433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Fourfiveone wrote:433 wrote:Fourfiveone wrote:Rusty you sound like a broken record, we're trying to talk about politics not history. C'mon mate, that's a poor argument even for you :lol: Politics and history are not mutually exclusive. Your missing the point (surprise surprise) Just because labor got it wrong doesn't mean the liberals are getting it right. No one has offered an alternative that doesn't involve something like what Labor did.
|
|
|
|
Fourfiveone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
GP Co-payment being reported as "dumped" by the media but it's still happening under a different guise ](*,)
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
So tony abott is doing what kevin rudd did and micro mange the cabinet .
|
|
|
damonzzzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 155,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:GP Co-payment being reported as "dumped" by the media but it's still happening under a different guise ](*,) I honestly don't mind the changes. It is what it should of been in the first place.
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
damonzzzz wrote:mcjules wrote:GP Co-payment being reported as "dumped" by the media but it's still happening under a different guise ](*,) I honestly don't mind the changes. It is what it should of been in the first place. same.....
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
damonzzzz wrote:mcjules wrote:GP Co-payment being reported as "dumped" by the media but it's still happening under a different guise ](*,) I honestly don't mind the changes. It is what it should of been in the first place. Discouraging primary care is a stupid move as it's the most effective way to keep the community healthy. I wonder what u4486662's opinion on it is :) When you also factor in that there has already been a freeze on the amount for 2 years which is effectively a pay cut, this has just made it worse.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:damonzzzz wrote:mcjules wrote:GP Co-payment being reported as "dumped" by the media but it's still happening under a different guise ](*,) I honestly don't mind the changes. It is what it should of been in the first place. Discouraging primary care is a stupid move as it's the most effective way to keep the community healthy. I wonder what u4486662's opinion on it is :) When you also factor in that there has already been a freeze on the amount for 2 years which is effectively a pay cut, this has just made it worse. Its a better model than was initially proposed. The main problem with the initial idea was that for low-income patients like health care card owners and pensioners, they simply wouldn't visit the doctor, would end up visiting when it was too late, would clog up ED's instead and wouldn't follow up after receiving treatment. All of those instances would end up costing the health system more. GP's do a lot to treat minor illnesses, initiate preventative health and therefore limit the amount of specialist intervention and subsequent hospital admission that are required to treat conditions. Secondary care such as hospitals and specialist services are exceedingly expensive to the health system. A night in a routine public hospital bed costs the health care system between $500 and $1000. A person would have to see their GP about 30 times before they cost the health care system the same amount. A night in ICU costs between $3000 and $5000. Encouraging people to see their GP is the best way to keep health care costs down in the long-term.
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:mcjules wrote:damonzzzz wrote:mcjules wrote:GP Co-payment being reported as "dumped" by the media but it's still happening under a different guise ](*,) I honestly don't mind the changes. It is what it should of been in the first place. Discouraging primary care is a stupid move as it's the most effective way to keep the community healthy. I wonder what u4486662's opinion on it is :) When you also factor in that there has already been a freeze on the amount for 2 years which is effectively a pay cut, this has just made it worse. Its a better model than was initially proposed. The main problem with the initial idea was that for low-income patients like health care card owners and pensioners, they simply wouldn't visit the doctor, would end up visiting when it was too late, would clog up ED's instead and wouldn't follow up after receiving treatment. All of those instances would end up costing the health system more. GP's do a lot to treat minor illnesses, initiate preventative health and therefore limit the amount of specialist intervention and subsequent hospital admission that are required to treat conditions. Secondary care such as hospitals and specialist services are exceedingly expensive to the health system. A night in a routine public hospital bed costs the health care system between $500 and $1000. A person would have to see their GP about 30 times before they cost the health care system the same amount. A night in ICU costs between $3000 and $5000. Encouraging people to see their GP is the best way to keep health care costs down in the long-term. it's a hard one that's for sure.......i agree primary and preventative care prevents major problems later.....however i would love to know the figures of waste on people who go to the doctor at the drop of a hat......FFS some people go if they sneaze....my sister in law goes all the time and i say to my brother in law, i reckon she is doing the doctor
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
The amount of co-payment is irrelevant. It's the co-payment itself that should be the focus.
Anything that fundamentally changes an accepted system without justification (such as the universality of a universal health system) won't have my support.
|
|
|
damonzzzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 155,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:The amount of co-payment is irrelevant. It's the co-payment itself that should be the focus.
Anything that fundamentally changes an accepted system without justification (such as the universality of a universal health system) won't have my support. Quite the conservative view you have there :lol:
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
damonzzzz wrote:notorganic wrote:The amount of co-payment is irrelevant. It's the co-payment itself that should be the focus.
Anything that fundamentally changes an accepted system without justification (such as the universality of a universal health system) won't have my support. Quite the conservative view you have there :lol: nothing like a bit of objectivity
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
damonzzzz wrote:notorganic wrote:The amount of co-payment is irrelevant. It's the co-payment itself that should be the focus.
Anything that fundamentally changes an accepted system without justification (such as the universality of a universal health system) won't have my support. Quite the conservative view you have there :lol: I'm very conservative when it comes to universal healthcare :lol:
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:damonzzzz wrote:notorganic wrote:The amount of co-payment is irrelevant. It's the co-payment itself that should be the focus.
Anything that fundamentally changes an accepted system without justification (such as the universality of a universal health system) won't have my support. Quite the conservative view you have there :lol: I'm very conservative when it comes to universal healthcare :lol: what exactly do you mean by universal healthcare??
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Socialism.
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Socialism. Pfffffft
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
By Universal Healthcare I mean a minimum standard of primary care to be available to all residents without out of pocket cost.
I like the idea of incentivising private coverage, but the minimum standard must remain.
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:By Universal Healthcare I mean a minimum standard of primary care to be available to all residents without out of pocket cost.
I like the idea of incentivising private coverage, but the minimum standard must remain. well i agree to a certain extent...there is a minimum standard, the thing is the participation rate of bulk billing has risen by 20% over the past few years and the cost to taxpayers is blowing out, so how do we strike a balance?? what is a fair and reasonable amount, and why should i pay more for healthcare than joe blow down the street?????
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:notorganic wrote:By Universal Healthcare I mean a minimum standard of primary care to be available to all residents without out of pocket cost.
I like the idea of incentivising private coverage, but the minimum standard must remain. well i agree to a certain extent...there is a minimum standard, the thing is the participation rate of bulk billing has risen by 20% over the past few years and the cost to taxpayers is blowing out, so how do we strike a balance?? what is a fair and reasonable amount, and why should i pay more for healthcare than joe blow down the street????? Before talking about striking a balance, have a think about the problem as it presents itself. " the participation rate of bulk billing has risen by 20% over the past few years and the cost to taxpayers is blowing out" - What does this say to you?
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:batfink wrote:notorganic wrote:By Universal Healthcare I mean a minimum standard of primary care to be available to all residents without out of pocket cost.
I like the idea of incentivising private coverage, but the minimum standard must remain. well i agree to a certain extent...there is a minimum standard, the thing is the participation rate of bulk billing has risen by 20% over the past few years and the cost to taxpayers is blowing out, so how do we strike a balance?? what is a fair and reasonable amount, and why should i pay more for healthcare than joe blow down the street????? Before talking about striking a balance, have a think about the problem as it presents itself. " the participation rate of bulk billing has risen by 20% over the past few years and the cost to taxpayers is blowing out" - What does this say to you? Too many leaners. They need to know the age of entitlement is over.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Could it be said that more and more people who can afford to go to a GP and pay end up going bulk billed because they're tight? -PB
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:Could it be said that more and more people who can afford to go to a GP and pay end up going bulk billed because they're tight?
-PB This is happening a lot particularly in cities where there are many GP practices in competition and to get more patients they bulk bill everyone.
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:Could it be said that more and more people who can afford to go to a GP and pay end up going bulk billed because they're tight?
-PB This is happening a lot particularly in cities where there are many GP practices in competition and to get more patients they bulk bill everyone. Which is what I've thought as well. It's kind of like a snake biting its tail. -PB
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:Could it be said that more and more people who can afford to go to a GP and pay end up going bulk billed because they're tight?
-PB not tight, punching above our weight more like it
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Twitter is great at biting politicians in the arse :lol:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:Could it be said that more and more people who can afford to go to a GP and pay end up going bulk billed because they're tight?
-PB not tight, punching above our weight more like it Huh? -PB
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:batfink wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:Could it be said that more and more people who can afford to go to a GP and pay end up going bulk billed because they're tight?
-PB not tight, punching above our weight more like it Huh? -PB It's pretty profound when you think about it.
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:batfink wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:Could it be said that more and more people who can afford to go to a GP and pay end up going bulk billed because they're tight?
-PB not tight, punching above our weight more like it Huh? -PB It's pretty profound when you think about it. like ponies
|
|
|
damonzzzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 155,
Visits: 0
|
Does anyone here bulk bill?
Me and the rest of the family go to the GP, Pay $70 something and get back $30 something.
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
damonzzzz wrote:Does anyone here bulk bill?
Me and the rest of the family go to the GP, Pay $70 something and get back $30 something. my gp bulk bills . Hell his whole clinic does . My old jobs doctors bulk billed only the elderly and concession card holders
|
|
|