Subisidising healthcare for the elderly :(

[powderpost]

Linelefty, I hope you have the good fortune to reach our age without needing too much subsidised medical help.

Jim

[Clinton1]

Of course we could go to a user pays system - must remember to get the missus pregnant 9 months prior to winter. I can expose the child if it looks sickly and may cost too much in hospital fees.

[routermaniac]

Whether we accept it or not we have one of the best health systems in the world. If it means one less bandsaw every year to provide equitable medical care to those that need it its a very small price to pay.

I see nothing wrong with us in the late 20s, early thirties to have to fund this. At the end of the day a significant number of young people are perfectly happy wasting their money on total crap; this (the levy) is a small sacrifice for many (not all, point taken).

Also 90% of total health expenditure is spent during the last 10 years of ones life. We cannot expect 70 and 80 year olds to have to fork out for this.

So agree, lifes tough but it could be worse

regards

Marios

[echnidna]

The feds just closed 2 sheltered workshops down this way because they don't think these 2 sheltered workshops can ever be run at a profit.
So much for having a caring government to look after the needy.

[Iain]

They have been running at a profit (or supposed to) for a number of years now.
I went to use one for packaging once and they just lost the plot, about 95c per item as opposed to 7c for an independent operator who was doing very nicely thankyou.
Something horribly amiss there.

[echnidna]

Most of the sheltered workshop managers have human services type training not corporate training.

[Jack E]

Whether we accept it or not we have one of the best health systems in the world. If it means one less bandsaw every year to provide equitable medical care to those that need it its a very small price to pay.

For some of us the Medicare levy and surcharge equals a whole lot more than the cost of a bandsaw.

Yes I do believe in a fair medical system and fair to me means equality, not only in the cover provided but in the cost of the cover :mad:

Jack

[Daddles]

For some of us the Medicare levy and surcharge equals a whole lot more than the cost of a bandsaw.

Yes I do believe in a fair medical system and fair to me means equality, not only in the cover provided but in the cost of the cover :mad:

Jack

An interesting attitude Jack. Let's say two blokes work for the same firm. And let's imagine that this firm deals with something really horrible, only they didn't know it, and they both wind up with a horrible disease ... say cancer (being a disease willing to be involved in just about all mankind's stuff ups).

Now let's say that bloke A earns enough so that his Medicare levy is far more than the cost of a top of the line bandsaw - perhaps because he's in management at some level, having worked his way up from the production line. Which is useful because bloke B still works on that production line and his Medicare levy is about the same cost as that second hand bandsaw he was drooling over in the garage sale last week.

You're suggesting that bloke A deserves more effective treatment than bloke B.

I'm sorry, I don't agree.

I do agree that bloke B shouldn't expect all the fancy extras that bloke A should be able to buy through the health fun that bloke A also pays into (choice of doctor, private room, a blonde shift of nurses followed by a brunette shift, etc). BUT, both of them, as members of our community, deserve to have access to good quality, appropriate health care.

Put money before people, and you wind up with a sad and sick society. And, as always, the trick is in getting the balance right.

Cheers
Richard

[Jack E]

You're suggesting that bloke A deserves more effective treatment than bloke B.

Richard,

You may need to re-read my post.

I am suggesting that bloke A and bloke B get the same level of care and pay the same amount for it.

We can all pay the same amount for the basic level of care, not dependant on how much earn.
If people want a better level of care then they can pay private health for that.
My original post was actually intended to highlight the fact that some people pay a whole lot more in to medicare than others for the same service.

Fair, I don't think so.

Jack.

[Gingermick]

Put money before people, and you wind up with a sad and sick society.

There is a very powerful society that sounds much like that one.

And Jack, do you think that any person who earns a high income would be in his/her posittion were it not for the society they live in?
Sure, you can be a highly motivated go-getter, but if you live in a third world country the top of the chain would still be pittance.
If you are successful in a society you have an obligation to that society. If you are a failure, you also have an obligation.
If societies didn't work this way they would never hold together.

And if you want to minimise your Medicare Levy have more children

[Daddles]

Ahh Jack, if I've misunderstood you (and I did read your post a couple of times, and again after your post), I apologise. However, you fail in that you assume that everyone can afford to fund a basic health system while paying the same amount. Sorry mate, it's not possible, and that is one of the reasons Medicare has failed to deliver. Another cause is the increasing cost of health care - no, not nurse's wages or doctor's fees, but the cost and type of machinery required, the ever increasing number of tests and complexity of such. I think you'll find that neither you nor I could fund what is now considered basic health care.

Cheers
Richard

[adrian]

You've lost sight of the fact that the medicare levy and the surcharge are taxes and are the same percentages for everyone. If it wasn't called the Medicare Levy/Surcharge and was just part of the normal income tax we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
These are approximate figures I'm using but one thing to keep in mind is that when the Levy was introduced, a person on the 17% tax rate had their tax increased by 9% when the 1.5% was added, a person on the 30% rate had an increase of 5% and a person on 47% had a 3% increase in tax. That's a pretty eqitable way to share the cost.
Anyway, we've got a good system and can anyone think of a country they'd rather be in at the moment?
I've been to a lot of them and I can't think of one I would want to spend more than a couple of weeks in.
Maybe we should put it into perspective and sit in front of our computers, in our nice warm homes, after a steak dinner and click our fingers every three seconds. It's never likely to be one of our kids starving to death on each click.
Life just isn't that bad for us.

[Ashore]

I have read through these posts and until now resisted the impulse to add my thoughts
BUT Start of Rave

Health costs are only one part of our tax structure and each generations tax add to the overall
To pick health care and say " why should we ( as younger people who don't use the system as much as the older generation do) have to pay a high medcare levy"
Who paid for your schools and in some cases universities you were edcuated in ,who's taxes subsidised you childhood imunisation programs or the hospitals you were born in who payed the taxes that built the roads you used to go to school.
Should we have said we are finished school cut all funding we don't need them anymore as some of the arguements "I should only pay for what I use Now in my prime of life"
Every time you step outside you are using , as I am , infrastructure paid for by previous generations
Grow up there is no free lunch and you only get out of this world what you put into it

End of Rave

[echnidna]

Brilliant point Ashore

[ozwinner]

Didnt they do the " user pays" system in Russia.

What a great success that is/was.

Al