Hockey's bulk-billing claim misses the mark

Date
    April 26, 2014



Treasurer Joe Hockey's claims that his wealthy constituents enjoyed some of the highest bulk-billing rates in the country are looking a little washed out.

Mr Hockey said last week the cost of Medicare is growing at twice the speed of the economy and that co-payments are ''certainly something that is in the mix'' for the budget.      

''Now I want to emphasise my electorate of North Sydney has one of the highest bulk-billing rates in Australia and I have one of the wealthiest electorates in Australia,'' Mr Hockey told ABC radio. ''To me there is something wrong with that.''

In fact, Mr Hockey’s electorate had Sydney’s fifth-lowest bulk-billing rate, 70 per cent, according to 2010-2011 Department of Health data, the most recent available. This is below the national average.      

A spokeswoman for Mr Hockey declined to provide any data to support the Treasurer’s comments, saying only: ''The electorate has a high rate of bulk-billing for affluent areas.''

The government’s expenditure review committee has reportedly approved a $6 co-payment, capped at 12 GP visits, meaning patients would pay a maximum of $72 extra each a year. The Medicare fee push is based on a proposal by former Howard government adviser Terry Barnes, who estimated the fee would save the budget $750 million over four years by reducing unnecessary GP visits.

Health groups have attacked the GP co-payment idea, warning it will hit the poor and sick hardest and place additional pressure on already stretched emergency departments.      

''We know that $6 is enough for people to make decisions and defer treatment,'' Australian Medical Association president Steve Hambleton said.       

''Yes some discretionary visits will disappear, but some important visits will disappear as well.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/hockeys-bulkbilling-claim-misses-the-mark-20140426-zqzx1.html#ixzz304j5DbAS

You just have to love 'Unnecessary GP visits'.  I seriously doubt that people go to the doc to wait for ages until they are seen just to use the s4ervice.

Once upon a time - and let me add that the 'health sector' is now the single highest employer in Australia at around 11% of the workforce......... (pauses to let that sink in.. sink in I said!)......... government shouted to the high heavens that we had the 'best' healthcare in the world' - and it was all because of their wonderful management - they said.

Now it seems that, with the tightening belts to ensure that Gina and the Crew get their rewards for doing nothing, that wonderful hjealth care system is nothing but a burden on the public purse.

let me approach this in a different way.

When you pay the doc etc for your health care - doe she pay taxes?  Does his expenditure of that dollar go to the Australian economy - or does he send it overseas with his wonderful trips abroad etc?

If there is an argument over health care provision form the perspective of government - is not the only loss to that government from the now traditional 'off-shoring' of profit/income by those well-off?

Is that not the true position of each and every 'black hole' in the 'budget'?

Everyone but the well-off pay back to the economy - why are they sacrosanct?

Now - it being the case that barring off-shoring the income - the doc pays back into the economy as well as does the patient - what then is the problem?

We have been 'dedicated' as a nation to 'service industry' for ages now - suits feminists and so forth with the soft arse jobs - and we are engaged as a nation in trashing the men and the genuinely productive jobs.... so why is there even any discussion of some 'difficulty' with a servide  industry?

Could it be (pauses portentously) that 6the entire concept of 'serivce industry' that so suits feminists and soft arse job bludgers - has no genuine merit?

I bring you the GAIA concepts....

(reprise on my addition to the last)....

Now - it being the case that barring off-shoring the income - the doc pays back into the economy as well as does the patient - what then is the problem?

We have been 'dedicated' as a nation to 'service industry' for ages now - suits feminists and so forth with the soft arse jobs - and we are engaged as a nation in trashing the men and the genuinely productive jobs.... so why is there even any discussion of some 'difficulty' with a service  industry?

Could it be (pauses portentously) that 6the entire concept of 'service industry' that so suits feminists and soft arse job bludgers - has no genuine merit?

I bring you the GAIA concepts....

austranger wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 8:22pm:


I prefer the idea of a cigarette, a blindfold, and a bullet-pocked wall, early in the morning.

        I live in a middle-class area, my Doc bulk-bills, and gives great service, one of the better doc's I've ever met, but she has this trick, 5 minute consultations for scripts etc, and I'd wager she's still billing for a normal consult for each, that's 120 visits per hour fees, a real Golden Wheelbarrow for her!

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Apr 28^th, 2014 at 8:25am:


Correct.

Some of the more financially paranoid among the elderly will simply stay at home rather than blow $6 and the bus fare to tell the doctor they've got a little pain here, or a dry cough.

A $6 fee will definitely empty out the waiting rooms of the Usual Suspects who seem to haunt doctors' surgeries like hypochondriac groupies.

It'll be a bad day for the Middle Easterners especially, when the $6 fee comes in.

Have you been down to Westmead Hospital lately? I've never seen so many hijabs and big black beards in the one place ~ ever.

Conservatives have little time for actual facts. They prefer to just make the numbers up to suite their story at the time.

Hock obviously believes that most people are stupid.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 28^th, 2014 at 8:41pm: