Australia's health care system on verge of collapse; headed towards US system

[Number23]

"Medicare struggling; Australia headed towards US user-pays system"

THE Australian system of free universal healthcare is set to disappear in as little as five years, prompting a radical plan for a new federal-state partnership to take control of hospitals and patient care.

(SNIP)

In a startling warning, NSW Health director-general Debora Piccone has told The Daily Telegraph that Australia is hurtling towards a US-style user-pays system due to an ageing population and out of control costs.

"We are really on the edge of losing the universal healthcare system that this country has," she said.

"I would have (previously) said we'd had 10 years to run. It's now looking like we've got five years to run because the cost escalations are so significant and we haven't prepared ourselves."

Bleak. I can't help but wonder if Australia could put its money to better use. Instead of the $5000 baby bonus given to all couples for every child they have, maybe this money could be put towards propping up Medicare. Can only hope this report is just hand-wringing and doesn't come to fruition.

[SoCalNative]

1. I don't understand that baby bonus either

Why reward breeders for straining the system?

[paulsby]

4. breeders?

nice. that's a pretty offensive term, fwiw.

and yes, i am aware of its history.

[Number23]

8. You're right! Breeders is ugly. I was so interested in asking his question, I totally missed that.

[paulsby]

9. fair enuf. thx. nt

[RC]

15. Don't get your knickers in a knot.

Breeders is the correct term.

[paulsby]

16. it's no more "correct" than

referring to japanese americans as "japs" is.

it's offensive.

[Regret My New Name]

92. yer mom and dad are breeders...

BUUUUUURN!!!

[Number23]

6. That's interesting that you brought that up

Australia is roughly the same size as the US but has only 20 million people, many of whom are DYING to go to Europe or the UK and get out of Australia. There was once an old saying here; have three kids - one for mom, one for dad and one for Australia. :)

Alot of people here are up in arms about the baby bonus saying that it only encourages people who have really no business having children to have them. There was a story here about a woman with 12 kids living with another woman with 7 kids. Both women were pregnant and were collecting thousands of dollars a month from Centrelink (Australian welfare.)

When we had our daughter in 2006, the bonus was $4000. So even if the bonus was only $1000 per child when these women gave birth to their children, that means the two of them collected probably $20K before getting their welfare payments. And the truly horrible part is that the children were living in utter squalor; filth, running around in thin t-shirts and no shoes in the cold, and no one has any idea when was the last time that any of them had gone to school. It's a shame because I admire Australia's commitment to taking care of its citizens. But there will always be those who try to abuse the system.

[Hannah Bell]

71. and the minority who do will always be highly publicized in order to keep the masses

buying into the idea that welfare queens are stealing all the money, not banksters.

the meme goes back (at least) to 18th century england.

[MADem]

7. Someone has to wipe the asses of the elderly.

To say nothing of paying INTO the system to keep it going.

They obviously want to grow their population, or give it a "good start" in early life.

[Auggie]

2. Why is there a link to FOX SPORTS on the home page?

Do I smell a rat?

[MADem]

5. Don't blame the citation. It was a government official who made the assertion.

Here, a citation you might like better: http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/medicare-may-collapse-in-five-years-nsw-20090603-buqh.html

Medicare may collapse in five years: NSW June 3, 2009
There's limited time to reform the nation's health system amid fears Medicare could collapse within five years, the NSW government says.

NSW Health director-general Deborah Picone has given a dire prognosis for the current system, saying Australia is heading towards US-style user pays.

Prof Picone says cost escalations mean universal health care could collapse within five years.

She is pushing for a system where funding from the commonwealth and states is pooled and then redistributed.

NSW Health Minister John Della Bosca backs her claims.

"Prof Picone and many, many commentators in the medical system ... are telling me that we have a limited window of opportunity to preserve the great public hospital system that we have," he told reporters....

[Auggie]

11. Thanks. If I see anything with FOX on it I freak out.

[Cleita]

51. Apparently, Ms. Piccone is a conservative. How many conservatives have

we heard bloviating the same thing about our Medicare system? There seems to be a battle raging between the liberals and her regarding this from some of the blogs I've scanned regarding this matter. They are trying to bring in insurance carriers. You can't believe any of the Australian news papers. They are biased since Ruppert Murdoch owns all of them, which is why you see the ads for Fox.

[MADem]

81. This is the first I've even heard of this woman. I was simply providing a second cite

because the first source was deemed unsatisfactory.

It's never good for pursuit of knowledge to shut down discussion on the basis that a citation isn't "pure" enough, especially when the person is quoted elsewhere saying the same thing.

If the ideas stink, they're the things that need to be shot down.

[Hannah Bell]

68. and the aussies on this thread say this is the first time they've heard

their health care system is disintegrating.

but you seem to be promoting the idea.

[MADem]

79. "Seem to be promoting?"

You "seem to" be making stuff up about me.

All I did was find a separate citation to demonstrate that the government official actually said the thing that she said.

I have no more knowledge about this matter than the average reader. I did note downthread that one of the "Aussies" said grandma overuses the system, and that could be placing a burden on it. So life is not all rosy down under, but I don't claim to be an expert on it, either.

You "seem to" ascribe motive when there is none, and accuse me of having an agenda when I have none.

Why is that? Please be specific. You "seem to" want me to not discuss this issue.

Innuendo is an insidious thing, and it really sucks, you know. It's the enemy of honest communication.


And on edit--wasn't the person who started this thread one of the "Aussies on this thread?" So why are you getting mad at me?

[Cleita]

91. If that Aussie doesn't like how grandma overuses the system, maybe

he would prefer to be here where he would have to look after her because our system is falling apart. That's why there is a system so grandma, who could be having gas or maybe could be having a heart attack, can be looked after by professionals who can determine which is which. Why anyone would renege an old woman at the end of her life from having health care and feeling secure that maybe this time it isn't the big one is beyond me. If this is true, that is one selfish, asshole grandson. I suspect though it's a few right wing talking points leaking through. Jonah Goldberg spouts them regularly about old people wanting their pills on the government tab, etc., etc., etc..

[MADem]

94. We don't know the circumstances. If someone checks themselves

into the hospital every weekend, maybe it's time for a nursing home?

I don't know. I'm not going to call someone an asshole for making an observation on a personal level when they are closer to the situation than any of us. The grandson or daughter isn't "reneging." It's granny doing the utilixation of the services. All that was noted is that people who do this, instead of maybe going to, oh, say, an assisted living community, or a home health aide solution, might be, well, OVERBURDENING the system and driving up costs?

Why is it a crime to point that out?

And I don't think ANYONE is comparing any system, Aussie, or Canadian, to ours. This is simply a discussion about problems in those countries, cost overruns, inefficiencies, wait times--things that ARE worth talking about, because USA has way more people than those countries and we need to get it right when we finally get off our asses and do it. No one's suggesting (except maybe you) that there are worthwhile comparisons to be made--it's just an exercise in scoping out issues that might arise. What's the harm in discussing these things? What are people afraid of? Pretending everything is rosy in these countries, when it isn't, is an exercise in denial. Let's find out where they're having trouble, maybe that way we can avoid the problems they encounter.

We don't have decent health care in the USA. Not yet, anyway.

Why drag Jonah Goldberg into this? He's an idiot. What does he have to do with someone's grandma using a hospital like a spa?

Sometimes it's not fun having discussions here--there's way too much of the "asparagus" and not enough meaty discussion.

[Cleita]

99. If granny needs to be in a nursing home, I'm sure the medical

experts will direct her there. I don't think this scenario passes the smell test with me. As far as "idiot" Jonah Goldberg, he talks about stuff like this all the time.

[MADem]

100. Well, I am not going to accuse the OP of anything. She's the one who's

closest to the situation, and I don't think she has any reason to lie.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

116. Here comes the name calling. Whenever someone can't refute facts

they stoop to calling people names like unhinged or an idiot.

[Number23]

120. You have not provided a single fact. Just your own BS opinion

that is not the slightest bit grounded in anything resembling reality.

I really wish that you would go away and stop posting in my OP, for your own benefit as you have made a huge fool of yourself in this thread.

[Cleita]

55. Because Ruppert Murdoch owns the parent corporation of that News website.

You smelled a rat. However, Murdoch owns all of the media in Australia, so any news they get is filtered through their propaganda mill.

[Number23]

78. "Murdoch owns all of the media in Australia"

That is so not true I cannot even begin to understand why you said that.

[Cleita]

93. I guess I shouldn't have said ALL since you decided to parse it.

But you will be a liar if you tell me that he doesn't "own" it.

[Number23]

102. I would tell you to quit while you're behind, but you crossed that bridge a loooong time ago

Just stop posting in this thread. You're not doing yourself any favors.

[Cleita]

115. As long as anyone is spreading astroturf about health care in other

countries I will post where and when I please. According to other sources I have come up with only Murdoch's lying machine is making a big deal out of this.Your source is from a Murdoch news outlet making any truth in it suspect. It's also against the rules to post from RW news sources here at DU. Did you know that?

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

106. Why you smell a rat is that the article is from a MURDOCH paper

and of course, wholly micharacterizes the issues.

[MADem]

3. Many places with so-called "universal" health care are headed that way.

There are tiers of service. Wait three years for that hip, or go somewhere else to get it, and pay for it.

Medical tourism is becoming a big thing. People go to India and elsewhere for operations, and do a little sightseeing.

I have friends who get dental work in Brazil all the time. Way cheaper than here....

Article on the topic, here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/26/medical.tourism/

[Number23]

12. Hey, why not? People travel to hit different beaches and try different food

If the quality of service is good, and the facility safe and clean, why not shop around??

There was a piece here on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago about a gay couple that adopted twin girls from India. I was crying so hard during that story, my husband had to check on me. The minute they showed the room those little girls would be living in, I knew that they would so loved. The stuff in that room was so new and just so much, typical new parents. :) I just bawled.

Here is the story - http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=416300&showcomments=true

They went to India because they couldn't get it done in Australia. So they became the "medical tourists" that you mentioned and got their baby girls. Those children are blessed to have such loving parents even though my heart broke a million different ways for the surrogate mothers in India who have to do this as a way to escape poverty.

[Canuckistanian]

17. Not Canada

Our system is doing fine, thank you.

And my wife had her hip replacement in two months.

Oh, and that "medical tourism" thing? That's an American concept, where international air travel and accommodations are STILL cheaper than paying some insurance company or a hospital directly. It's absolutely unheard-of in Canada.

I have no idea what's going on in Australia, but regressing to the Ayn Randian system of American health care is NOT the answer. Not in the short OR long run.

[MADem]

19. Yes, Canada. Canada is having SERIOUS problems. You are fortunate that you haven't felt them.

Your evidence is anecdotal, but it is by no means representative. Your system is NOT doing fine--it is in serious trouble. Don't believe me--believe the head of the Canadian Medical Association. Canada has major issues on wait times, efficiencies, and a host of other problems.

No shooting the messenger, please. From a report issued just a week ago:

Canadian health care earns dismal finish in international ranking


http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/canada/article/234612--canadian-health-care-earns-dismal-finish-in-international-ranking

For the second time in less than two weeks, the Canadian public health care system has flunked an international comparison test.

"Canada is doing quite poorly compared to most European nations," said Johan Hjertqvist of the Health Consumer Powerhouse. HCP is a research organization headquartered in Belgium, and it ranks the Canadian health care system 23rd among 32 nations surveyed for quality, access, and innovation.

In particular, wait times to see a doctor and receive treatment drag the Canadian ranking toward the bottom.

"Why should you have to wait three months, or 15 months for treatment when you evidently -- if you look into conditions in Germany or France or the Netherlands -- can have it in a couple of weeks with the same kind of quality?" asked Hjertqvist.

The survey also finds that while Canada is one of the highest per capita spenders on health care, we don't get much for our money. On the so-called "bang for the buck scale," that measured health care results for the number of dollars spent, Canada ranks dead last among the 32 nations.

The analysis was co-sponsored by the Frontier Centre of Public Policy, which says the Canadian system is in some respects held hostage by vested interests, such as public sector unions.



And Canadians have been medical tourists for YEARS:

Medical tourism: Need surgery, will travel
CBC News Online | June 18, 2004


What's called medical tourism – patients going to a different country for either urgent or elective medical procedures – is fast becoming a worldwide, multibillion-dollar industry.

The reasons patients travel for treatment vary. Many medical tourists from the United States are seeking treatment at a quarter or sometimes even a 10th of the cost at home. From Canada, it is often people who are frustrated by long waiting times. From Great Britain, the patient can't wait for treatment by the National Health Service but also can't afford to see a physician in private practice. For others, becoming a medical tourist is a chance to combine a tropical vacation with elective or plastic surgery.

And more patients are coming from poorer countries such as Bangladesh where treatment may not be available.

Medical tourism is actually thousands of years old. In ancient Greece, pilgrims and patients came from all over the Mediterranean to the sanctuary of the healing god, Asklepios, at Epidaurus. In Roman Britain, patients took the waters at a shrine at Bath, a practice that continued for 2,000 years. From the 18th century wealthy Europeans travelled to spas from Germany to the Nile. In the 21st century, relatively low-cost jet travel has taken the industry beyond the wealthy and desperate.

Countries that actively promote medical tourism include Cuba, Costa Rica, Hungary, India, Israel, Jordan, Lithuania, Malaysia and Thailand. Belgium, Poland and Singapore are now entering the field. South Africa specializes in medical safaris-visit the country for a safari, with a stopover for plastic surgery, a nose job and a chance to see lions and elephants....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/medicaltourism.html



Even the Canadian Medical Association is acknowledging how screwed up the system is:


CMA pushes European-style health care

Mix of private, public services seen as reducing wait times

By Tom Blackwell, National PostFebruary 9, 2009

Canada could transform its bogged-down health care system and shrink lengthy wait lists by adopting Europe's successful blend of private medicine and universal access, the head of the country's largest doctors group said yesterday.

Kicking off a major new campaign to promote a European-style medicare model, Dr. Robert Ouellet said experts he met recently in countries such as France and Denmark were shocked by how long Canadians queue up for some health services.

Such nations have all but eliminated wait lists, partly by having private-sector contractors compete against public clinics and hospitals for government health funds, said the president of the Canadian Medical Association. Such competition encourages more efficient use of personnel and tax dollars, he said in an interview.

"In other countries, they clearly do not understand why this population, we Canadians, accept (long wait lists]. They don't get it," Dr. Ouellet said. "Some told us, 'There would be a revolution here if we had that kind of problem.' ... We really need to make a transformation."

He was to outline some of his ideas for overhauling the system in a speech today in Toronto, before embarking on a cross-country discussion of the issues.

Dr. Ouellet also resurrected the idea of slapping a tax on junk food to discourage unhealthy eating, and advocated letting Canadians deduct any out-of-pocket health care costs from their taxable income.

He was most enthusiastic, though, about his road trip through Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Denmark, and the role played by private medicine in those nations.

You have been lucky. Your experience is not shared by most Canadians. Again, no shooting the messenger.

[Selatius]

21. I think the problem in Canada is that they need to increase funding and staffing levels.

Of course, if that is the problem, it would be infinitely easier to address in Canada's health care system than it would be in the labyrinthian US health care system.

[MADem]

22. I'm not for a second, mind you, suggesting that the USA has a handle on anything!

We're starting from scratch. When we do get off the dime and move on it, I hope we avoid a lot of the Money Pit and Care Here/Crap There issues.

Canada has massive inefficiencies, to include massive waits, according to their top medical guy. It might be funding and staffing, or it could be a distribution issue--if you're in X part of the country, you are seen faster, but those in Y have to wait and wait and wait.

I think we're in a good position to look at what others have done, and swipe ideas from good systems, and avoid the pitfalls of the bad, if we can.

[Selatius]

23. I think their distribution problems could partly be due to Canada's low population density.

It would cost a lot of money to put a doctor out in the middle of nowhere servicing a town of a few hundred people. I'm not saying it isn't worth it, but the bean counters would object on budgetary grounds. There are parts of the US that are nearly as empty as far as people go. Getting care to them will always be problematic even if the US adopted a system similar to France, which is single-payer.

[MADem]

24. I visit a little rural town every so often. The way they manage the

"specialist" kind of stuff is that they cycle guys in for three or four months at a pop. Some do it every year or so, so they get used to the area and they go there based on the seasons they happen to like (winter skiing, snowmobiling, or hunting season, or golf and fishing in the nice weather, etc). Stuff that can't wait goes to the biggest nearby city which is a considerable distance away--not impossible to get to, but certainly inconvenient.

Depending on your density, it's sometimes cheaper to send the patient to the doctor and pay for hotel, airfare, etc., instead of leaving the doctor with the people. That's the way the military does it at remote facilities. You have a little clinic staffed with an independent duty corpsman/medic, a doctor who swings through every so often, and reasonably rapid access to medevac, or a civilian hospital nearby.

[Hannah Bell]

25. I love it when americans educate canadians about the canadian health care system.

i mean, who would know better? how could any canadian ever dispute your collection of articles?

not like media is ever used in pursuit of hidden agendas or anything.

funny, there's just too many sick or old people in the world. they cost too much, we can't "afford" them.

no profits!

[MADem]

42. All I know I learned from my CANADIAN RELATIVES. I'd say they know a bit.

Particularly the one who took advantage of a little "medical tourism" to do what the government wouldn't do.

Have a look at post forty, and see a few "liberal" cites about the problem, too.

And try sticking to the subject, why don't you? WTF was this stupid remark about:

funny, there's just too many sick or old people in the world. they cost too much, we can't "afford" them.

You're the one ginning up THAT strawman. I did not address the issue of "priorities." I wasn't a cheerleader for fucking over "sick old people" who can't be afforded. That's all in your head, not mine.

All I am doing is pointing out facts, and the facts include that wait times in Canada SUCK for many of its citizens, and many of them are going abroad for treatment or taking "private" options. That is fact, and even liberals in government freely admit this (do read the cites I've provided in post forty).

The system is in serious trouble. Whistling past the graveyard, speaking childishly and snarkily at me simply because I point it out, isn't going to help the situation.

Addressing the serious problems is what will solve the problems.

Easier to be snide, though, isn't it? Gives one a more immediate "superiority rush" too, I suppose, to shoot the messenger rather than acknowledge the realities?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

57. It's worse than that. These stories are carefully planted in mainstream

publications by lobbyists and publicists for our Wall Street health care industry. When I have time to dig into them by following the author, the trail usually leads into the belly of some right wing organization or lobbying firm.

[MADem]

60. Which stories?

The OP, or the Canadian government studies?

[Cleita]

62. Actually, I was referring to stories that appear about your system or various

European system that are purely bull shit. I have spotted them over the years and some blue dog Democrat or Libertarian posts them on DU just like the OP did this one. When I follow the story, they always lead back to some conservative propaganda outlet, just like this one did. The Ruppert Murdoch New outlets in Australia are running with this. The truth it seems is that Ms. Piccone is trying to finish what their conservative government under Howard tried to do but couldn't. However, the liberals are fighting her tooth and nail. I'll bet you this ten year collapse bs was pulled from her ass just like all the stories we hear about Social Security on the verge of bankruptcy from our conservatives that turn out to be bs when you crunch the figures.

I wish I had time to refute this wholly, but I have to get together facts and figures for a meeting this evening concerning our health care system.

[Monk06]

32. You're full of crap. You cite the RW CMA and a host of RW media and propaganda shops

Medical Tourism is a hoax fabricated by
vested interests in the US corporate med
and insurance sector. There is no data
to support widespread Canadian travel to
the US for medical treatment.

Waits vary I have had two surgeries in the
last fifteen years and the longest wait was
two months for a hernia.

I am presently being treated for emphysema and
bronchiectasis. I have recently been put on full
medical disability by the BC government which covers
all my medical costs for free and includes $900 per month
in supplemental income assistance. I pay no monthly
premiums for my medical care and most medications
are covered or subsidized by the provincial government.

Don't comment on Canadian health coverage unless you
have experienced it yourself, preferably in more than
one province.

[MADem]

41. See post forty, where I cite LIBERAL CITES that paint an even more DIRE picture.

I have a Canadian relative who travelled to Brazil because timely help was not available in Canada. But hey, what do I know?

And don't tell people on a Democratic board what they may, or may not, comment on. You aren't the "comment" gatekeeper. It makes you sound like an authoritarian.

How nice that you are getting care. It's a shame that people who are in wheelchairs and need new hips in order to walk without pain have to go abroad to get their asses out of their chairs. That's why there are so many medical tourism companies making a profit in Canada (some "hoax" if more than fifteen tourism companies are in operation, now, I should say!).

[Hannah Bell]

70. cause "liberals" never have a pro-capital, anti-democratic agenda.

and they never lie.

[MADem]

75. OK, so now you are saying that Canadian liberals (in the quotes that I provided

where they are complaining about the actions of the conservative gov't) are, by complaining, trying to "sabotage" the system in some way?

Is that what you are suggesting? It makes no sense. The liberals agree that the system is a mess, but they're angry about it.

Didn't you read the cites before you posted that comment? I don't think you did.

[Monk06]

84. You continue to cite hearsay anecdotal stories or health care wait times in rural areas

of Canada.

The reason there is a shortage of doctors
in rural areas is that doctors don't want
to practice in small communities where the
may see only one or two patients a day.

And it may surprise you that the Health Canada
only distributes health care funds. It's the
provinces that control the spending. And no
province is going to spend $3 - $5 billion
for a full service hospital with emergency,
diagnostic and surgical wards in a community
with less than 25,000 people in some podunk
farming community in southern Saskatchewan

Canadian health care was never designed to
provide expensive emergency and surgical
services in remote areas. It was designed
to provide basic health care for all.

Eventually more services were added but with
the realization that people in remote areas
would have to travel sometimes 300 miles for
specialist diagnostics and treatment.

That's just a simple fact of economics and
geography.

[MADem]

95. I cite Canadian sources and Canadian statistics.

I don't understand why you're getting pissed at me. "Screw the rural people" isn't a solution, either. That farmer without a hip or with cateracts can't farm too well, now, can he?

It's not always a question of travel--it's a question of getting a slot in the operating theater. It's getting in line to get on the table to be cut.

Joint replacement and cateracts are not "expensive" surgeries anymore. They're pretty basic care for people at a certain age, and those are two common areas that are problematic.

[Monk06]

104. By your own citations in #40 it is the Conservatives lack of will in restoring

funding to the provinces to reduce wait
times in the source of problems with
the medical services delivery in Canada.

Do yourself a favour and high light that
fact.

Otherwise you come off as an apologist for
private only health care.

Where there is no will for a single payer
universal health care system it will not
happen or an existing system will be gradually
eroded by the corporate forces arrayed against it.

Sadly I think it is too late for Americans. The
corporate insurance lobby owns everything now; the
Doctors, hospitals and most importantly the patients.

[MADem]

114. Yes, so? You don't seem to understand (though I said it in this thread) that I am NOT

arguing from a "POV." I don't really give a shit WHO burnt the house down--the house is burning, and someone needs to call the fire department.

It's not my job to "highlight" the fact that the Conservatives are the "bad guys," here. I put up a cite that clearly said so--you even quoted from it just now. That's pretty rich--use my own cite to tell me I didn't "highlight" a point sufficiently to make your arguments for you?

It also proves nothing when people use "Well, I never had a problem," as a justification to wave away both my points and the statistics that are getting worse, not better, as time goes by.

I am not the cheerleader for any Canadian political party. I also benefit from FEDERAL single payer health care, courtesy of my decades in service to my government--so your frankly idiotic accusation that I somehow don't support such a scheme is just .... well, a dumbass one.

It's why I tire of this place--don't like what someone says? Make a personal (and usually pulled out of a dark orafice) accusation that goes to motive. It's pure bullshit, that kind of discussion point. It makes one say "Why even bother to discuss this with people who are going to behave like... well, behave ...badly."

And you calling me an apologist for anything at al suggests your--not my--POV biases. I could genuinely give a shit if Aliens from the Planet Xebu ran the Canadian Health Care system. What interests me--and the only thing, really, that interests me-- is how efficiently they run it, and how well they manage the system so it is responsive to the citizenry over the years, over the long term, from cradle to grave.

It's not my job to "defend" people who don't do their jobs, or make excuses for those who can't get their points across and maintain the support of the voting public.

My interest in this issue is that the US is going to a public system, eventually, hopefully. We will have "conservative" and "liberal" and "mish-mash" governments in future, too. We need to develop a system that is inoculated against government actors making cuts here and shaving services there, so we don't end up having people rolling themselves around in travel wheelchairs for a whole frigging year because they have to wait that long for a hip replacement.

Is that sufficiently plain?

[Monk06]

118. You need to chill Phil. Sorry for saying you are full of crap that was out of line

But your argument that Canadian Health care
in on the verge of collapse is a favorite
canard of both the left and right up here.

The right is taking advantage of reduced federal
funding to the provinces to show that Universal
Government run health is a failure.

On the other hand the left exaggerates the severity
of the problem in order to leverage the restoration
of Federal funding to the provinces to levels during
the early 1990's.

The things that have to be done are to stop closing
hospitals and start opening new ones. Also provide them with
proper diagnostic imaging equipment as well increasing the
number of technicians and Doctors to bring down wait times.

This means more funding but all that is for naught if there aren't
enough doctors. We are not going to get more doctors until the
power to enforce restrictive quotas on the number of practitioners
is taken away from the provincial Medical Associations and Colleges
of Physicians and Surgeons. That monopoly on labor supply must be
broken.

[MADem]

119. "Serious trouble" is accurate. I didn't say "verge of collapse" so don't put words in my mouth.

I point out that efficiencies are suffering, delivery is suffering, and "adverse outcomes" are rising--and I use government stats to do that.

You don't like what I present, so you confound the comments of others (to say nothing of the headline taken from the report posted by the OP) with mine and tell me to "Chill Phil."

I want to see the Canadian government fix the mess, actually. I want to see how they do it, and if they can make it stick. I want a good example set up north, not a poor one. We're not about to invent the US system out of whole cloth. We're going to steal ideas from people. I hope we only swipe the best ones.

I'd like to see at least ten new medical schools opened in North America, myself. Integrated universities that include medical specialty training from simple one semester classes in home health care (butt wiping, giving out meds, CPR, basic first aid, basic diagnostic tips) geared towards the individual with a GED, to nursing, Physcian's assistant certification, to MDs, to advanced surgical techniques. These schools should be affiliated with cutting-edge hospitals that have the highest standards.

That would solve the doctor shortage, and could even be a money maker if the continent could become a destination where people from all over the globe come to get top-notch medical training. We could also use that sort of training as a substitute for Foreign Military Sales and other armament aid if we ever get to the beating of swords into plowshares phase of our existence.

We have brains, we simply need to learn to use them.

[Canuckistanian]

37. Propaganda - don't believe everything you read.

Your first example comes directly from an organization known as "Frontier Centre of Public Policy"

SourceWatch describes it like this:

The Centre claims to be independent and ideology free, however the studies it publishes generally support neoliberal economic theories.This inclination is evident in the statements that "The vast prairie region has all the ingredients to be the most prosperous and successful region in the world: abundant natural resources, high-quality public services and hardworking, spirited citizens. However, with our old, low-performance policy paradigm and a tax regime that renders this region less competitive, Manitoba and Saskatchewan risk falling ever further behind other jurisdictions despite these advantages. We have drifted into our downward cycle because of a poverty of ideas."

Your second example provides no data at all on the NUMBER of Canadian who use medical tourism to avoid wait times. There are ALWAYS wealthy individuals who can and will pay for specialized treatment in other countries. But it is certainly NOT common in Canada.

And you quote the opinion of the CMA in your third example. The CMA has ALWAYS pushed for more privatization - they're well known for it in Canada. And the appointment of Dr. Robert Ouellet to President of the CMA was a VERY controversial move here in Canada because he's a rabid advocate of privatization. His views are opposed by MOST doctors and nurses here.

Not to mention that the article appeared in our most RW newspaper, the National Post. They REGULARLY run articles predicting doom and gloom for our Health Care system.

[MADem]

40. Typical--don't like the news? Gripe about the cites. Sorry--NOT propaganda.

Did you read the damn things? Obviously not.

You might link your SOURCEWATCH complaint, so we know what they're talking about--from that clip, they could be complaining about the Centre's approach to farming, it's so vague.

But see--that's what happens here. Don't like the points made, play "Waaah, I don't like your source." You haven't come up with a single source in refutation, either (a vague quote without a link is BS, and you should know that).

So, one source is biased (but you failed to address their STATISTICS, their figures, that placed Canada in the FAILURE category--way easier to just call them "bad guys" I guess), the next source is too rightwing, and the government official is oh, a big old poopy butt.

Everyone's lying but you, apparently! And you aren't backing up your claims--you're just, er, shooting the messenger.

But hey, I'll play your silly game. Let's ask the government about wait times, shall we? CANADA knows it has a problem with access, that's why they ginned up a frikin TEN YEAR PLAN to address the issue of wait times (obviously, they've been farting around and haven't solved the problem): http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/delivery-prestation/fptcollab/2004-fmm-rpm/index-eng.php

The MANITOBA LIBERALS admit that wait times are a mess in their party platform: http://mlp.manitobaliberals.ca/?page_id=220

The money quotes:

Our Goal: to Deliver Timely Access to Quality Care
Under the Filmon Tories, wait times were a disaster. But eight years after Gary Doer and the NDP took office,
Manitoba spends more of its provincial budget on health care than any other province, yet is ranked last by the Conference Board of Canada. Manitobans are still waiting too long for many procedures and it is harder to find a family physician, especially in rural areas. When it comes to health care, neither the NDP nor the Tories have delivered in the past, nor do they have plans for the future: their focus has been on the health care bureaucracy. Manitoba Liberals focus on the patient.

Manitoba Liberal health care priorities are clear: cutting wait times for major and diagnostic procedures; improving community health care, especially for rural areas; improving the recruitment of family doctors; doing more to fight preventable diseases like cancer, heart disease, diabetes and infant dental care; making health care safer by creating a Medical Procedure Improvement Team; and make improving Aboriginal health care a major priority.

That doesn't sound too swift, does it?

Promises have been made in BC...and not delivered: http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/cityregion/article/691138

And your effort to make this a "Liberal v. Conservative" issue (as though there are POVs that really matter when the house is burning down) is totally beside the point. It doesn't really matter, at the end of the day, to the people who are not getting the health care they need as to who screwed the system up, the bottom line is that the Canadian system IS (not is going to be, not is "headed down the road to") --it IS in serious trouble, right now. This minute.

And liberals in Canada have acknowledged that that is already happening, a year ago--these are liberals saying the system is a mess: http://www.nationtalk.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10322

June 4, 2008 OTTAWA-The Conservative government's failure to honour the historic health accords of the previous government is slowly dismantling Canada's public health care system, Liberal Health Critic Robert Thibault and Public Health Critic Dr. Carolyn Bennett said today.
"The Conservative government is abandoning the efforts of the previous Liberal government and the provinces and territories which signed the historic 2003 Health Care Accord," said Mr. Thibault. "That plan set hard targets for progress in areas such as wait times reduction, universal drug coverage, and effective disease prevention and control. Abandoning those goals is a step towards the dismantling of our health care system."

The Health Council of Canada, the body responsible for monitoring progress on the 2003 Health Accord, released a report today showing that the timelines and objectives outlined in the Accord have not been met. The report shows a lack of progress in many areas, including Aboriginal health, catastrophic drug coverage, health human resources, and homecare.

"This failure should come as no surprise," said Dr. Bennett. "This is the same Conservative Party and government that dropped wait times from their list of election priorities, missed the December 2007 deadline to establish multi-year targets for wait times benchmarks, have made no progress on the 2005 agreement by Health Ministers to create an integrated pan-Canadian disease strategy, and have offered only toothless, piecemeal announcements since forming government two years ago."

OK, let's see what CTV has to say about this in the context of party platforms in recent elections--or are they "evil lying conservatives" too? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080906/healthcare_elxnissue_080906/20080906?&s_name=election2008

Cuts to health care over the years have contributed to the two main areas of concern; patient wait times and doctor/nurse shortages. Canadians are worried about reports of patients crossing the border for treatment, as well as private clinics popping up, which is seen as a threat to publicly funded care.

Three years ago, a registered nurses organization in Ontario was highlighting the wait time issue in the context of elections:
http://www.rnao.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=1270&SiteNodeID=160

Now, let's go to the issue of medical tourism, since you're in overwhelming denial about that, too. Here, read this, and don't try to tell me that PUBMED is in Harper's pocket. If there were no market for medical tourism, why are all these Canada-based medical tourism businesses in operation across the land?:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2231416

Delays for medical interventions such as hip and knee replacements, spinal surgery, and ophthalmologic procedures are a serious problem in Canada. Federal and provincial governments are struggling to shorten waiting lists and provide timely care. Patients often wait months to obtain appointments with specialists, undergo diagnostic tests, and receive treatment. Lack of access to family physicians can make obtaining care particularly difficult.

Recognizing that many Canadians are unable to obtain prompt treatment, medical tourism companies promote travel to medical facilities in other countries.1 Customers of these companies can purchase anything from cosmetic procedures and diagnostic examinations to kidney transplants, in vitro fertilization, cancer therapies, and orthopedic procedures. The cost of medical tourism packages varies greatly. Prices depend on the procedures clients select, where they travel, how long they intend to stay, and whether they choose postoperative accommodations in budget hotels or luxury resorts.

At least 15 medical tourism companies operate in Canada. One such company is located in Alberta, 1 is located in Manitoba, 7 are located in British Columbia, 3 in Ontario, and 3 in Quebec. This list does not include more traditional travel agencies advertising medical tourism packages: a Vancouver-based travel agency arranges trips to Bumrungrad International Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand; a Quebec travel agency markets travel to hospitals and clinics in India.

Stop trying to pretend there isn't a SERIOUS problem--there IS. And don't (I will ask, yet AGAIN) shoot the messenger for pointing it out.

[Canuckistanian]

44. WOW.

I have nothing to say to that. You've obviously made your mind up that our health care system is a total and complete failure.

See you around.

[MADem]

45. Wow, indeed. I refuted your assertions, and of course you have no comment.

I'm not the one "making up my mind" or saying these things--it's liberals in the Canadian government saying these things. It's nurses. It's doctors. It's patients who are complaining, that's why this issue gets play.

That's why I not only provided quotes, I provided cites, so you could actually read the whole articles and obtain from them the full context.

Yet, again, you're carping about the citations (this time attributing them to me instead of to the Canadian government, liberal party officials and health care organizations) instead of facing the issues head-on.

I most certainly am unsurprised, though. Easier to paint me as the "enemy" for simply pointing out the obvious, that anyone with eyes can see. Never mind that I hope the system is able to be repaired-- it's much easier to ascribe mendacious motives to me rather than challenge your own overwhelming blind biases on this issue.

Keep whistling past the graveyard, now! And do shoot those pesky messengers anytime your paradigms are confronted!

:hi:

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

58. Don't go breaking my heart, now. nt

[Gormy Cuss]

46. Here's some perspective on access to care.

from Statistics Canada, the official government source, reporting on 2003, which was one-two years before the FY 2004-2005 implementation of the ten-year improvement plan :

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-575-x/2003001/4151078-eng.htm

Access to health care services in Canada, 2003
Analytical report

Highlights:

* The HSAS provides timely data regarding patients’ experiences accessing health care services including waiting times for specialized services. Most importantly, the information, in most cases, is provided at the provincial level, thus allowing for a comprehensive assessment of access to care across Canada.

* Overall, most individuals reported waiting 3 months or less for specialized services: close to 90% for specialist visit and diagnostic tests and slightly over 80% for non-emergency surgery.

* The median waiting times for specialized services was 4.0 weeks for specialist visits, 4.3 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3.0 weeks for diagnostic tests.

Those averages don't sound that bad in comparison to what we have here and that data is before the recent efforts to reduce waiting times.

[MADem]

54. I'm afraid your cite is outdated. The picture has worsened since then.

Here's the 2005 report.

Once the Conservatives got in power, they downplayed the whole wait time issue (there's a cite to that effect, citicizing the Conservatives for this, upthread). That's why medical tourism is booming--it's a growth industry.

My relative was facing a wait of almost a year in a wheelchair for a hip. That was just unacceptable. When you read the statistics cited in this link, do the reverse calculations, as well. The sunny language disguises the statistics, in that almost half wait MORE than one month for a diagnostic test, sixty percent have to wait MORE than one month for cancer and heart surgery, and eighty percent have to wait more than a month for a joint replacement or cateract surgery.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-575-x/82-575-x2006002-eng.htm

The proportion of patients who waited less than 1 month to receive care ranged from 40% for those accessing non-emergency surgery to 56% among those who received a diagnostic test. (Chart 1; Table 7) The proportion waiting between 1 and 3 months ranged from 33% for diagnostic tests to 41% for specialists visits and non-emergency surgery. The proportion waiting longer than 3 months ranged from 10% for diagnostic tests to 19% for non-emergency surgery. The distribution of waiting times was similar between 2003 and 2005.

Approximately 40% of individuals receiving cardiac and cancer related surgery received care within one month (42%). (Table 8). Approximately one in five (19%) of those receiving joint replacements or cataract or other eye surgery received care within one month.

While most reported waiting times as acceptable – some deemed their waits unacceptably long and some experienced adverse effects
Waiting for care is not inherently problematic but may be considered so when patients experience adverse effects (K.D. Kelly et al. 2001), (H.C. Brownlow et al. 2001), (I.N. Ackerman et al. 2005), (H. Hadjistavropoulos et al. 2001) and/or feel they have simply waited too long for care. The proportion of patients who felt that their waiting time was unacceptable was highest among those who waited for specialist visits (29%) and diagnostic tests (21%) and lowest among those who waited for non-emergency surgery (16%) (Chart 2 ; Table 9) even though individuals are more likely to wait longer (i.e. > 3 months) for non-emergency surgical care compared with other specialized services (Table 7). This points to potential differences regarding thresholds for unacceptable waits across different specialized services – i.e. Canadians appear to be more willing to wait longer for surgery than for a visit to the specialist.

They did another survey in 2008 but according to a blogger http://blogs.library.ualberta.ca/digrs/?p=2236 the number crunching summary won't be released until next fall (I wonder if the numbers are so bad they're trying to manage the news, or what?). Here are the questions they ask (PDF): http://www.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/instrument/5138_Q1_V2-eng.pdf

I do think the Conservatives are trying to starve the system and maybe even "make the geezers wait" figuring that people will say to hell with it and go abroad for care, as many are now doing. It's a worrisome situation for the citizens needing care, certainly.

[Gormy Cuss]

64. The 2005 survey states that national median wait time did not change from the previous period.

From your link:

Median waiting times remain unchanged at the national level – some differences were noted at the provincial level

In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. (Table 4, Table 5, Table 6)

Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 – but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.

Median waiting times for non-emergency surgery were reduced by half in Quebec from almost 9 weeks in 2003 to 4 weeks in 2005. For diagnostic tests, median waiting times in Newfoundland and Labrador rose significantly from 2 weeks in 2003 to 4 weeks in 2005 and in British Columbia median waits rose from 2 weeks to 3 weeks.

Most patients received specialized services within 3 months

The proportion of patients who waited less than 1 month to receive care ranged from 40% for those accessing non-emergency surgery to 56% among those who received a diagnostic test. (Chart 1; Table 7) The proportion waiting between 1 and 3 months ranged from 33% for diagnostic tests to 41% for specialists visits and non-emergency surgery. The proportion waiting longer than 3 months ranged from 10% for diagnostic tests to 19% for non-emergency surgery. The distribution of waiting times was similar between 2003 and 2005.

Approximately 40% of individuals receiving cardiac and cancer related surgery received care within one month (42%). (Table 8). Approximately one in five (19%) of those receiving joint replacements or cataract or other eye surgery received care within one month.
While most reported waiting times as acceptable – some deemed their waits unacceptably long and some experienced adverse effects

Waiting for care is not inherently problematic but may be considered so when patients experience adverse effects ... and/or feel they have simply waited too long for care. The proportion of patients who felt that their waiting time was unacceptable was highest among those who waited for specialist visits (29%) and diagnostic tests (21%) and lowest among those who waited for non-emergency surgery (16%) (Chart 2 ; Table 9) even though individuals are more likely to wait longer (i.e. > 3 months) for non-emergency surgical care compared with other specialized services (Table 7). This points to potential differences regarding thresholds for unacceptable waits across different specialized services – i.e. Canadians appear to be more willing to wait longer for surgery than for a visit to the specialist. (snip)

There always anecdotes that are outliers on waiting time and it seems mostly related to the provincial differences in the health care delivery system and that's one of the issues addressed in the ten-year plan.

Edited to fix tag and to state that I'm going back to look at the distributions on those waiting times before commenting further.

Edit #2: Table 7, op. cit, lists a bit more on the distribution of wait times for three categories
(2005 data, 2003 available in full table at link)

Median waiting period:

To see specialist-- less than 1 month: 46% 1-3 months: 41.1%, greater than 3 months: 12.9%
For non-emergency surgery -- < 1 month: 40.3%, 1-3 months 40.7%, > 3 months: 19.1%
Diagnostic procedures-- < 1 month: 56.4%, 1-3 months: 33.3%, > 3 months: 10.2 %

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-575-x/2006002/t/4064432-eng.htm

[MADem]

76. What I find odd is that they've delayed release of the latest data.

That doesn't seem like a terribly good sign.

[area51]

73. I'm sorry that your relative faced a wait of almost a year for hip surgery.

I think that most (and probaably all) people on DU know that no single-payer plan is absolutely perfect. But I would take a wait where I would get treatment, vs. an American wait and not get treatment, any day of the year. Our current system is barbaric.

[MADem]

77. I never suggested, anywhere in this thread, that I thought the US system was any good, never mind

better. It's horrible. It doesn't exist. People have to rely on their jobs, or themselves. Can't get worse than that, can one?

I am not comparing Canada's system with the US one at all, because there's no comparison. I'm simply talking about the issues that Canada faces, that are serious. Canada needs to address them, and it would behoove the US to see how they do it, and to see how other countries do it, too--because we've got a lot of people who will need coverage when we finally get up off the dime, and it is important that it be done right.

[arikara]

49. We have been fighting that problem here in Canada for years

the governments... both liberal and conservative been making huge cuts to the system for years with a goal to privatize, however we the people won't hear of it. They like to throw a few dollars towards it on an election year to make themselves look good but any appointees to any medical office are always corporatists, including the CMA people and they work behind the scenes to damage the system. It is not anywhere as bad as they portray but there certainly are issues because of their deliberate sabotage.

The alternative, a private system like the US is FAR worse so we keep on fighting.

[MADem]

59. I hope you do keep fighting--not just for my relatives up north, but also

because there's a lot to learn from the Canadian model as well as those of other nations.

When we finally make the leap, it's important that we steal the best ideas from all national health systems. We have a LOT of people, so we need to do it right.

[Cleita]

66. I assume you aren't crazy about national health care because you

guys in Massachusetts did get a raw deal, but that's why you can't allow the insurance companies in the mix. They screw up everything.

[MADem]

74. I have "single payer" at the FEDERAL level. I don't participate in the MA system.

My military pension includes medical coverage so I am exempted.

However, my single payer doesn't pay quite everything, but relatively speaking, my health care is cheap. I am lucky compared to most.

[Cleita]

61. Do you have a way to write it into law as a human right?

This is what we need to do here, is to get an amendment to our Constitution that states health care is a human right and no one is to be denied necessary care. Many governments have that stipulation so it forces the politicians to come up with a workable and universal solution. It would protect your system from these onslaughts.

[Swede]

96. I live in Canada,have a huge extended family and not one bad story about health care.

Not one.

[MADem]

97. Well, I guess all those statistics cited in the Canadian government reports

didn't touch your family. They touched mine, though.

Wait till they all get up to cataract, cardiac and joint replacement age. I hope none of them experience any of those "adverse outcomes" (code for "died before they could get care") that are mentioned in the reports.

[Swede]

98. I'm happy with out system,no complaints from me.

Or any of the clan.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. I know many Americans who travel to do dental and medical

elsewhere, Mexico, Costa Rica, India, Argentina, Thailand, and a growing list of destinations. I think we invented the whole concept, actually, as crossing both of our borders for medicine has been going on for decades by average Americans who can not otherwise afford them. Decades of medical tourism from America.

It sure does not sound to me like the Australians saying that going our way is a good choice to make, it sounds like they are saying "oh my God if we don't get serious we could wind up like America."

[MADem]

47. Yes, absolutely. And it's getting to be a bigger and bigger industry every year.

I have a relative in Canada who travelled for surgery, and one here in the US who went abroad for dental care.

Brazil is a big destination for everything from dental care to plastic surgery to orthopedics, too.

I don't think most "average citizens" in any country--Australia, Canada, UK-- that has some kind of "national health" wants to go back to privitized care--the mean rich who have enough money to afford to pay themselves might, but they're a minority.

I think most people just want their systems run well, and to be responsive to the patients so that they don't die in a wheelchair waiting for a hip, or whatever. I don't blame them.

[slipslidingaway]

10. We should be happy the US does not have an aging population

otherwise Medicare benefits could be in jeopardy.

:sarcasm:

[MADem]

13. I live in a town that keeps building new elementary schools, so I dunno.

People ARE having kids.

I live within a rock's throwing distance of ten kids under ten...not that I would throw rocks at them....but I could!

[slipslidingaway]

14. Glad you are not throwing rocks :) we'll need those kids to help

pay the bills in the future.

[defendandprotect]

18. What have they been doing . . . starving the system and then blaming the system???

Is your economy causing more illness??

What's going on?

At the least, they could tax corporations -- let them contribute to healthy

employees!!!

[Number23]

20. I don't think anyone really understands what's going on

Yes, the Aussie populace is aging but taxes here are so high that shouldn't be a real problem.

Keep in mind, not only is health care free here but so is public university education. Australia has tried to take damn good care of its population.

I don't know if the problem is that there are simply not enough people here or if there are too many people abusing or overburdening the system or what. My mother in law spends damn near every other weekend in the hospital. She's 83 years old and routinely checks herself in when she's feeling a bit "crook'd" as they say here. I have seen people bleeding from the eyes in America who still wouldn't check themselves into the hospital because of the exorbitant heath care costs. It's just a different world here.

[Hannah Bell]

26. the problem is, global capital is restructuring.

[defendandprotect]

87. Capitalism . . . "harvesting slave labor all over the globe" . . !!!

[Yupster]

27. In the book "Collapse"

by Jared Diamond (wrote Guns, Germs and Steel), he has a full chapter on Australia.

His main point is that Australia has about the worst soil in the whole world and it is simply not capable of supporting a large population. It's been a while since I've read it, but it seems insanely high salt levels in the soil was the culprit. Irrigation caused the salt to begin leaching out and even if it was stopped today, it would go on contaminating the land and rivers for hundreds of years.

[Number23]

29. This makes sense

Australia's problems cannot possibly just be the impact of the global economy; Australia is predicted to be one of the few countries not tremendously affected by the global economic downturn and we have even averted the recession everyone was predicting a few months ago.

I am constantly (half)joking to my Aussie friends and relatives that Australia was not meant to house 20 million people and skyscrapers and the other trappings of "civilization." That this is nothing but a big dustbowl and that the Aboriginals had it right when they spread out and made do with the land the way that it was without trying to change too much.

EVERYTHING in Australia is expensive. Three bags of groceries will run you easily $60, and I'm not talking about extravagant stuff. I'm talking three bags of basics. Don't even get me started on the $25 Revlon lipsticks that cost $4 in every CVS in America. And the constant water issues are downright terrifying if you let yourself spend too much time thinking about them. Water restrictions are a daily way of life here.

One great thing about all of this is that Australia seems to be truly committed to green causes, including recycling and significantly reducing the amount of plastics used. Might be a case of "too little, too late" by now but what else can they do??

[Cleita]

67. Jared Diamond is a brilliant guy, and I have read all his books including

that one, but sometimes he's wrong. He looks upon the world like geographers and natural scientists do. He hasn't really factored in the Age of Technology yet. However, I do believe it would be wise for all of us in the world to start limiting our populations not only the Australians. This can only be done if women are given full and equal rights and the means and right to control their fertility. That means religions have to get out of the way so women can get the contraceptives and surgical procedures they need to do this and they need access to them through national health care. Most women will limit their families to what they can afford if allowed to do so.

[defendandprotect]

90. While I agree with you in many ways . . . technology is dependent upon that little plug --

energy/electricity --

Plus, with expected disruptions from Global Warming -- increased hurricaine strength,
more cyclones, more tornadoes, more hurricaines, more earthquakes -- as the Pentagon
advised Bush, Global Warming is more of a threat to our nation than terrorism.

The time to have started to control the population was back in 1963, coincidentally.
about the time they killed JFK.T

This can only be done if women are given full and equal rights and the means and right to control their fertility.

Absolutely -- !!!

That means religions have to get out of the way so women can get the contraceptives and surgical procedures they need to do this and they need access to them through national health care. Most women will limit their families to what they can afford if allowed to do so.

Absolutely--!! And, what we're talking about here is patriarchy's invention, i.e. --

organized patriarchal religion. This involves the organized exploitation of not only women,

but nature, natural resources, animal life -- and even other human beings according to

various myths of inferiority!

Bible was written to cement patriarchy.

"Manifest Destiny" - "Man's Dominion Over Nature" --

[defendandprotect]

88. Wait a minute . . . don't they often use SALT water for irrigation???

As insane as that sounds!!!???

That's what I've read -- not necessarily re Australia - elsewhere.

[boppers]

30. I think you might have boiled the problem down.

"My mother in law spends damn near every other weekend in the hospital. She's 83 years old and routinely checks herself in when she's feeling a bit "crook'd" as they say here. I have seen people bleeding from the eyes in America who still wouldn't check themselves into the hospital because of the exorbitant heath care costs."

Somewhere between those two is reasonable, national, health care. The problem, of course, is that most people are neither reasonable, or rational.

[Number23]

31. You're exactly right

Somewhere between those two is reasonable, national, health care.

Perfectly said.

In post #6 I mentioned the other type of cheat, the welfare cheat. And I honestly believe that they are just as plentiful than the probably well-meaning but system-draining elderly.

[Cleita]

65. Regardless of what this thread implies about the Canadian system, the

Canadians have seemed to found that middle ground with their system and everyone is covered when they need care.

[1]

33. so... australia = california?

who knew?

[Number23]

36. What are you saying here?

[defendandprotect]

86. It's usually corporations here ripping off Medicare . . .

for hundreds of millions of dollars!

So the tax rate on individuals is very high? How about on corporations?

And have you lost jobs to globalism? Also known as "harvesting slave labor

all over the world" . . . ??

Can you imagine that we don't have free university education here in America!?

In fact, they've pretty much corporatized and militarized our colleges/universitites.

[Puzzler]

28. The reason some government run health care systems do bady...

... is that they have been underfunded by the very governments that run them.

[Cleita]

63. Even then they run better crippled that the private sector providers do.

Republicans have been underfunding our Medicare system with privatization schemes and a gift to Big PhRMA through the prescription drug benefit that is rapidly draining the funding of Medicare. Yet, Medicare still limps along. Doctors will take traditional Medicare but not the privatized Medicare plans in my area because Medicare still functions and the other plans are unreliable.

[canetoad]

34. Ya know No. 23, I don't believe a word of it

Not that it is collapsing, though the NSW hospital system has been corruption ridden for years, nor that we are headed for US style private insurance.

I believe there are a lot of faults, a lot of areas that need total fucking purging of entrenched incompetents and bureaucrats, but it's crap to say that it is 'set to disappear'. And even more crap to even consider that a country that has had national healthcare for close on 35 years will roll over.

Rudd is set for another term. Can you even imagine him dismantling medicare? Get real.

I'm an enthusiastic user of our health care system. I don't overuse it, but by hell, I pay for it and will claim what is due to me. I never have a problem with being flicked off, made to wait or in general, not getting the health service I pay for. I do make a point of being informed about processes, laws and what the various Acts of Parliament say. I never lose my cool when confronted with an outcome I don't agree with, instead pointing out review process etc.

I'm not saying that people who are left waiting for surgery are to blame. All systems are intrinsically designed to bamboozle those who do not understand their workings, and not everyone can or will do that.

Moving right on, you saw that John Della Bosca was shooting his mouth off? Corrupt fukker (even though he is Labor). Also note that Murdoch papers played up the story while it was buried in Fairfax publications.

And who the fuck is Debora Piccone when she's at home?

[Number23]

35. Yep and yep. love this post

And even more crap to even consider that a country that has had national healthcare for close on 35 years will roll over.

That's why I said in the OP that I hope this is just hand-wringing. It's kind of odd that this is just coming out of nowhere. This whole "Medicare is collapsing!" stuff is brand new to me and everyone I've spoken to about this article. I said to my husband, "did you know that Medicare is collapsing?" and he said "it is??"

Can you even imagine him dismantling medicare?

Exactly. Never in a million years would Rudd allow it. And even if he was crazy enough to try it, there's no way in hell his party or the opposition would allow Medicare to die anytime soon.

I never have a problem with being flicked off, made to wait or in general, not getting the health service I pay for.

There have been a couple of times we've had to wait at public hospitals. My daughter was on a 9 month waiting list to see an eye doctor here in SA. But we just called a public doctor and got her an appointment a few weeks later.

Also note that Murdoch papers played up the story while it was buried in Fairfax publications.

I worried as much although it does seem to have made the usual rounds and even made it to television. And I'm not all that familiar with Della Bosca but what I've heard of the man AIN'T pretty.

[canetoad]

38. Mate, someone is trying to stir up strife here

and it hasn't worked. I don't watch TV, but just did a keyword search 'medicare' of the ABC website. The story is not even mentioned.

Here, go look for yourself:
http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?query=medicare&collection=abcnews&form=news&num_ranks=20

Someone is playing a stupid little game of party politics. If the story had legs don't you think Laurie Oakes or Michelle Grattan wouldn't be all over it?

I wouldn't be giving this much headspace. Can't yet work out what the political capital is in making such a statement but I can say in true Aussie manner we have let it sink to the bottom of the shitheap, where hopefully it will remain.

[kenny blankenship]

53. Rupert Murdoch is someone from Australia.

This looks like his work.

[Number23]

80. Well, I hope you're right

If Kerry O'Brien does a report on this, then we know we're all screwed. :)

[Mugsy]

39. Thank Bush's double: PM John Howard.

You can thank Bush's Australian ideological brother, former Prime Minister John Howard, for this.

[Cleita]

50. Since Ruppert Murdoch owns the parent corporation of your news source, New Corporation,

I don't believe a word of it. The truth is since you got a conservative government that did attempt to shoot holes in your system so that the insurance industry can come in and save the day. Our conservatives, in the last eight years, have done the same to our Medicare. Your link is pure propaganda and scare tactics. Since you come from "an island in the Pacific", I'm assuming that you are Australian and you believe the propaganda. Don't. If you go to a private system, watch your costs go up and your health care become a luxury. What you say about the Canadian system is untrue as well. Just ask any Canadian DUer and you will get the truth. The baby bonus no doubt was a plan to give every child a stipend in life for their future. Hillary Clinton had proposed something similar during the campaign. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to whether the parents get the money or if the money is put in trust for the child's future.

[Hannah Bell]

69. check a couple of posts up. the op & his aussie compatriot agree with you.

[Number23]

82. You know what, you need to get a grip. If anyone is trying to promote "propaganda" here

it is YOU.

I live in Australia. Don't tell me about the Australian health care system or what you consider to be "propaganda" in a country you probably couldn't find on a map. Your comments about "Rupert Murdoch owning all of the media here" are so wrong it's ridiculous. And I did not say a single word about the Canadian system because, unlike you, I don't speak knowledgeably about things with which I have no experience.

I saw an article and I posted it. You and a few others in this thread seem to be the ones pushing some type of agenda, not me.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

101. Weren't you the one saying that Turley, the constitutional law professor, was black??

Why don't you just stay out of threads that pertain to things which you don't understand, which apparently, are threads about ANYTHING?

[canetoad]

112. The baby bonus

along with Howard's trying to weave 'working families' into every fucking sentence he uttered, was a cynical bribe to buy votes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Funny, the ACTUAL AUSTRALIANS on this thread dispute those claims

I'm referring to Number 23 and Canetoad.

[Number23]

83. Number23 is an American

Who has lived in South America, the Middle East and is currently living in Australia.

And canetoad and I don't appear to be disputing the claims as so much trying to figure out where the hell they came from 'cause this is damn sure news to us and every other Aussie.

[Hannah Bell]

85. if it's news to you, that would indicate you hadn't noticed it in the news or your own lives.

or those of your friends.

[depakid]

105. You should stop reading and posting Murdoch papers...

:eyes:

[Number23]

107. Try to keep up, depakid. I know that's been difficult for you in the past.

If the source matters this much to you, here you go - http://livenews.com.au/news/australias-universal-health-care-could-end-within-five-years/2009/6/3/208689

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/821125/medicare-may-be-doomed-in-five-years

Two non-Murdoch sources that say the same thing.

Canetoad and I have covered this issue. If you don't have anything else to add, then just don't bother.

[depakid]

109. I read the coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald today- just like I do everyday

New South Wales is having a bit of a problem running its health system- and this is not news, and among other matters- may end up cost Nathan Rees his job- though most were not his doing (you can blame Morris Iemma and his cronys in Labor right for that).

Here's toasy's article: http://www.smh.com.au/national/wait-for-it-surgery-list-now-even-longer-20090606-bz2y.html

No. Medicare is not going collapse- nor has the Rudd government been doing anything at all to promote the private system. Quite the opposite. Though one supposes it's possible that the commonwealth could come in and deal with NSW's problems- and it ain't going to go privatizing.

[bliss_eternal]

117. since you are so "well-versed"...

...on the intricacies of the health care system in Australia, perhaps it would be beneficial for you to write a letter to the editor of the paper, letting them know you take issue w/the article cited by the op. that seems an appropriate use of time--given your "strong feelings" on this particle piece. afterall, the op didn't write this article. they merely provided it for the sake of discussion.

it seems counterproductive (and a tad passive aggressive) to take your issues regarding this article, out on the member that posted a link to it. the original poster merely created a discussion for the community in an attempt to share issues that affect their part of the world. this is something many members here do regularly. somehow, i sincerely doubt that you go after every single individual on this board that happens to share an article from a source you dislike.

[bliss_eternal]

108. i don't understand.

people on du link hearsay from rw websites all the time. they cut and paste bigoted garbage and name-calling from places i refuse to name. hardly anyone complains about it or where it's from.

i was shouted down, told to put people on ignore, etc. because i complained that people linked that filth here.

now someone is actually sharing a story, actual NEWS...and people complain, based on the source? when no one complains about the source of rw racial epithets?

:crazy:

[depakid]

110. The Murdoch papers are well known for hyperbole down under

though they're quite not as bad as what we see all too routinely in the states.

[bliss_eternal]

111. ok. i understand.

it seems odd to see complaints about that, considering how frequently people post crap here from Fox news, rush, coulter, oreilly, etc.

hyperbole doesn't begin to describe some of what comes out of their mouths...yet i see very few complaints about people regurgitating their comments, reports, etc. here.

[and-justice-for-all]

113. 'headed towards US system'? Thats not a solution...LOL..nt