staringclown

How long will Tony remain

317 posts in this topic

Instead, the Government will:

General practice will be hardest hit, with the first change already set in law that will start on 19 January 2015.  The AMA has developed material to assist general practices to implement the changes to the Medicare Level A and Level B consultation items.

Let the Government and your local MP know that you oppose these changes. [click here to access links to MPs

10 minute GP consultations

From 19 January 2015, the Government has cut Medicare rebates by $20 for GP consultations that take less than 10 minutes.

Today, the standard GP consultation has a Medicare rebate of $37.05.  More than 25% of these consultations last less than 10 minutes.  The Government will reduce the rebates for these services to $16.95 by restricting:

  • Level A consultations (MBS item 3) to consultations lasting less than 10 minutes; and 
  • Level B consultations (MBS item 23) to consultations that last between 10 and 20 minutes.

This measure alone will take at least $500 million out of general practice in 2015.

https://ama.com.au/article/medicare-funding-cuts-support-materials-practices

 

Wow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AMA are probably the most powerful union in Oz. It will be interesting to see how they respond.

 

As someone who is used to pay $40-50 or more for GP appointments it's really not a big deal to me, but I can see how it will be a big deal to GPs and the elderly, sick, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that it hasn't got media attention and amazed that Labor are not onto it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to compare health-care systems

 

and here lies the problem - 'free' health care eventually overwhelms the health budgets. When deficits loom in budgets, you can't tax the population to the point that there is no incentive to work. For a start, I'd like to see a government that has the b@lls to introduce a system similar to life insurance that penalises premiums based lifestyle - smokers, heavy drinkers, drug users and the obese should be primary targets!

 

Poor old smokers! Excluding the opportunity cost of the lost income they _might_ have generated if they'd lived they generally don't burden the tax payer for more than the cumulative sin taxes they've paid up front. 

 

As long as we're tying risk to insurance costs, I'd like to see every extreme sports rad dude hit in the same way. Then of course we will need an army of bureaucrats to police the activities of peoples everywhere. Not just the extreme sports rad dudes but the heavy drinkers and drug users. I suggest random drugs and booze tests for all or as an efficiency gain we could put sensors in every loo across the land...  :)

 

The fat bastards should be easy to catch... boom boom!

 

It is an attack on free health care, because without a price, there is no price trigger. I don't see it as ideological, well at least for me I don't hold the view based on ideology. It's economic theory that shapes my own view on the government offering things for free to the public.

There are certainly matters of fairness that should be addressed. If you are sick it will cost more than if you are not but without any cost to the public there is significant waste as people will use free healthcare when perhaps they do not need healthcare at all but a trip to the pharmacist etc.

These are all things that should have been sorted during the Howard era of growing surplussess, instead of tax cuts. Social welfare could have been increased, offset by user pays. Not necessarily the lot but pays something.

It could be just once a year for one in five people avoided with a $7.00 co-payment. This still amounts to a large saving. The reason I suspect the AMA is against it. It comes out of their revenue. The doctors surgery is still a business.

 

 

I don't know about you Tom but I already pay private health insurance. No complaints mind. I can afford it. In fact I was penalised for not having it. Haven't done the sums lately. 

 

Universal health care doesn't negate those who can afford to pay having to pay. What it does is ensure that health care is available to all within society regardless of ability to pay. Should we let the homeless die because they can't afford the co-payment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about you Tom but I already pay private health insurance. No complaints mind. I can afford it. In fact I was penalised for not having it. Haven't done the sums lately. 

I only have private insurance because it is more expensive not to. 

 

My dad recently had a relatively straight forward surgery to remove his prostate. ~3.5k out of pocket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have private insurance because it is more expensive not to. 

 

My dad recently had a relatively straight forward surgery to remove his prostate. ~3.5k out of pocket. 

 

I had have my elbow replaced with a titanium joint after a bicycle crash 10 years ago. It was an emergency operation and they asked me if I was privately insured. I lied and said I wasn't. Didn't cost me a cent. Ms Clown broke a finger and required surgery and admitted to private insurance. Out of pocket costs were 4K. I think the only benefit is likely when the surgery is elective as you jump the queue. It does incur out of pocket costs (anaesthesia in particular seems to cost a fortune)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had have my elbow replaced with a titanium joint after a bicycle crash 10 years ago. It was an emergency operation and they asked me if I was privately insured. I lied and said I wasn't. Didn't cost me a cent. Ms Clown broke a finger and required surgery and admitted to private insurance. Out of pocket costs were 4K. I think the only benefit is likely when the surgery is elective as you jump the queue. It does incur out of pocket cioosts (anaesthesia in particular seems to cost a fortune)

The non election ads from the lnp tell me that I'll get service immediately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed I think government should invest in welfare particularly around mental health. Ridiculous that now people who had been on disability pension for years are not getting subsistence payments as they do no have the ability to fill in the forms / submit on time etc.

it is likely those most vulnerable are those who end up on the streets and those who could work in some form get the forms in and get paid.

All that said a strong simple welfare system that does not remove the incentive to work, plus user pay for services philosophy that incentivises thriftiness of government money by the public.

I understand at the same time as this change pharmacists are getting more power to prescribe as well?

To me this is another good cost measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

AFTER a week of increased pressure, the Federal Government has backed down on its plan to cut the Medicare rebate from Monday.

New Health Minister Sussan Ley made the announcement after returning from her summer holiday.

“The changes to Level A and B Medicare consultation items will not commence on Monday as planned,” she told reporters in Melbourne.

http://www.news.com.au/national/doctors-and-labor-call-for-the-federal-government-to-backdown-on-gp-fee-hike/story-fncynjr2-1227185365868

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

 

Thank god the adults are in charge!  :lol:

 

 

Indeed I think government should invest in welfare particularly around mental health. Ridiculous that now people who had been on disability pension for years are not getting subsistence payments as they do no have the ability to fill in the forms / submit on time etc.

it is likely those most vulnerable are those who end up on the streets and those who could work in some form get the forms in and get paid.

All that said a strong simple welfare system that does not remove the incentive to work, plus user pay for services philosophy that incentivises thriftiness of government money by the public.

I understand at the same time as this change pharmacists are getting more power to prescribe as well?

To me this is another good cost measure.

 

 

I think we are in furious agreeance Tom! Ridiculous that one of the richest countries on the planet can't care for its most vulnerable.

 

except for ...

 

I wasn't aware of the increase in chemist super powers. Presumably the powers only extend to a limited number a repeat prescriptions and not diagnosis. Discussing my health at a counter doesn't really ensure much privacy let alone the chemist having any knowledge of my history. I suppose they're not conducting examinations. 

 

Come to think of it doctors can already issue repeat prescriptions so what is the benefit of giving the same power to chemists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank god the adults are in charge!  :lol:

 

 

 

 

I think we are in furious agreeance Tom! Ridiculous that one of the richest countries on the planet can't care for its most vulnerable.

 

except for ...

 

I wasn't aware of the increase in chemist super powers. Presumably the powers only extend to a limited number a repeat prescriptions and not diagnosis. Discussing my health at a counter doesn't really ensure much privacy let alone the chemist having any knowledge of my history. I suppose they're not conducting examinations. 

 

Come to think of it doctors can already issue repeat prescriptions so what is the benefit of giving the same power to chemists?

 

Chemist shops is one industry that I would like to see de-regulated such that supermarkets could open their own chemist shops (with qualified chemists). The price of medicine would take a much needed tumble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chemist shops is one industry that I would like to see de-regulated such that supermarkets could open their own chemist shops (with qualified chemists). The price of medicine would take a much needed tumble.

I'm not saying drug prices wouldn't tumble, but I'm not convinced they would. The PBS is more complicated than Medicare.

 

Supermarkets are very powerful (monopoly/duopoly etc), being supplied by much less powerful suppliers - the supermarkets can screw over the suppliers. Drug companies are much more powerful - not sure how this would play out. I don't think they'd negotiate on price, so it would be up to supermarkets to squeeze margins. The drug companies may even actively sabotage supermarkets to keep prices high if it's in their interest. 

 

I hazard a guess that are much more supermarkets than chemists. I think supermarkets could only afford to have in store chemist in their bigger stores (unless they made chemists stack shelves in the downtime). 

 

There is already reasonable competition, with the likes of 'discount drug stores', and 'chemist whore houses'. I regularly take three medications. One is the same price where ever I go (the cost is greater than the PBS price), the other two are much cheaper at a discount chemist- much cheaper. If I had a health care card (which are the greatest consumers of drugs) then it wouldn't matter where I went for my drugs - they'd be the same cost to me.

 

Perhaps the answer is to restrict what drugs a GP can prescribe, under the PBS? But that already happens - in a retarded way. Because my cholesterol levels were just above a certain level my GP could give me lipid drugs on the PBS (expensive, but effective ones). If I'd already had a heart attack or stroke there would be no problems prescribing these drugs. 

 

It's not easy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying drug prices wouldn't tumble, but I'm not convinced they would. The PBS is more complicated than Medicare.

 

Supermarkets are very powerful (monopoly/duopoly etc), being supplied by much less powerful suppliers - the supermarkets can screw over the suppliers. Drug companies are much more powerful - not sure how this would play out. I don't think they'd negotiate on price, so it would be up to supermarkets to squeeze margins. The drug companies may even actively sabotage supermarkets to keep prices high if it's in their interest. 

 

I hazard a guess that are much more supermarkets than chemists. I think supermarkets could only afford to have in store chemist in their bigger stores (unless they made chemists stack shelves in the downtime). 

 

There is already reasonable competition, with the likes of 'discount drug stores', and 'chemist whore houses'. I regularly take three medications. One is the same price where ever I go (the cost is greater than the PBS price), the other two are much cheaper at a discount chemist- much cheaper. If I had a health care card (which are the greatest consumers of drugs) then it wouldn't matter where I went for my drugs - they'd be the same cost to me.

 

Perhaps the answer is to restrict what drugs a GP can prescribe, under the PBS? But that already happens - in a retarded way. Because my cholesterol levels were just above a certain level my GP could give me lipid drugs on the PBS (expensive, but effective ones). If I'd already had a heart attack or stroke there would be no problems prescribing these drugs. 

 

It's not easy!

 

If the drug companies are caught in any form of 'sabotage' or 'cartel' activities, there is government power to deal with it. Rather than speculate, it would be better to de-regulate and let market forces deal with current chemist prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the drug companies are caught in any form of 'sabotage' or 'cartel' activities, there is government power to deal with it. Rather than speculate, it would be better to de-regulate and let market forces deal with current chemist prices.

The govt with their wet lettuce leaves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The govt with their wet lettuce leaves. 

 

oil companies have been held to account with price fixing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand, the ACCC are currently looking at how sticky petrol prices are at falling and also fuel surcharges charged by airlines. 

They've done it before.

Ok, I'll brace myself for a slap with a lettuce leaf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Queens husband being knighted. Has Tony lost it completely?

 

I still can't fathom how he would consider Liz's hubby worthy of such award!  :wacko:

I hope the Libs replace that turd ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's the gift that keeps on giving...  :laugh:

 

Who could possibly replace him?

 

Hockey has shot his bolt

Morrison while an effective head kicker is unelectable

Brandis? Pyne? Both far to pompous. Not likely.

Bishop is from WA and that makes it difficult to get the numbers (from vic and nsw)

Turnbull is a darling of the wets (and hardcore labor) and looking jaded

 

How about Andrew Robb? Secured trade deals so is pragmatic. Boring as a fencepost which I think actually helps. (look at howard)

 

Tones has to resign first.  :o That doesn't seem likely yet but it's early days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've met Robb. I reckon he models himself on Howard. Have no idea if he's up to it or not - don't know how much of it was posturing.

 

The people who should be considered are the ones you've never heard of (or don't have clout within the party room).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal backbenchers are considering calling a meeting to discuss the "direction of the team", with speculation rife about Prime Minister Tony Abbott's leadership following his decision to make Prince Philip a knight.

One MP, who did not want to be named, said there were "serious and real" discussions about getting the backbench together over coming weeks. The MP likened the move to cricket, saying if the captain made as many bad picks as Mr Abbott had, "you could expect the players to want to call a meeting to discuss the direction of the team".

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/angry-liberal-backbenchers-consider-meeting-after-tony-abbotts-decision-to-make-prince-philip-a-knight-20150127-12yr5d.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now