In 2004, I’d just finished a novel and by way of celebration had taken my family for an extended visit to Australia, where I was born and raised.
I didn’t expect that trip to save my life. But I’m convinced it did, because of Australia’s “socialized” medicine…
Two weeks later, I was in a Sydney hospital, discussing treatment options for my invasive stage II cancer. According to testimony by Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) at last Thursday’s health-care summit, I should have been heading for the airport at that point. Like his unnamed Canadian state premier with the heart condition, I should have been hightailing it to the U.S., to avail myself of “the best health care in the world.”
No thanks, Senator. I elected to stay in Australia. We had ample U.S. insurance; cost wasn’t an issue. I simply wanted to remain in a humane, rational system where doctors treat a person as a patient, not a potential plaintiff, and where the procedures ordered for me were the ones shown by hard science to produce the best outcome for the most people.
Australia adopted universal health care in 1984. Since then, life expectancy for women has increased to 83.5 years from 78.7 (for males to 79.1 from 72.6), while spending on health care has risen less than 1 percent, to 4.4 percent of government outlays (in 2008-09). The scheme is funded by a levy of 1.5 percent on taxable income, and all political parties, even the most conservative, support it.
RTFA. Try it! It won’t harm you.
Geraldine Brooks suggests, you might pass this along to a Republican or some other reactionary.
Thanks, honeyman
Consider this: Most insurance is for unlikely, but catastrophic what if’s. House burns down, car gets wrecked, robbery, untimely death. Insurance companies know that statistically these things are unlikely for a large population, but catastrophic for individuals. That’s why it works in those situations.
Every one gets sick eventually. Some people are perpetually sick. This is not a good situation for the insurance model.
#58 jollycynic
Essentially her argument is that she would rather use a health care system that is based around social benefit rather than profit. She goes on to explain how, in her opinion, the Australian social benefit based system is better then the American profit based system.
The main contention here is not the health care standard itself but the ideology that drives it. Her conclusion, and mine also, is that the ideology that drives American health care is inherently unhealthy.
Ok, here’s something that really blows my mind. Why do people attribute the quality of healthcare to the government? Policies and regulations are not what save lives. Technology and medical expertise are what save lives. Yes, big insurance companies hinder doctors and hospitals from making life-saving decisions due to profit seeking motives. But those insurance companies were able to grow by using the government to pass regulations that drove their competition out of business. If those insurance companies had limitless competition, they would have to serve the customer better, or lose said customers. It’s so simple, a caveman can understand it…
#48 jccalhoun – You’re absolutely right! All of these things should be paid for voluntarily, not via taxes at the point of a gun. In a free market, you’d have roads and police because there would be a demand for them. Everybody has to travel from their own property and over other people’s property. So it is simply rubbish that there wouldn’t be roads without government enforcement. And instead of police, you’d have the choice to either protect yourself with a firearm, or hire a security company to provide protection services. This security company would do a much better job at protecting you because if it didn’t, you’d stop funding them. Unlike the police, which gets funded by you even if they violate your rights directly. And the military…well, we’d save a hell of a lot of money if we didn’t have over 100 military bases in over 80 countries around the world.
#56 Phydeau – They are a huge cost. They give insurance companies the excuse to increase malpractice insurance for doctors, who in turn have to charge more for their services. Thanks for helping me clear up that part of my argument! If insurance wasn’t so heavily regulated, we’d have a lot more insurance companies, and the competition would drive down the cost of malpractice insurance.
#57 tcc3 – Tres drole. As cold as it may seem, though, healthcare is not a “god given right”. It is a service that a doctor/hospital/clinic/nurse/etc provides to a patient. And that health care provider deserves to be compensated for his work, time, effort. Not only that, that health care provider has the right to provide that service to whom they want, when they want. The government takeover of healthcare is just enslaving those providers. Instead, government should get out of healthcare completely, and allow providers to compete for patients. Unless you’re mentally deficient, you would go to the hospital/doctor/etc. that provided the best care for the least cost. You’d also have clinics which would cater to those who couldn’t afford expensive healthcare, not to mention charity (there are hospitals now with charity wings). Where there’s a demand, someone will supply, as long as government isn’t around to prevent that.
Honeyman==that was well said. I’ll rephrase it to emphasize nearly the same thing: HEALTHCARE by its inherent nature is not a proper subject for regulation by the free market. No arms length transactions are possible. There is no equal dealing at arm’s length with ready alternatives available.
And so forth.
I hate LIEbertarians. Just as dogmatically stupid as the religious types but they do more harm in that they form a strong core for the repuglican fiscal conservatives. If they met in groups and tried to change our textbooks, why they truly would be worthy of scorn.
B, thank you for the backhanded compliment (droll)but you didn’t answer my basic point. What do you do about people who just cant afford to keep living?
I think its great how the anarchists push the every man for himself healthcare system but pussy out on the very foreseeable end result.
C’mon, man up and tell us what you really think. Just kill all the poor people. I mean they’re poor…barely people at all.
tcc3==that IS what he said. He emphasizes only the good parts of his “philosophy” and doesn’t deal at all with the effects.
IOW—-a simpleton.
#- BMore — said “it is a service that a doctor/hospital/clinic/nurse/etc provides to a patient. And that health care provider deserves to be compensated for his work, time, effort. Not only that, that health care provider has the right to provide that service to whom they want, when they want.”
This would also mean eliminating health insurance companies. Once a person signs a deal with an insurance company, that company decides what treatment you will receive, by what doctor and at what hospital.
If people are worried about the Stranger (government) calling the shots about their health care, why aren’t the people also worried about the Stranger (CEO) of the health insurance company?
Governments do make regulation and laws that are meant to protect citizens. These regulations and laws do drive up cost. The question is would buying cheap beef at a supermarket be worth the risk of dying of food poisoning?
I thought the claim that health care is 1.5 % of taxable income in OZ was a lie meant to sucker in the brain dead so I did a little web search:
http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInAustralia.html
It was a stupid lie posted by a *****. The word I would have used seems fair to me but would have most likely gotten this pulled and it may be anyway.
I thought the claim that health care is 1.5 % of taxable income in OZ was a lie meant to sucker in the brain dead
I’m not sure what you are talking about. the original article says it is paid for by “a levy of 1.5 percent on taxable income.” I didn’t see anything specific in the article you linked to that contradicted that.
From Australia’s own website about the 1.5% tax: http://ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/17482.htm&pc=001/002/030/003/001&mnu=&mfp=&st=&cy=1
To decode the link in #70 (jccalhoun), The funding for the public system is indeed from the 1.5% of income levy, which is calculated and paid through the income tax system.
If you are in the armed services or earn less than $20K a year you are exempt from the levy.
If you earn over $140K and do not have private health insurance you pay an additional 1% surcharge (total 2.5%)
This levy probably pays for less than 1/3rd of the total govt cost of healthcare though, the rest coming from general tax revenue.
#48, smittybc,
The problem with quoting from wing nut sources is they show their bias.
Here is the actual study. The graphs start on page 11. The US does not have the best outcome in every category. Cuba and France regularly tops the US.
Check it out.
# 43 BmoreBadBoy – If Australia was so great, they’d have our immigration problem
australia has a notorious immigration problem. people from all over asia and the pacific islands are trying to sneakin. sure you heard about cubans floating to florida but if youd read a paper youd hear abut indonesians floating to australia.
#65 tcc3 – I think what you meant to ask was: What do you do about sick people who just can’t afford health services from a health care provider? My question to you is, who’s responsible for his health? Is the doctor responsible? Should the doctor be forced to work to heal someone for free? No, of course not. Should the owner of the hospital be forced to pay the doctor because that sick person can’t afford to pay the doctor? Um….not as clear cut, but if you spend one second thinking about it, No! So, someone has to pay the doctor, right? Are you saying it’s ok for the government to rob someone (ie the tax payer) to pay for the services the sick person got? Is that person responsible for his health? I understand empathy, don’t get me wrong. But coercion and extortion are not the way to help those who do not have the means. There is charity. And then there is progress. With competition in a free market comes efficiency and innovation in order to gain market share. Just like electronics in a much less regulated market, health care would become cheaper while becoming more advanced. Ask yourself a simple question, why is it electronics get better exponentially over time while getting cheaper, but health care gets more and more expensive while less and less people can get access? The latter is an aberration caused by heavy government regulation. Eventually, just like when TV’s just came out, only rich people could afford one, but now even households in the poorest neighborhoods have 3 minimum, health care would also become cheap enough and efficient enough for even the poorest members of society to gain access to.
Now, in your twisted, narrowly focused mind, you have equated my option as a doctor of whether or not to treat you as a patient to my stabbing you in the heart with a sharp object. They are two very different things. I didn’t make you sick. I’m performing a service by treating you. I’m not advocating killing poor people, I’m saying whether you are poor or rich, someone has to be responsible to pay the doctor for his work. But, Americans are indoctrinated in the government schools to have a feeling of entitlement. That’s the problem. We all feel that we are entitled to things you don’t deserve. You don’t have a right to health care. You exchange something of value that you possess to pay for a service a doctor renders. I don’t think I can explain it any more clearly…
#67 bac – Not necessarily. Remove the myriad and ubiquitous regulations on insurance (if I’m not mistaken, insurance is the most heavily regulated industry) and you will allow many more competitors into the market. With the new found competition, the major insurance companies that made all the strict rules would lose doctors from their plans, who would go to upstart insurance companies who gave more of the control to doctors, required less paperwork and attracted the highest number of insured’s by offering the best insurance policies for the lowest price. With the government, there is no competition, the government is a monopoly and there is no true accountability. Monopolies are never good for the consumer. Competition is always great for the consumer. And to answer your last question: a company that sold beef that killed or made sick its customers would go out of business pretty quickly without the protection of the government.
#73 Malay – lmfao. ok ok. What I meant to say was, if australia’s so great, why don’t you move over there? (thought I’d beat you guys to it…)
All you uninsured people! Listen up.
Just go ahead and die, please.
This message brought to you by the selfish party.
As someone who’s been enjoying socialized medicine for over 20 years I’d like to dispel a few myths, if I may…
Social medicine makes it impossible for private medicine to exist – false, private medicine is doing quite well here – there will always people who will want to spend as much as they can on their health.
Social medicine is inefficient and makes people wait – false, I get to see my GP on a next day basis – or off to a hospital emergency room at anytime. what’s more, doctors order the tests they need as there’s no need to seek authorization from an insurance provider. I had a magnetic resonance scan on my head when they were investigating my migraines, even spent 10 days in hospital for a large battery of tests to find the cause – they even did a sleep study. Try that with your crappy copay.
Death panels, you’ve got to be kidding right?
I’ve had 3 kids – OB/GYN, pediatricians, the works, I’ve had surgery on my deviated septum, they’ve sown cuts and mended bone. I’ve never had a complaint. I’ve seen what the insurance companies are doing to family and friends back home. Go ahead keep thinking it’s impossible, serve your masters even while getting the lash.
I pay taxes, now I know some of you dipsticks consider taxes a dirty word, and government and even dirtier one, but the alternative to trusting your country is trusting a private corporation whose principal interest is to make a profit.
It really sucks reading about little old widows about to loose their homes because they can’t afford the medical treatment they need to stay alive. I sure am glad that doesn’t happen here.
Dear Aussies: Good on yer, mates! Care to trade some politicians? Or maybe some lend/lease?
The question seems to be: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The popular answer seems to be “NO! IT’S MINE, ALL MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE!”
Well then, the only answer is to embrace the Death Panel idea. We must kill the old and the sick so the rest of us aren’t held down, chained by the tyranny of caring.
How old are YOU? How do you FEEL?
Um, forgot to mention a visit to the emergency room for a kidney stone attack (very painful, Valium? Yes, thank you!), or the time they determined me to have sleep apnea and came to my home to install a respirator and show me how to use it (couldn’t get used to it, so it didn’t work, hence the operation on my deviated septum). Finally beat the migraines though.
Many of the things I got treated for would find exceptions in the current american insurance model, pre-existing conditions etc.
Sure we pay a lot of taxes, sure we have corrupt politicians, but to say it just can’t be done, that’s stupid.