Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

So Aussies, how is socialized medicine working out for you? - Total War Center Forums

All we get in the States is commentary/advertising from "Canadians" and Brits totally trashing the whole idea.

As long as we keep the insurance companies solvent , right?

The fear mongering being thrown around on talk radio is intense.

If we get it, it's gonna be watered down to please everybody but the voting public. So how's it working out down under mates?

Moved to the academy.

My bad. Thanks.

Quote: : All we get in the States is commentary/advertising from "Canadians" and Brits totally trashing the whole idea.

As long as we keep the insurance companies solvent , right?

The fear mongering being thrown around on talk radio is intense.

If we get it, it's gonna be watered down to please everybody but the voting public. So how's it working out down under mates?

It works just fine.

Those who don't have private health insurance can make use of the publicly-funded (not "socialized" ) Medicare system.

Medicare is paid for by a 1.5% income tax levy on everyone except lower income earners.

People earning over $75,000 a year also pay an additonal 1% levy as a way of encouraging those who can afford it to use private insurance instead. So the private insurance companies are still doing nicely, because those who can afford it prefer the shorter elective waiting times and other benefits of the private system.

But those who can't afford private insurance have the public Medicare system.

And those who really can't afford it - those in the lowest income brackets - get that for nothing. We're looking at all this bizarre hysteria in the US about publicly-funded healthcare as "socialism" etc and wondering what the hell is wrong with you people.

What Obama is talking about is the norm for just about all normal, civilised, first world nations.

Yet again, the US is being held back by its conservative lunatic fringe.

What about waiting 6-9 months or more for a hip replacement?

For some reason that's a benchmark argument in the States, the numbers come out of Canada I think.

Do you let old people rot on waiting lists hoping they will die (of non related causes) before having to provide medical care?

Are your hospitals filled with old people because they can't be placed in nursing homes that have the ability manage decent medical care?

What about non lifesaving surgery, are you screwed or do you go straight in? Sorry not my words, you can't imagine what we are hearing.

ALot of time and money was put into making the American healthcare system the way it currently is and the people with a say, power, and investments in private healthcare dont want it to change.

Quote: : ALot of time and money was put into making the American healthcare system the way it currently is and the people with a say, power, and investments in private healthcare dont want it to change.

Like much of america, those who favour the current system will pay to make sure it stays that way, the M-I complex's pushing of ever more expensive 'cold war' style wepons and vichicles dispite there being no arms race is perhaps the best example of this.

Public healthcare works, its not as quick as privatized healthcare, because they cut out the poorest parts of society, who often need the most medical aid.

Quote: : It works just fine.

Those who don't have private health insurance can make use of the publicly-funded (not "socialized" ) Medicare system.

Medicare is paid for by a 1.5% income tax levy on everyone except lower income earners.

People earning over $75,000 a year also pay an additonal 1% levy as a way of encouraging those who can afford it to use private insurance instead. So the private insurance companies are still doing nicely, because those who can afford it prefer the shorter elective waiting times and other benefits of the private system.

But those who can't afford private insurance have the public Medicare system.

And those who really can't afford it - those in the lowest income brackets - get that for nothing. We're looking at all this bizarre hysteria in the US about publicly-funded healthcare as "socialism" etc and wondering what the hell is wrong with you people.

What Obama is talking about is the norm for just about all normal, civilised, first world nations.

Yet again, the US is being held back by its conservative lunatic fringe. Yes.

This post is spot on. I have heard much good about Australia's health care system from Aussies I know and this post is basically exactly what they say. The problem is how utterly determined that lunatic fringe you mention is in spreading paranoia by talk radio and TV buzzwords.

It is not hard to play upon irrational fears in the USA since there is still the strong aversion to anything "socialist" leftover from decades of Cold War media.

It seems like some people think that a government doing anything other than providing military and courts for corporate contract enforcement is "socialist". Sadly the result is that many people in the USA just parrot the lines of their favorite pundit and never even think about what they are saying which makes true solutions unlikely My main question though is whether you in Australia can always choose your own doctors or is either private insurance or publicly funded insurance based on the HMO model where you can only visit a specialist on their approved list?

Quote: : What about waiting 6-9 months or more for a hip replacement?

For some reason that's a benchmark argument in the States, the numbers come out of Canada I think.

Do you let old people rot on waiting lists hoping they will die (of non related causes) before having to provide medical care?

Are your hospitals filled with old people because they can't be placed in nursing homes that have the ability manage decent medical care?

What about non lifesaving surgery, are you screwed or do you go straight in? Sorry not my words, you can't imagine what we are hearing.

If anyone thinks publicly-funded healthcare means a health utopia where everyone who wants surgery etc gets in straight away is living in fantasyland.

Are there waiting times, especially for elective surgery, in the public system?

Of course there are - the kind of public funding required to avoid that completely would be crippling.

But what are the opponents of public healthcare offering as an alternative?

If I had a choice between being a low-income earner who had to wait for non-critical surgery and being one who couldn't get the surgery at all because I couldn't afford the procedure or the required private insurance, I know which I'd choose. Pointing to waiting times in public healthcare as a reason not to publicly fund healthcare at all is simply bizarre. As for "6-9 months", the average waiting time varies from state to state, from 26 days in Queensland according to 2005-2006 stats, to 70 days in the Australian Capital Territory.

For free healthcare, that's not much to ask.

And that's for non-life threatening conditions.

Have a heart attack and you go straight in, no question. Does that sound better or worse than your current situation? Quote: : My main question though is whether you in Australia can always choose your own doctors or is either private insurance or publicly funded insurance based on the HMO model where you can only visit a specialist on their approved list?

You're talking to a pretty healthy guy (who has private insurance), so I'm a bit hazy on the details of what happens with people in the public system.

My understanding is that you can choose your own doctors for general practice healthcare, though you get what the local hospital provides if you go in as a public patient.

Since the standards of all Australian doctors are stringently high, it doesn't make much difference.

I haven't been to a specialist for years, but I know my private health fund has dentists who they approve.

Mine is excellent. Our healthcare isn't perfect and the main problem is the clumsy way its funded by the Federal Government but administered by the states.

The current Federal Government is trying to reduce the bureaucracy and wastage that anachronism causes, but that's an uphill battle.

But when we look at the bizarre, antiquated and inequitable system you guys labour under in the US, it's a mystery to us as to why there is any debate at all.

This is a no-brainer.

Quote: : If anyone thinks publicly-funded healthcare means a health utopia where everyone who wants surgery etc gets in straight away is living in fantasyland.

Are there waiting times, especially for elective surgery, in the public system?

Of course there are - the kind of public funding required to avoid that completely would be crippling.

But what are the opponents of public healthcare offering as an alternative?

If I had a choice between being a low-income earner who had to wait for non-critical surgery and being one who couldn't get the surgery at all because I couldn't afford the procedure or the required private insurance, I know which I'd choose. Pointing to waiting times in public healthcare as a reason not to publicly fund healthcare at all is simply bizarre. As for "6-9 months", the average waiting time varies from state to state, from 26 days in Queensland according to 2005-2006 stats, to 70 days in the Australian Capital Territory.

For free healthcare, that's not much to ask.

And that's for non-life threatening conditions.

Have a heart attack and you go straight in, no question. Our healthcare isn't perfect and the main problem is the clumsy way its funded by the Federal Government but administered by the states.

The current Federal Government is trying to reduce the bureaucracy and wastage that anachronism causes, but that's an uphill battle.

But when we look at the bizarre, antiquated and inequitable system you guys labour under in the US, it's a mystery to us as to why there is any debate at all.

This is a no-brainer. Excellent response and spot on, could not have said it any better.

American rich conservatives are the smartest people in the world.

They invent all these "get government off my back" crap and make all the poor people actually DEFEND a system that benefits rich mainly at the expense of lower income. in this world, there are stupid people and there are stupid low-income conservative americans.

Quote: : american rich conservatives are the smartest people in the world.

They invent all these "get government off my back" crap and make all the poor people actually DEFEND a system that benefits rich mainly at the expense of lower income. in this world, there are stupid people and there are stupid low-income conservative americans.

They've got better propaganda than the entire eastern bloc had in the cold war.

In Britain I have private heath care which I pay for...

You dont HAVE to use the NHS...

But you do have to pay for it, I assume.

You don't get your health care tax waived because you use private health care do you? It's the same as the public schooling system, if you can afford it you want to go to a private school or be home schooled, but regardless you still have to pay for public school even if you don't use it.

Quote: : But you do have to pay for it, I assume.

You don't get your health care tax waived because you use private health care do you? It's the same as the public schooling system, if you can afford it you want to go to a private school or be home schooled, but regardless you still have to pay for public school even if you don't use it.

Yes. This is because certain elements of society who cannot afford to pay taxes for public healthcare or public schooling should still have access to it.

Its called taxes .

Or would you rather we return to some gilded aged system?

I still haveto pay,yes.

But the private is only there for Operations or long term stuff.

I use the NHS for minor things.

Like a few weeks ago i broke my toe, I went down to A&E and got it seen to.

What is the effect of Australia's system on physician salaries and their practices? A main concern in the United States is reduced physician salaries contributing to an overall shortage of doctors as a result of expense cuts.

Saving lives is a noble cause, but nobody is going to work 80 hours a week and go to school for 12 years to make the same money someone with a bachelor's degree who works 40 hours a week makes. Also, doctors are worried about the prospects of rationing care and not being able to give patients the treatment they need.

Also, under a government program how difficult would it be for patients to get second opinions from specialists? I've seen many stories about Canadian patients coming to the US to receive care that couldn't be given under their universal health plan. These aren't conservative knee jerk reactions, they are legitimate concerns that we in the United States have. It is more intelligent to thoroughly examine a new system and weigh the pros and cons before implimenting it.

Doctor's getting the same as those who have completed a Bachelor of Arts degree?

I don't think so. Its not as though the government is going to chain doctors to hospitals like slaves.

If the U.S. government REALLY fkd over doctors that badly they would just go overseas like they do everywhere else in the world. The impression I have of the U.S.

Health system is that either you pay or you die, or you get treatment and end up in debt having to sell your house and belongings etc.

Bugger that. In australia private health craps all over public health but the fact of the matter is at any point if my boys become sick i can take them straight to the emergency room and get treatment without worrying about being slogged with a king kong mega bill. The only criticism i have of Australia's health care system is that the Elderly are simply living too bloody long and clog up the system coming in for all sorts of ailments they should go to the doctors or chemists for rather than the hospital.

Also when the Australian baby boomer generation retires 40% of australia's population will be pensioners which is going to put on a massive strain on the taxpayer.

Still i would rather pay and know i will be in turn looked after than the American 'Fk you fred im ok' mentality. Plus 'Socialized medicine' WTF??!!

What do you think this is pharmaceuticals for the proletariat?

Its true though anyone that does anything with a social concious, say, providing free health care for poor elderly old pensioners or disadvantaged children must be a filthy capitalist hating commie

Quote: : But you do have to pay for it, I assume.

You don't get your health care tax waived because you use private health care do you?

In Australia everyone above a certain earning level pays the Medicare levy.

Then there is a second, slighter higher levy that you pay on your earnings but which is waived if you have private health insurance.

That gives those who can afford it an added incentive to fund their own health care, while still providing universal cover for those who can't afford that. Quote: : What is the effect of Australia's system on physician salaries and their practices?

Australian doctors earn comparably to their American counterparts, apart from some specialists who earn slightly less.

But when you take the lower price of living in Australia into account, doctors in Australia actually come out on top. Quote: : Also, doctors are worried about the prospects of rationing care and not being able to give patients the treatment they need.

I'm not sure I understand this concern.

Why would a doctor not be able to give patients what they need if all patients are covered by insurance, either public or private? Quote: : Also, under a government program how difficult would it be for patients to get second opinions from specialists?

Public patients can get second opinions if they wish.

Quote: : Australian doctors earn comparably to their American counterparts, apart from some specialists who earn slightly less.

But when you take the lower price of living in Australia into account, doctors in Australia actually come out on top.

Random factoids. Employment Costs in Australia At present, Australia is in great need of health care professionals especially nurses.

Other jobs available for expatriates are positions in the fields of information technology, pharmaceuticals, accounting, education, domestic travel and transportation as well as marketing.

Tourism and export are the two main things that comprise the bulk of the nation’s finances.

Over ten million people in Australia are employed while only 4.6% are jobless as of 2007. I wonder why that is? Australian and New Zealand homes are the least affordable in the world, according to a US-based survey of 227 cities. The 2008 Demographia study of international housing affordability listed 18 Australian cities in its top 50 of severely unaffordable markets. The study rates housing affordability in the English-speaking nations of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US, UK and Ireland. The least affordable city in Australia is Mandurah (sixth-least affordable overall), south of Perth, where houses cost 9.5 times a household’s average annual income, with Sydney (8.6), Perth (7.6) and Melbourne (7.3) in 11th, 19th and 22nd place overall. Demographia rates a city’s housing market “affordable” when the cost of an average home is three (or less) times average household income, “seriously unaffordable” for four times the average and “seriously unaffordable” for five times. The Property Council of Australia said state governments needed to release more land, cut back on developer taxes and reduce red tape. “Australia’s dismal performance highlights the need to reverse the policies that created today’s artificially inflated house prices“, council chief executive Peter Verwer said. “The survey backs the property council’s view that the affordability crisis is caused by land rationing, excessive development charges and dysfunctional development assessment. “The response of some state governments shows the message is getting through, however, the survey results show more urgent action is required. “The new Rudd government has demonstrated much needed leadership in committing to five major programs aimed at improving housing affordability.” Only US and Canadian cities featured in the top 50 affordable cities, including Dallas and Kansas in the US and Quebec in Canada. “The survey tells us there are plenty of affordable cities in the world, it’s just that none of them are in Australia “, Mr Verwer said. “On average, Australian families are forced to spend 6.1 times their entire household income to buy a typical home compared with 3.1 times in Canada and 3.6 times in the US, and that’s before interest charges.

” The survey found the top five least affordable cities in the world included four Californian cities led by Los Angeles, along with Salinas, San Francisco and San Diego with Honolulu in Hawaii coming in at number four. Now your cost of living point is interesting, but you need to understand that the cost of living will vary WILDLY in the US so its basically a non-point. Basically Australian doctors are paid on the mid to low end, Australia is in NEED of health care professionals, and the cost of living is good but not that great compared to the Americas. I briefly for a time considered immigration since I would be in the fast track for citizenship in a needed profession.

Not enough going for it though to be on the other side of the planet.




Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet