Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Health expenditure & tough love (Read 3164 times)
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79534
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Health expenditure & tough love
Reply #45 - Oct 1st, 2014 at 1:34am
 
aquascoot wrote on Sep 25th, 2014 at 10:34am:
Politicians should have as little to do with health and education as possible.

letting them fiddle with health and education is as dangerous as letting them fiddle with the computer systems on a 747. they have no skill, they don't know what they are doing, and almost any change they make will be detrimental


Well put.....
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79534
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Health expenditure & tough love
Reply #46 - Oct 1st, 2014 at 1:38am
 
Bam wrote on Sep 26th, 2014 at 8:35am:
longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25th, 2014 at 8:16pm:
Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2014 at 2:06pm:
The cohort that consumes the largest share of health expenditure - the elderly - also pays the lowest amount of tax, even if they are otherwise earning good incomes through self-funded retirement.

This is not sustainable.

It would be more sustainable if retirement incomes were taxed more, while at the same time modest benefits like discounted medicines were extended to self-funded retirees.


you really don't like retirees do you?  After all, they only spent 50-60 years paying taxes for maggots like you to go to school and then get old enough to criticise them.

I've spoken to retirees about this, and a particular problem is that many self-funded retirees do not get discounted medicines. If wealthy older people who currently pay almost no tax were asked to contribute to their upkeep, and in return received more for it, it would be better for everyone than the unsustainable situation where an increasing proportion of elderly people due to the aging population demographics pay few taxes but consume a disproportionate amount of health expenditure.

You obviously don't like wealthy people with annual incomes of $100,000 paying any income tax.


Only those above a certain income level don't get PBS priced medications.  Maybe that should be reviewed in the light of current costs of living etc , but the argument is valid.

I get a lot of heart medications very cheap - and I've spoken with a man who is in the position you mention - I see it as unfair, but like everything else, there need to be cutoff points.

Now THAT, Poppets - is the nub of the issue - not what ToJo and The ToCutters will cut - but what the cutoff points should be.  Included in that is NOT any approach to cutting pensions, an earned right and an inherited duty of government.
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79534
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Health expenditure & tough love
Reply #47 - Oct 1st, 2014 at 1:49am
 
What I'm seeing from the last page or two is that maybe the health rebate system is in need of repair and rationalisation... it is not a matter of arguing over who pays for what.

Longie has a point in it should be either one or the other - but not a combination of both.  Either you pay for health insurance or you do not, and payment for treatment should be either private if you pay for it or public if you pay for it in tax etc.

It's a complex issue - and shows clearly that our health system is socialist in nature, and takes care of all apparently - or according to some very strange formula - in a roughly equal
way.

That means it is a mess - and it is not going to be solved by imposing any 'co-payment' and claiming it will do wonders in 'research'.

The entire system needs a close look and a revamp if you ask me, and if you are paying private, your fund should cover all doctor stuff...... but I thought the hospitals were covered by lottery tickets etc(???).  If you CHOOSE a private hospital you pay for it.. fine - your choice.

I think this entire issueneeds a far deeper look than what
ToJo are giving it.
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print