Medicare

[petersj]

Who remembers the slurs the Labor party recieved when they accused the Coalition of undermining even privatising medicare?

 

Well its started. Labor was spot on.

Today I and thousands of diabetics were yold that our test strips were to be  increased in cost. From 5 dollars to, wait for it...sixty dollars. 

 

 

Its started!

Turnbull lied.

It is the tart of increased costs for preventaive medicines which in reality could be saving money.

[Aloysius]

Privatising is privatising.

 

What has been privatised?

 

If the answer is nothing then what lie has been told?.

 

We really must make some attempt to understand what we are talking about here.

[POWERZONE]

It's a shot in the foot for the Govt. When it comes into effect you will only qualify for the subsity if you get a prescription from your doctor.

 

In other words, you have to put further strain on Medicare to prove you are becoming insulin dependent :ras:

[Aloysius]

How exactly do you establish insulin dependence without going to the Doctor?

 

Why worry about having to get a script if you thereby qualify for a subsidy?

 

Is this all just a storm in a teacup and nothing at all to do with privatising Medicare?

[POWERZONE]

If more people are having to go to the doctor to comply with any arrangement wouldn't that make medicare more expensive to run?

 

I'd apply the same question to sickies at work - to prove to your employer you're sick you have to get a certificate = more medicare money burnt.

 

I think the Govt should be aiming to simplify the running costs by removing some of the regulation as stated above.

 

I'm not saying the Govt wants to privatise medicare now, but it will eventually happen as an unintended consequence if costs get blown out by poorly executed policies of the past.

[Aloysius]

That's drawing a long bow PZ!!

We are only talking about privatising Medicare because Mr Shorten raised it as a scare campaign issue during the election.

 

 

As a person who had a large number of people working for him I am aware that some folks are less than honest about pulling a sickie.

 

Requesting a Dr's line was usually done after a clear pattern of rorting was apparent.

 

It wasn't very effective - Dr's just take the word of the "patient" you might just as well do that yourself.!!

[POWERZONE]

At my workplace a Doc's cert is required as stated in the EBA.

 

However, absenteeism is a major issue because unused sickies are forfeited when people leave their job hence the "rorting"

 

Easily fixed if unused sickies are payed out every year. No real need for a Doc's cert because each sickie taken depletes the pay out.

 

From previous experience I can say it reduces absenteeism. More to the point, it reduces the burden on the health system.

[petersj]

What if you are like me and a growing number are insulin resistant?.

[Aloysius]

At my workplace a Doc's cert is required as stated in the EBA.

 

However, absenteeism is a major issue because unused sickies are forfeited when people leave their job hence the "rorting"

 

Easily fixed if unused sickies are payed out every year. No real need for a Doc's cert because each sickie taken depletes the pay out.

 

From previous experience I can say it reduces absenteeism. More to the point, it reduces the burden on the health system.

Well I understand the idea, but it's a bit shortsighted really.

I had a heart attack requiring major surgery, off work for 3 months, no loss of pay due to accumulated sick leave.

[POWERZONE]

That doesn't really change anything. I have around 6 months of accumulated sick leave as well.

 

The vast majority of people I work with have no sickies for the reasons previously stated.

So this idea doesn't change their position if they suffer a long term illness.

 

I don't think it's shortsighted.

 

It's a method of improving productivity from less absenteeism, it's a cash bonus for the employee and it's a reduced burden on Medicare.

[Aloysius]

It's a dishonest way of ripping off the system - an unearned cah bonus, as you put it, that was put there to help in times of health issues.

[POWERZONE]

And it's being abused. As you said yourself... Dr's just take the word of the "patient"  So it's dishonest already.

 

I didn't say it's an "unearned" cash bonus. There's no such thing. You earn it by working

[Aloysius]

Much as I would like to agree wth you, I can't!! :Talking:

 

 

"I didn't say it's an "unearned" cash bonus. There's no such thing. You earn it by working"

 

 

In this instance that's totally incorrect, you earn this bonus by throwing a sickie, by NOT working. :Cowboy:  :Money Eyes:  :dance: 

 

Yep, I agree, it's system abuse and dishonest. :angry2:

[POWERZONE]

Can't agree with that analogy. The only way to accumulate sick leave is by working. It's not "unearned".

[Aloysius]

Aaaah mon ami I understand that, but you need to understand that the "cash bonus for the employee" which you speak of only arrives with the taking of the sickie - it's merely a notional benefit until then.

 

A sickie is not "earning" ports: it's taking.

[POWERZONE]

M-a-a-t-e

 

It's only a cash bonus if it's paid as cash every year for un taken sickies. It's not dishonest.

 

It's dishonest if doc's issue a fake certificate. It's dishonest if tax payers have to pay for it.

 

It's dishonest if the employer keeps the sickie money when people leave.

 

But forget all that... what I'm talking about is taking pressure off the health care system by replacing the compulsory doc's visit with a cash payment of un taken sickies every year.

 

I know it works because I had that arrangement in place at a previous job I worked at years ago.

 

The attendance record at that work site was the best I'd ever seen.

 

But again, the real dividend for the tax payer is the medicare system wasn't used and abused like it is now.

[petersj]

Guys I dont reall want to start an argument.  I am not sure if it is privatisation.

For me its tricky as there is no treatment.

I simpy have to be very very careful in what I eat. I have to keep monioring

[POWERZONE]

Review reveals Medicare wastage gripes


Seeing a doctor just to get the all clear on a routine blood test is one of the gripes uncovered by a review to weed out wastage in the Medicare system.


The interim report of a review into the Medicare Benefits Schedule ordered by Health Minister Sussan Ley has identified unnecessary surgeries and diagnostic imaging and pathology tests as areas of concern for patients and health professionals.


They've also pointed to low-value administrative GP consultations for things such as repeat prescriptions, test results or sick leave certificates.


Ms Ley insists the review, ordered last year, isn't about saving health money.


"If the government is paying, effectively, too much for small appointments that aren't necessarily adding to a person's overall health... that money does need to be reinvested," she told ABC radio on Tuesday.


"Part of my job as health minister is to make sure that where we see inefficiency we reinvest it for the benefit of patients."

 

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking...f39e6b46f7

 

It'll be interesting to see where they go with this. I would place going to the Doc for a sickie note as a "low-value administrative GP consultation".

 

But... it's required by employers.

[Aloysius]

Yep I agree with you and Ms Ley.

 

I particularly agree wrt the repeat prescriptions.

I was given a script 19 years ago following major heart surgery - I have therefore had to waste the time of a medical professional 38 times to get repeats.