Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Universal healthcare means you can't sue, no insurance, and no safety checks. Every other country have malpractices all the time and no lawyer to sue. Everything cost more here because of lawsuits.
Not true. Malpractice tort liability is controlled, but certainly not unavailable to patients.
I don't get it? Obviously that isn't a solution to the problem. You also have to give years of your life to the military in order to get the training. It's a great option for some, but I don't really get your response in the context of this thread.
The military pays the education bills while the doctor works as a doctor for four years--under much better working conditions than the artificial hell hospitals create for residents. The only downside would be in cases that a resident has an opportunity to go to a major big-name hospital and work with big-name practioners.
OTOH, he may have even more challenging learning opportunities in certain other fields, if he wants them. Want a crash course in trauma--war zone. Want to do some "heroic" plastic surgery? The plastic surgery war at Tripler where they reconstruct war injuries.
First, the numbers. There are about 1,500,000 people on active duty in the military. There are 9,000,000 people identified as unemployed--this is the number currently actively seeking a job, not counting those who have given up. So, no, if you cut the military by half, it would not double the unemployment figure--nowhere near it by a magnitude. And most of them would find jobs outside the military, as almost all of them do...because no more than 1% stay in the military long enough and reach a rank high enough to totally retire after service.
However, cutting the military in half will have its greatest effect on the "military-industrial complex." It would put a heck of a lot of military contractors out of business as well as all of their subcontractors. Hundreds of thousands of civilians from General Dynamics to Hewlett-Packard to Office Depot down to companies that make shoelaces will lose their jobs.
And I would guess that a few of those people - people smart enough to create a contracting business and/or work for military contractors to build the highly complicated systems and weapons and IT infrastructure and more - would be able to take those skills into other fields, perhaps the growing medical industry that would see an increase of patients because some of them can now afford to see a doctor for that pain that has been bothering them but ...
Seriously, economies evolve and workers and entrepreneurs evolve with them. Meanwhile, more people benefit because the jobs program that is called our defense budget is shifting from bullets to vaccinations.
Your government's own policies created the mess you don't like.
"Amounts paid by an employer on account of premiums on insurance on the life of the employee...may not exceed five per cent of the employee’s annual salary or wages determined without the inclusion of insurance and pension benefits."
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board (Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 4, 1943) LXIV.
Source: Office of Economic Stabilization, Regulations of the Part 4001 Relating to Wages and Salaries, Issued October 27, 1942; amended November 5 and November 30, 1942, Section 4001.1 (h) (2), War Labor Reports 4, XII.
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board, Section 1002.8, LXVIII.
The 1949 In Re: Inland Steel Supreme Court decision was the final nail in the coffin, creating the current employer-based health plan coverage you have now.
Overturn the decision and eliminate all federal tax laws related to employer-based health plan coverage and what you've got is single payer at the State level.
OTOH, given the current econo-political climate, there was no other way for Obama to make medical coverage available for a young friend of mine who has a brain tumor that must be operated on every couple of years. Previously, no health insurance would touch her; now she can get the periodic brain surgery that she needs and has been able for the past few years to pursue her calling as a Christian missionary in South America.
God made Obamacare happen. That's how she sees it.
That is the best thing I have read or heard all day ... maybe all week. Good for your friend, good for us as a country to at least being a step further away from the mess we had before the ACA.
And I would guess that a few of those people - people smart enough to create a contracting business and/or work for military contractors to build the highly complicated systems and weapons and IT infrastructure and more - would be able to take those skills into other fields, perhaps the growing medical industry that would see an increase of patients because some of them can now afford to see a doctor for that pain that has been bothering them but ...
Seriously, economies evolve and workers and entrepreneurs evolve with them. Meanwhile, more people benefit because the jobs program that is called our defense budget is shifting from bullets to vaccinations.
Well, I'm not really intending to argue that cutting the Defense Department would result in greater unemployment, rather that it wouldn't...and whatever major effect it might have would be on more segments than just the uniformed population.
In general, residents are entitled to subsidised treatment from medical practitioners, eligible midwives, nurse practitioners and allied health professionals who have been issued a Medicare provider number, and can also obtain free treatment in public hospitals.
I do have to point out that in fact very few "allied health professionals" are able to bulkbill on their own, however, they can be bulkbilled through a "care plan" organised by the GP, I will discuss that later.
The following may give more of an insight into the difference between having and not having private insurance:
On the whole, a person can be very well looked after without having private insurance. Many people do still have private insurance because they cover the following:
1) Dental. This is NOT bulkbilled (apart from the Teen Dental Plan) although there is subsidised dental care available to certain categories of the population. You used to be able to get "dental" through a "care plan".
2) Private Hospitals. Public Hospitals are perfectly fine and most elective surgery can be done in public hospitals but of course there is a waiting list. One can get the surgery done quicker through a private hospital and private hospitals are also rather more luxurious than the public ones. You can choose your specialist if one goes private and choose your hospital although there would still be limitations. Although I don't have private insurance, my sister does. When she had cancer, she went privately and chose her oncologist. However, she did have to go to a particular private hospital in Sydney (a very nice and well regarded one).
3) Allied Health Professionals: Allied Health Professionals Australia > Home
Quote:
Current AHPA membership represents the following professions: Audiologists, Chiropractors, Dietitians, Exercise Physiologists, Genetic Counsellors, Music Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Orthoptists, Orthotist/Prosthetists, Osteopaths, Hospital Pharmacists, Physiotherapists, Podiatrists, Perfusionists, Psychologists, Social Workers, Sonographers, Speech Pathologists, with the Associations for Audiometrists, Diabetes Educators, Diversional Therapists and Practice Managers as Friends.
Some of the above are actually covered by Medicare, eg sonographers work in radiology and ultrasounds are covered like all radiology services.
Many of the others can be covered via Medicare Care Plans eg Physios, OTs, Dieticians and I think psychologists.
4) Some other medical related things like glasses and one can even claim back some money on things like exercise classes and gym membership and equipment (in general things that promote healthy living): http://www.hcf.com.au/pdf/HCF_health...e_brochure.pdf
Anyway, the above is about what is available. I'll do another post about the usual procedure when visiting a doctor. I work for a large group of medical centres (large group of GPs including radiology/pathology/dental/physiotherapy and some other stuff)
In general, if you are not feeling well (and it isn't life threatening), one needs to see a General Practitioner first (unless one goes to the emergency department of a public hospital and wait one's turn but it is better to see a GP in the private sector first if possible). Not all GPs "bulkbill" although one can claim back money from medicare on any GP visit. In general, a GP in a small practice will probably charge (perhaps about $20 over the medicare rate) but that would depend also on locality - a GP in a wealthy area will probably charge more than one in a less wealthy area. Larger GP practices (aka Medical Centres) can often afford to bulkbill because admin costs are able to be spread amongst more of the GPs (in GP owned Medical Centres) or to the managing company in Company owned Medical Centre. I do want to point out that in general, pensioners are often bulkbilled by all GPs. Healthcare card holders, it depends (in general, HCC holders are unemployed, pensioners are either old age or on sickness benefits). Also, with small group GPs, one usually makes an appointment, not always on the same day, but is usually seen fairly close time; with large medical centres, one waits ones turn which could be hours but is always seen on the same day.
I work for a very large group of Medical Centres which have GPs, Radiology, Pathology, Dental, in most cases Physios and in many cases a chemist (depending on whether there is another chemist within a certain range). GPs, radiology and pathology are all bulkbilled. One either pays for the physio or gets it under a care plan. One must pay for Dental although many of the customers have private insurance, although as I said in the previous post, there is a Teen Dental Plan thus teenagers are definitely a large part of the customer base for dental.
In general, whenever our company opens up a new medical centre, they usually target an existing group of local GPs to that area (eg a group of say 8 or so doctors who are running their own practice). They pay each doctor a large amount upfront for a fixed contract and then the doctor gets half of all medicare amount and the company gets the other half (a certain amount of which goes towards admin).
GPs are the first line of treatment. In general, one must visit a GP if one wants to get referred on to further doctors and other stuff covered by medicare. If one wants to visit an Allied Health Professional as listed above, then one can just go and visit those when they want but either pay out of their own pocket or under Private insurance. However, one can get some AHP stuff on medicare through what is called a "care plan". For example, if you are diagnosed with diabetes, the GP can arrange for you to receive things like physios and podiatrists under medicare. You used to be able to get dental as well through a diabetes care plan. In fact one could get it through a "prediabetic care plan". I had high insulin but not diabetes and I had dental included on my plan and was eligible to get up to $4000 in one year. However, they have stopped dental. If one injures oneself, eg I had a torn ligament in my foot, I was able to get a care plan that covered about 6 visits to a physio. A lot of people don't know about care plans and I am not even sure all GPs do. So if one does see one's GP and their GP suggests they see a physio, it is worth asking whether it is possible to get it under a care plan. In general, care plans are there for those with chronic diseases who need auxillary care from people like physios and podiatrists. Btw I am pretty sure chiropractors are NOT covered by care plans - in general, chiropractors are not considered in the same class as physios etc. Although I do know people who "swear by" their chiros, in general, they are not particularly well respected. I do believe though that they are covered by private insurance.
If one needs to see a specialist or get pathology or radiology services, a GP is required to refer one to those services. In our practices, pathology and radiology are bulkbilled. Because they are in the same place, there can often be too much referred at times although the GP doesn't benefit from the referrals. I think they tend to refer more so that they are "covered". In general, most radiology tests are claimable through medicare or able to be claimed back from medicare. For a long time, MRIs were not able to be bulkbilled. The reason they weren't able to be bulkbilled or have medicare rebates for a long time actually has to do with inside trading: AM Archive - Radiologists highlighted in MRI scam
I remember that happening at the time (and the doctor listed wasn't the only one). These days, many MRIs do attact rebates - in general, they need to be referred by the appropriate specialist to attract the medicare rebate although GPs can refer for non-claimable MRIs. The non-claimable MRIs aren't always too expensive (a couple of hundred dollars out of pocket).
In my next post, I will give an insight into what medical care is like if one doesn't have private insurance.
Last edited by susankate; 03-10-2016 at 04:12 PM..
Neither I or my elderly mother has private insurance. My sister had private insurance. I think my older brother has PI but my younger brother didn't. Everyone in my family but me (and dad) has had cancer of some sort (not inherited as we were all adopted (from different families (older siblings are twins).
Older sister had her cancer treatment through private hospital and private oncologist. I think mum had hers done private but that was 30 years ago. Younger brother went public. All were treated very well.
Mum (in her 80s) has had hip operations. For her latest one, she waited about 3-4 months. She spent about one month in the public hospital and then went to a rehab hospital for about 3-4 months - in all she spent half of last year in hospital! She wasn't allowed to be released from the rehab hospital until she could cope on her own. She lives in an area about 100km north of Sydney which would be considered regional. Because it is a popular retirement place, medical services are well provided for. She has also been in hospital for other things (she has epilepsy) and is usually well looked after. She can spend a few days to weeks in hospital at a time. She is not "kicked out" until the specialist says she is OK to go.
I've not had to spend any time in hospital. I live in a regional centre (also a retirement haven) and it is fairly well provided for medically. I see an ENT (he bulkbills me for all my visits) and I did want to have a routine echo (I have a minor ASD/ASA), however, seeing the specialist and having the echo would have cost a bit of money of which I would only have gotten half back. That is one of the things about living in a regional area. I was able to get previous echoes on medicare when I lived in Sydney. That is one of the things for those in the country, they often have to visit a big city to get treatment. Some countries aren't too bad, eg if one lives in say the Southern Tablelands, a rural area about 2 hours south of Sydney, they are actually not too far away from Canberra, our nation's capital, which has decent hospitals and specialist care. Canberra is a smaller city (less than 400,000) so it actually quite possible to live a lovely rural life less than 1 hour away.
Last edited by susankate; 03-10-2016 at 04:11 PM..
Reason: removed last paragraph - TMI
Btw if anyone has any more questions re Australian care I would be happy to answer It might be a few hours before I can do so (have to go to work) but will do my best to answer them within the best of my knowledge.
I personally can't really compare it directly to US healthcare because I've never been there but I suspect Wild Colonial Girl would be more useful there. I personally would have thought that the Australian version would be the one most suitable to the US with its mixture of private and public*. It is of course not perfect. Btw I do actually understand the reluctance of many Americans. In 1984, when Medicare came into effect as it is now, I worked for a big Federal owned bank and the medical insurance cover was phenomenal (private hospital, dental everything) and thus things weren't quite so good for me personally when we went to Medicare. However, many other people were missing out and so in the end, I think the system we have now is better. The other system probably wouldn't have been sustainable, we would have ended by like you in the US.
**In some ways, one might be able to say that in general "public" is about medical and "private" is about lifestyle. I also suspect that one of the reasons dental is not bulkbilled is because the private insurance companies *need* it to exist. Btw one can tailor their private insurance to suit their needs.
Comparisons between different countries:
Last edited by susankate; 03-10-2016 at 04:14 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It might be a few hours before I can do so (have to go to work) but will do my best to answer them within the best of my knowledge. 
