer paid it, and you took the benefit.  (Not unusual in America.)  Face that fact, Andrie.   You did not pay it.  You accepted employment there and one of the inducements they offered was health cover which they paid for, not you.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:13am:

Medicare should be overhauled. Why should people get free rides off the back of other peoples taxes. I do not - and have never - supported universal free healthcare.

Well, whoop de doo.....

:D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:36am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 4:30am: We don't want an American user pays type health system.  Where only the well off are looked after.  Leave Medicare and bulk billing alone.      :(    Why should my taxes pay for someone else?

As you don't pay tax here, that shouldn't be a problem.

:D

Medicare on life support      :(

Thursday 20th February 2014

General Secretary of the NSW Nurses and Midwives’ Association (NSWNMA), Brett Holmes, today urged all Australians who value our principle of universal health care to join nurses and midwives in defending Medicare as we know it.

“Australians treasure their Medicare cards. They are an invaluable safety net which guarantees that they and their families will never suffer for want of medical care when they need it just because they don’t have money in their pocket or expensive health insurance.

“The Minister for Health, Mr Dutton, last night as good as declared his intention to get rid of Medicare as we have come to know and rely on it,” Mr Holmes said.

“Minister Dutton told the ABC’s 7.30 Report last night that Australians need to pay more for their health care and spoke favourably about bringing in ‘co- payments’ to see a doctor.      :(

“Make no mistake, the day Australians have to stump up cash to take their sick child to the GP, that is the day Medicare becomes terminal. The Minister made it very clear that a user-pays system is the Abbott Government’s solution to every challenge our society might face.

“The Minister also confirmed in a speech in Brisbane yesterday his Government’s preference for a greater role of the private sector and private insurers in primary care, as the government wanted to ‘grow the opportunity for those Australians who can afford to do so to contribute to their own health care costs’.

“We already have a two-tier system of health for those who can afford private health insurance, which, we should not forget, receives a taxpayer subsidy of approximately $5 billion a year, but clearly the Government sees greater opportunity for insurance companies and corporations to make more money out of illness.” Mr Holmes said.      :(

The NSWNMA supports the international movement for the introduction of a Financial Transactions Tax (FTT) in Australia and internationally. It will call on visiting G20 Finance Ministers meeting in Sydney on Sunday, including Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey, to adopt such a tax across the developed world.

“A tiny levy on market-based financial trading, currency speculation, derivatives and share trading would provide ample funds to maintain the services like health and aged care that Australians expect. And it would be paid only by a handful of the wealthiest among us, many of whom are currently able to minimise or avoid paying tax,” Mr Holmes said.

“Already 11 Eurozone nations, including France and Germany, have moved to introduce the levy and been given approval to do so by the EU Finance Ministers meeting in Brussels last year.

Experts have estimated that an FTT of only 0.05% in Australia from 2005 would have raised approximately $48 billion in just the three following years.

“Even that tiny impost would fill any budget shortfalls without extreme measures like destroying Medicare. If it’s good enough for Germany, why not us?” Mr Holmes said.

“Medicare is precious to Australians because it is fundamental to our sense of living in a fair and decent society. It means no one need live in fear of needing medical help and being unable to afford it or choosing between the doctor and the groceries.

“We pay for it through the levy on our income and our general taxes. It treats every Australian the same, no matter where they live or how much wealth they have. If we need more money to keep our nation healthy, then we say institute the FTT, that way those who really can afford to contribute more to our society will do so.

“We can all see a doctor or go to hospital whenever we need to, even if we are broke.

“So called ‘co-payments’ are just the thin edge of a wedge that has been sharpened for years by extreme ideologues within the Coalition parties. If there’s a payment, it’s not Medicare – full stop.      :(

“These people have always wanted to destroy Medicare and allow a US-style private profit system to take over in its place. This is the opening salvo to achieve that end,” Mr Holmes said.      >:(

“It’s up to Australians to make their voices heard before it’s too late and Medicare is dead and buried,” Mr Holmes said.

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 3:12pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 2:58pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 2:49pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 2:45pm: How long have you lived in the USA? I lived there years. Had superior healthcare coverage and paid far less tax and had a cost of living 60% of Australia. Far better country and standard of living I had in San Diego than Melbourne. Why? I don't have to pay for society's losers! Did you pay for that healthcare coverage, or was it part of your salary package, Andrei ~ paid for you by your employer? It was part of the package so I still paid albeit direct out of gross pay. Your employer paid it, and you took the benefit.  (Not unusual in America.)  Face that fact, Andrie.   You did not pay it.  You accepted employment there and one of the inducements they offered was health cover which they paid for, not you.

Not true Aussie.
I checked the accounting for it.

They may have physically paid my cover but it was charged to my payroll, ie I paid for it out of my gross pay.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 4:13am:

Medicare should be overhauled. Why should people get free rides off the back of other peoples taxes. I do not - and have never - supported universal free healthcare.

You don't live in Australia. That makes your views irrelevant.

Quote:

ie I paid for it out of my gross pay.

At what cost to you?

Australian citizens have no say in the running of their country eh?
Just if they happen to live abroad!?

Not their health care, son. When have you ever paid the Medicare rebate?

matty wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 3:07pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:58pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:25am: matty wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:45am: No $6 fee, at least yet. What a shame, neither party has the guts to scrap or at least reduce Medicare. I think before we start charging $6 to visit the doctor we need to recoup all that tax $$$$ the tax payer paid so that Matty could go to a private school instead of going to a public school like most everybody else.  Why are we starving medicare of funds to pay for this slime bag's elitist education so that he comes out of it thinking he's more entitled then everyone else.  I mean whats he done except hang off daddy's coat sleeves.  Didn't Hockey tell us that these people with their entitled attitudes need to be booted out of the country.    Total BS. If Matty went to a private school, he cost the taxpayer less than if he went to a public school. His parents should get a rebate nice person Exactly, aqua, thank you, but no point in trying to tell a far-left Green voter that. The comments on this thread indicate that it should be up to the rich and middle classes to pay for those who don't look after themselves. Why health care should be as free as it is in this country is completely beyond me. The left think that they're entitled to do whatever they want, and the rich/middle classes should pay for it.

Who pays for your education, Matty?

Karnal wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 12:17am:

Not their health care, son. When have you ever paid the Medicare rebate?

I paid the Medicare levy

You only spent 3 years in Australia, and you had private health insurance. I don’t make this stuff up - you tell us.

You live and vote in the UK. Why are you even bothering to discuss Australian health care?

When we need some advice on British accounting systems, we’ll give you a call, okay?

Listen son, I paid the Medicare levy as part of my taxes.
As you well know.

In fact the first year I did my return I called up the ATO to ask why I was paying for Medicare in my summary because I had private health insurance.
They informed me that everyone pays the levy, I just avoid the surcharge by having insurance.
Hope you understand how it works now.

Given I am an Australian by birth it matters not a jot where I live - London, San Diego, Caracas... I have every right and it's my responsibility to be interested and concerned for my country. Yeah?

By the way UK Accounting is the same as Australian - It's IFRS.
Then again if you want USGAAP advice that's also a club I have in the bag.
Probably explains why companies value me so much eh?

Better luck next time son. Dust down them purchased viet medals and go out pretending to be a veteran.
It'll boost your confidence back up.

The Current Medicare system is unsustainable.

And making the Rich as well as the middle class to pay more for their healthcare is a good idea.

I also agree that the private health sector has a key role to play in making the system more sustainable.

However it is important to allow the homeless and those who don't have a job nor receive welfare payments continue to receive free healthcare.

Pantheon wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 2:12am:

The Current Medicare system is unsustainable. And making the Rich as well as the middle class to pay more for their healthcare is a good idea.

Increase the Medicare levy to the level needed to fund health properly. Stop starving the public system of funds. Raise the funds that it needs.


Quote:

I also agree that the private health sector has a key role to play in making the system more sustainable.

Not true. The private health insurance industry makes the system less sustainable, not more. They keep jacking up their fees at rates far in excess of inflation every year. With the 30% rebate, we all pay for that largesse whether we have private insurance or not. The cost of this rebate has blown out to 5 billion dollars a year while saving the general health budget only 2 billion dollars. Do you want sustainability in the health system? Make the private health insurance sector subject to the full force of the market rather than sheltering it so they become fat and bloated off the blood of taxpayers. Axe the rebate, and axe the Medicare surcharge for high-income earners. Net savings - about 3 billion dollars. It may not even be necessary to increase the Medicare levy if this is done.


Quote:

However it is important to allow the homeless and those who don't have a job nor receive welfare payments continue to receive free healthcare.

Teeth and gums are a part of the body. Add dental to Medicare.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 12:50am:

Listen son, I paid the Medicare levy as part of my taxes. As you well know. In fact the first year I did my return I called up the ATO to ask why I was paying for Medicare in my summary because I had private health insurance. They informed me that everyone pays the levy, I just avoid the surcharge by having insurance. Hope you understand how it works now. Given I am an Australian by birth it matters not a jot where I live - London, San Diego, Caracas... I have every right and it's my responsibility to be interested and concerned for my country. Yeah? By the way UK Accounting is the same as Australian - It's IFRS. Then again if you want USGAAP advice that's also a club I have in the bag. Probably explains why companies value me so much eh? Better luck next time son. Dust down them purchased viet medals and go out pretending to be a veteran. It'll boost your confidence back up.

You sound a bit miffed. Too valued by your companies?

Bes t to have a lie down, Afrikaans. You’ve earned it.

Pantheon wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 2:12am:

The Current Medicare system is unsustainable. And making the Rich as well as the middle class to pay more for their healthcare is a good idea. I also agree that the private health sector has a key role to play in making the system more sustainable. However it is important to allow the homeless and those who don't have a job nor receive welfare payments continue to receive free healthcare.

medicare should be increased and we should stop subsidising private health and put that money to public health.,

alternatively, bring in a system where if you earn over a predetermined amount, you pay.

Karnal wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 12:19am:

matty wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 3:07pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:58pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:25am: matty wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:45am: No $6 fee, at least yet. What a shame, neither party has the guts to scrap or at least reduce Medicare. I think before we start charging $6 to visit the doctor we need to recoup all that tax $$$$ the tax payer paid so that Matty could go to a private school instead of going to a public school like most everybody else.  Why are we starving medicare of funds to pay for this slime bag's elitist education so that he comes out of it thinking he's more entitled then everyone else.  I mean whats he done except hang off daddy's coat sleeves.  Didn't Hockey tell us that these people with their entitled attitudes need to be booted out of the country.    Total BS. If Matty went to a private school, he cost the taxpayer less than if he went to a public school. His parents should get a rebate nice person Exactly, aqua, thank you, but no point in trying to tell a far-left Green voter that. The comments on this thread indicate that it should be up to the rich and middle classes to pay for those who don't look after themselves. Why health care should be as free as it is in this country is completely beyond me. The left think that they're entitled to do whatever they want, and the rich/middle classes should pay for it. Who pays for your education, Matty?

My parents.

Australia 'running out of money' for Medicare, says Treasurer Joe Hockey
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-running-out-of-money-for-medicare-says-treasurer-joe-hockey-20140221-335j0.html


Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 8:55am:

Increase the Medicare levy to the level needed to fund health properly. Stop starving the public system of funds. Raise the funds that it needs.

What would your solution to the problem be?


Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 8:55am:

ot true. The private health insurance industry makes the system less sustainable, not more. They keep jacking up their fees at rates far in excess of inflation every year. With the 30% rebate, we all pay for that largesse whether we have private insurance or not. The cost of this rebate has blown out to 5 billion dollars a year while saving the general health budget only 2 billion dollars. Do you want sustainability in the health system? Make the private health insurance sector subject to the full force of the market rather than sheltering it so they become fat and bloated off the blood of taxpayers. Axe the rebate, and axe the Medicare surcharge for high-income earners. Net savings - about 3 billion dollars. It may not even be necessary to increase the Medicare levy if this is done.

I agree, we should Make the private health insurance sector subject to the full force of the market rather than sheltering it.


Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 8:55am:

Teeth and gums are a part of the body. Add dental to Medicare.

Australia cant afford adding dental to Medicare.

John Smith wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:01am:

Pantheon wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 2:12am: The Current Medicare system is unsustainable. And making the Rich as well as the middle class to pay more for their healthcare is a good idea. I also agree that the private health sector has a key role to play in making the system more sustainable. However it is important to allow the homeless and those who don't have a job nor receive welfare payments continue to receive free healthcare. medicare should be increased and we should stop subsidising private health and put that money to public health., alternatively, bring in a system where if you earn over a predetermined amount, you pay.

Agreed we should stop subsidising private health and put that money to public health. As long as the private health sector is not monopolized and there is lots of competition, the private health sector will become very cheep and adorable.

Its called Universal healthcare for a reason. All citizens, black or white, rich or poor are all equal.

The Current Medicare system is unsustainable.

Medicare is forecast to increase from $65 billion in this year's budget to $75 billion within just three years.

Australia cant afford that!! This is what happens with socialist programs, they get out of control and end up bankrupting that state.

Pantheon wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 1:41pm:

The Current Medicare system is unsustainable. Medicare is forecast to increase from $65 billion in this year's budget to $75 billion within just three years. Australia cant afford that!! This is what happens with socialist programs, they get out of control and end up bankrupting that state.

If the state runs out of money, we can just kill the rich, and take all theirs, and start again.

On an ethical basis I would wonder if that killing a few hundred obscenely wealthy folk, and redistributing their money across society would not result in a rather massive nett saving of lives?

Pantheon wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 1:34pm:

Australia 'running out of money' for Medicare, says Treasurer Joe Hockey http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-running-out-of-money-for-medicare-says-treasurer-joe-hockey-20140221-335j0.html Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 8:55am: Increase the Medicare levy to the level needed to fund health properly. Stop starving the public system of funds. Raise the funds that it needs. What would your solution to the problem be? Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 8:55am: ot true. The private health insurance industry makes the system less sustainable, not more. They keep jacking up their fees at rates far in excess of inflation every year. With the 30% rebate, we all pay for that largesse whether we have private insurance or not. The cost of this rebate has blown out to 5 billion dollars a year while saving the general health budget only 2 billion dollars. Do you want sustainability in the health system? Make the private health insurance sector subject to the full force of the market rather than sheltering it so they become fat and bloated off the blood of taxpayers. Axe the rebate, and axe the Medicare surcharge for high-income earners. Net savings - about 3 billion dollars. It may not even be necessary to increase the Medicare levy if this is done. I agree, we should Make the private health insurance sector subject to the full force of the market rather than sheltering it. Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 8:55am: Teeth and gums are a part of the body. Add dental to Medicare. Australia cant afford adding dental to Medicare.

Try raising the Proper level of Taxes, reducing Tax loopholes & cutting Expenditure in appropriate areas!

Pantheon wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 1:34pm:

Australia 'running out of money' for Medicare, says Treasurer Joe Hockey http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-running-out-of-money-for-medicare-says-treasurer-joe-hockey-20140221-335j0.html Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 8:55am: Increase the Medicare levy to the level needed to fund health properly. Stop starving the public system of funds. Raise the funds that it needs. What would your solution to the problem be?

Increase the Medicare levy to the level needed to fund health properly.


Quote:

Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 8:55am: Teeth and gums are a part of the body. Add dental to Medicare. Australia cant afford adding dental to Medicare.

That argument is a pile of unsupported right-wing rubbish. If Australia cannot afford adding dental to Medicare, how can so many people afford to go to the dentist?  :D It IS affordable, especially when basic dental consultations become free and people no longer need to pay for these in their private health insurance premiums.

mozzaok wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 1:53pm:

If the state runs out of money, we can just kill the rich, and take all theirs, and start again. On an ethical basis I would wonder if that killing a few hundred obscenely wealthy folk, and redistributing their money across society would not result in a rather massive nett saving of lives?

Killing off all the Rich and taking their wealth and redistributing will what.. pay for Medicare for a week? then we would be back at square one.

Lets not be stupid here..

Killing off the rich is a laughable suggestion.

Remember the state can only tax so much before it runs out of people to tax.

Taxing is never the answer.


Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 3:14pm:

Increase the Medicare levy to the level needed to fund health properly.

Rising taxs or levys are never the answer to an financial problem, because your curing the symptom and not the actually cause of the problem. The system will still be unsustainable and within 5 years, you'll be back at square one.


Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 3:14pm:

That argument is a pile of unsupported right-wing rubbish. If Australia cannot afford adding dental to Medicare, how can so many people afford to go to the dentist?  Cheesy It IS affordable, especially when basic dental consultations become free and people no longer need to pay for these in their private health insurance premiums.

When i say Australia i mean the Australian Government, if we increase taxs of cause we could then afford to add dental to Medicare. But the problem is the cost of Medicare is growing faster than the percentage of people using it, and resulting in the system becoming unsustainable.

As i said before

Medicare is forecast to increase from $65 billion in this year's budget to $75 billion within just three years.

Australia cant afford that!! This is what happens with socialist programs, they get out of control and end up bankrupting that state.

Letting the filthy rich use super to reduce tax costs the Budget $50Bn in the coming financial year. Negative gearing which is pricing houses out of the reach of first home buyers costs nearly as much.

Tax cuts given to the wealthiest 2001–7 were financed by a once in a generation real estate boom—that boom is gone, so should some of those tax cuts!

The equation is really fairly simple, if you don't want Medicare attacked don't vote for a Lieberal.

People who are stupid tend to get what they deserve.

Pantheon wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 1:41pm:

The Current Medicare system is unsustainable. Medicare is forecast to increase from $65 billion in this year's budget to $75 billion within just three years. Australia cant afford that!! This is what happens with socialist programs, they get out of control and end up bankrupting that state.

Charging $40,000 for a treatment which costs $20 to produce is part of the problem.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 4:23pm:

Letting the filthy rich use super to reduce tax costs the Budget $50Bn in the coming financial year. Negative gearing which is pricing houses out of the reach of first home buyers costs nearly as much.

This is part of the problem on this site.
Sensationalism and a lack of understanding of reality.

That above is what my parents have done for well over a decade to fund their retirement which they are now enjoying.
They are not filthy rich at all. Just a normal everyday middle class family - hardly Kerry Packer.

Also any incentives I have ever used or family have are open to every Australian.

Rather than moan and complain how unfair everything is, people should do the same!

Dnarever wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 4:28pm:

The equation is really fairly simple, if you don't want Medicare attacked don't vote for a Lieberal. People who are stupid tend to get what they deserve.

No that's a simpleton view of the world.

Then a typically biased comment from you anyway - 99% of your posts are anti-Liberal something you seem unable to admit.

my tip is that GP services will probably be left alone.
Why?
Because the increase in the rebate has only been 1 % per annum for the last 8 years. this is hardly exponential growth.
The 3 areas likely to be targetted are

1  pathology.  blood tests are growing as a cost by about 10 %.
if tests are bulk billed there is really no disincentive to just "test for everything"
a 30 dollar consult with ordering of tests to study iron studies, hepatitis b and hiv status and say menopausal hormones would incur costs to the commonwealth of about $300.

2  radiology.(growing by 9 %)  again a plain chest xray costs $30 . a CT scan $250 an MRI  $600. the high end tests are overused..often for reasons of fear of medical negligence claims.

3  pharmaceuticals , again growing by 7 %. many people are being moved from older cheaper meds to newer cleaner more expensive meds.  as an example, the average veterans affair patient now costs more to the treasury in drug subsidies than the cost of the pension.

By targetting pathology and radiology, the government can be sneaky too. they just cut the rebate by say 10 % and then let the radiology and pathology companies introduce the disincentive co payment (and cop the flak).
thats what i'd do if i was Mr Dutton

Can someone please answer me this? If someone smokes their entire life, why should it be up to the taxpayer to fund their operation? Why should taxpayers have to also fund those who go to see doctors for the most stupid and trivial of reasons?

Seeing a psychologist, audiologist or speech pathologist isn't free. Why should seeing a doctor be?

Me....

I'd target:

1.  Over servicing of 'Gold Card,' holders, and everyone of them would be a witness.

2.  Abusing the 'bulk billing' thing.

And what is the common factor?

Huh?

The health costs sure are growing.

The co-payment is not really a bad idea. Never designed to generate much revenue but a good way to stop over-servicing.

Bring the AMA and the College of Surgeons to heel. They've used their collective clout to squeeze the market for years with impunity.

Clobber the insurance companies. Specialist fees for public liability are outrageous with very few successful litigations. For some reason nobody seems to point the finger this way. Because its mandatory they can get away with gouging for years without a whimper from anybody.

Not everything but a good start for a minister with the balls to take them on.

Pantheon wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 4:13pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 3:14pm: Increase the Medicare levy to the level needed to fund health properly. Rising taxs or levys are never the answer to an financial problem, because your curing the symptom and not the actually cause of the problem.

Rubbish. Lowering taxes caused the budget shortfall, therefore increasing taxes fixes it. You have to be a rightard to fail to grasp this very simple concept.

The stupid right-wing ratcheting of taxes is insane, lower taxes then the reduced revenue causes budget problems, then use the budget problems as an excuse to take the chainsaw to budget measures the rightards don't like.

Costello and Swan both made the mistake of using temporary taxation revenue from mining to fund permanent changes to the taxation system and increased expenditure. The mining revenue isn't there. Remove the measures the mining revenue funded and it would go a long way to closing the deficit.

The budget haemorrhages revenue with all sorts of unwarranted tax concessions. Negative gearing, concessional taxation on capital gains, FBT lurks, etc. Axe these as well and the budget would be in surplus.

matty wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 7:09pm:

Can someone please answer me this? If someone smokes their entire life, why should it be up to the taxpayer to fund their operation?

Because someone who smokes is a taxpayer. Someone who smokes pays 40 cents excise per cigarette. Someone who smokes 25 cigarettes a day for 40 years pays the equivalent of over $140,000 in excise over their lifetime. That's not counting the other taxes they pay on the tobacco, and the other taxes they pay in general.

Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 7:37pm:

matty wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 7:09pm: Can someone please answer me this? If someone smokes their entire life, why should it be up to the taxpayer to fund their operation? Because someone who smokes is a taxpayer. Someone who smokes pays 40 cents excise per cigarette. Someone who smokes 25 cigarettes a day for 40 years pays the equivalent of over $140,000 in excise over their lifetime. That's not counting the other taxes they pay on the tobacco, and the other taxes they pay in general.

But that is their choice to smoke. Nobody made them. It is a very risky, stupid, illogical and senseless thing to do, you are choosing to make yourself unhealthy.

matty wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 7:39pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 7:37pm: matty wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 7:09pm: Can someone please answer me this? If someone smokes their entire life, why should it be up to the taxpayer to fund their operation? Because someone who smokes is a taxpayer. Someone who smokes pays 40 cents excise per cigarette. Someone who smokes 25 cigarettes a day for 40 years pays the equivalent of over $140,000 in excise over their lifetime. That's not counting the other taxes they pay on the tobacco, and the other taxes they pay in general. But that is their choice to smoke. Nobody made them. It is a very risky, stupid, illogical and senseless thing to do, you are choosing to make yourself unhealthy.

I agree, if they choose to smoke that is their problem. I was pointing out though that smokers do pay their way. If I had my way I would increase the excise on tobacco.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 6:53pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 4:23pm: Letting the filthy rich use super to reduce tax costs the Budget $50Bn in the coming financial year. Negative gearing which is pricing houses out of the reach of first home buyers costs nearly as much. This is part of the problem on this site. Sensationalism and a lack of understanding of reality. That above is what my parents have done for well over a decade to fund their retirement which they are now enjoying. They are not filthy rich at all. Just a normal everyday middle class family - hardly Kerry Packer. Also any incentives I have ever used or family have are open to every Australian. Rather than moan and complain how unfair everything is, people should do the same!

You’re the only accountant I know who can turn every macroeconomic discussion into a monologue about how great he is.

Show us a photo of your passport again, son. I reckon you’re a Yank.

matty wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 11:53am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 12:19am: matty wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 3:07pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:58pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:25am: matty wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 9:45am: No $6 fee, at least yet. What a shame, neither party has the guts to scrap or at least reduce Medicare. I think before we start charging $6 to visit the doctor we need to recoup all that tax $$$$ the tax payer paid so that Matty could go to a private school instead of going to a public school like most everybody else.  Why are we starving medicare of funds to pay for this slime bag's elitist education so that he comes out of it thinking he's more entitled then everyone else.  I mean whats he done except hang off daddy's coat sleeves.  Didn't Hockey tell us that these people with their entitled attitudes need to be booted out of the country.    Total BS. If Matty went to a private school, he cost the taxpayer less than if he went to a public school. His parents should get a rebate nice person Exactly, aqua, thank you, but no point in trying to tell a far-left Green voter that. The comments on this thread indicate that it should be up to the rich and middle classes to pay for those who don't look after themselves. Why health care should be as free as it is in this country is completely beyond me. The left think that they're entitled to do whatever they want, and the rich/middle classes should pay for it. Who pays for your education, Matty? My parents.

You don’t get HECS? Who doesn’t get HECS?

Ah. Foreign students. Of course.

You’re from Dunedin, Matty.

I am talking about using super to reduce tax, not to save for retirement. some of these parasites then arrange their affairs so when they retire they can go on full or part pension.

This super scam is only available if you can salary sacrifice $100K 2-3 years in a row, NOT available to most. It is costing the Budget $50Bn and we have a Budget emergency, apparently.

Nearly as costly—negative gearing.

It is an emergency son—no time for niceties even when they involve billionaires!

Bam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 7:30pm:

Pantheon wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 4:13pm: Bam wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 3:14pm: Increase the Medicare levy to the level needed to fund health properly. Rising taxs or levys are never the answer to an financial problem, because your curing the symptom and not the actually cause of the problem. Rubbish. Lowering taxes caused the budget shortfall, therefore increasing taxes fixes it. You have to be a rightard to fail to grasp this very simple concept. The stupid right-wing ratcheting of taxes is insane, lower taxes then the reduced revenue causes budget problems, then use the budget problems as an excuse to take the chainsaw to budget measures the rightards don't like. Costello and Swan both made the mistake of using temporary taxation revenue from mining to fund permanent changes to the taxation system and increased expenditure. The mining revenue isn't there. Remove the measures the mining revenue funded and it would go a long way to closing the deficit. The budget haemorrhages revenue with all sorts of unwarranted tax concessions. Negative gearing, concessional taxation on capital gains, FBT lurks, etc. Axe these as well and the budget would be in surplus.

Once again your fixing the symptom and not the actually cause of the problem. All your doing by rising taxes is reducing the peoples spendable income to pay for unsustainable system that will require another tax rise in another few years, and by reduced spendable income year after year, you harm the economy.

The people want lest taxes so we can spend more.. we don't want to be taxed more so we can spend less.

Now yes, Lowering taxes caused the budget shortfall. So what do you do? you make the sustainable so it wont require you rising taxes every few years, taking peoples hard earn money reducing their spendable income overall.

Now how do you make the system sustainable? that's for Labor and Liberals to stuff up on, and for the egg heads at universities to education us with real answers.

matty wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 7:09pm:

Can someone please answer me this? If someone smokes their entire life, why should it be up to the taxpayer to fund their operation? Why should taxpayers have to also fund those who go to see doctors for the most stupid and trivial of reasons? Seeing a psychologist, audiologist or speech pathologist isn't free. Why should seeing a doctor be?

Smoking doesnt cause whatever you are talking about. Certainly doesnt cause a broken leg or blindness (despite the murdoch media). You are just trying to find a way to target a group of ppl.

SOB