There wasn't much coverage of what was actually a very important announcement last week that Labor will review the Medicare schedule to include midwives in the provision of maternity care and help expand midwife-led care.
Giving midwives Medicare provider numbers (and etc) is a hugely important step. It means midwives can be primary care givers for pregnant women. And it should mean that home birth will be covered by Medicare, which is an absolutely enormous (and long over-due) step towards birth care reform in this country. Plus that means that (should a Rudd Labor Government be elected) I will no longer need my terribly expensive health insurance with the one company that covers home birth (Australian Unity) just in case I get pregnant (knocking on wood), so that I don't have to pay for a home birth. I mean, since that's the one thing I'd be likely to need "hospital" cover for, it seems a bit redundant to be paying for it unless it covers the birth options I want.
If it wasn't for those stupid age-related increasing costs thingies, I wouldn't have bothered getting hospital coverage at all. I believe - very strongly - in publically-funded health care, and I'm pretty healthy. The money I've shelled out to the health insurance company over the last five years would have more than covered a home birth, had I chosen to self-insure. The whole thing pisses me off - as does the rebate for private health insurance (despite the fact that I'm getting it).
Anyway, Medicare coverage for midwives is a fantastic step in the right direction - towards more (and better) choices for women. Birth is not a disease. And doctors have been steadily ripping off the system since the Medicare safety net was introduced - increasing their fees by a whopping 269% since its introduction in 2004.
So more women using midwives should be a win for the taxpayer as well.
I am left wondering what they're going to do about the midwives' lack of insurance coverage...
Monday, October 01, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Not so much about the main thrust of your post... but:
"If it wasn't for those stupid age-related increasing costs thingies, I wouldn't have bothered getting hospital coverage at all"
Sure, if you want to pay extra tax. Don't forget that the medicare surcharge kicks in at $50K (which should have been indexed from the start).
And I'm sure you wrote this line to provoke me:
"I believe - very strongly - in publically-funded health care...."
Why should you, as someone who earns a pretty good wage get free hospitalisation care of the state? Why shouldn't you pay for your own heathcare?
State funded heathcare should be a safety net for those who are less well off. It flabbergasts me that so much of the tax we pay goes to subsidising health care for those who can, and should, afford it.
Why should people who earn $100+K (pulling a number out of the air) get free hospital services? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Ha! Your ego is getting inflated - I don't write anything specifically to provoke you.
As for why I wouldn't have health insurance and your question as to why I shouldn't pay for my health care - if I was paying the Medicare levy (which I had not forgotten about), I *would* be paying for my health care.
I have no objection to paying for my health care - through my taxes. I just don't see why some people should be entitled to a better standard of care because they earn more - or in the case of children, because their PARENTS happen to earn more.
Everyone deserves the same standard of care.
Ah, but you haven't answered the question - in fact, you haven't even tried.
And anyway, your answer is completely wrong - those who earn the most (think of Packer Sr) pay the least (because of our tax system) and yet still have equal access to the public health system.
So I'll ask the question again - why shouldn't those who can pay for their own health cover? Why shouldn't the public system locked out from those who earn big dollars?
Packer Snr is not an Australian - and has not been for quite some time - so is not entitled to Medicare benefits at all.
And if it is the case that big earners pay less tax, then that actually means the tax system needs reform, not the Medicare system.
Again, we all deserve the same standard of medical treatment - it's a fundamental right, not something that you should have access (or not) to based on whether you can pay. Any system where some people pay and some people don't is clearly going to end up being a two-tiered system.
Anyway, this post was meant to be on women's birth options and the decision to fund midwives through Medicare (if Labor gets elected - Tony Abbott has categorically ruled out doing so), so unless you have a comment on that, I think you're subverting the discussion from where it should be.
O.k.
Please tell me why the tax payers of this country should pay, via their taxes, for midwifery services for couples or indivduals who earn multiple times the average household income?
Please explain that to me.
And do you really think that we don't have a multiple-tiered health system now? Are you really going to suggest that the rich can't get different (and often better) health care than the average punter? Are you going to suggest that that hasn't been the case for many, many years?
If so, then that would have to be the single most naive statement you've made.
I'll just add to that first paragraph:
Please tell me why the tax payers of this country should pay, via their taxes, for any health services (including midwifery services) for couples or indivduals who earn multiple times the average household income? Why
Of course we have a multi-tiered health system now - did you not get that I was suggesting one way in which we can move away from that?
That's why we should all be paying, through our taxes, for the same health care. Because a multi-tiered health system is not a good thing.
And since funding midwifery services through Medicare would save an estimated $75 million a year (based on the NZ savings through introducing case-load midwifery, extrapolated for our greater numbers of births), we'd all be paying less. So that much at least is a no-brainer.
Bek, that was a silly comment.
Are you really suggesting that we could ever get into a situation where there wouldn't be a multi-tiered system? In this day and age, there will always be multiple tiers. That's just the way the world works.
What you've said here is just some sort of dream-world ramblings.
And you haven't even answered my question! Why should the tax payer pay for medical services (midwifery or otherwise) for those who earn significantly more than the average? Why should someone who earns multiple million dollars a year get taxpayer funded health care?
That makes no sense. No sense whatsoever. Can you give me a reason? Of course you can't. Your statistic isn't applicable if we look at this issue as a whole.
If you simply admit that you're just following your usual one-eyed ideological bent which is thoroughly and abosolutely divorced from reality, then I will understand. If however, you are really suggesting this as good public policy then I'll have to shake my head.
You're not seriously suggesting that this is good policy are you?
Taxpayers pay taxes. Those taxes are used to pay for medical care. Of course people should be entitled to taxpayer-funded medical care, they pay for it.
And play nice - any more comments about me following a "one eyed ideological bent" when what I am proposing is in fact *not* Labor Party policy and is simply my own idea about how the world *should* work, not about how it does, will be deleted!
You have been warned - you are welcome to disagree with me on logical grounds. You are not welcome to argue that my argument is invalid because it is ideological, divorced from reality or anything else that I deem annoying. My blog - my commenting policy!
For clarity, I wasn't suggesting your post was Labor party policy. Whether it belongs to you or anyone else, it's policy that belongs in another time and place -about 50 years ago in a country with a lot of red on their flag I would imagine.
The modern world doesn't work this way. It's all well and good to say that you think it *should* work that way, but a bit of reality is required.
Re ideology, you're not seriously denying that your particular ideological bents aren't expressed in these comments and posts are you?
If you're suggesting I'm a socialist, you're way off the mark. My ideology is a looooong way from socialism - the equivalent would be me calling you a fascist because your ideology is to the right.
And of course I'm not arguing that I express my opinions in my posts - what I was warning you about was attempting to refute my arguments by calling them ideological, rather than by coming up with a logical counter-argument about *why* a policy won't work.
Again, I'm interested to hear why you think independent midwives being funded through Medicare is a bad idea, and why the policy won't work. I'm not remotely interested in hearing about why you think I'm arguing from an ideological view point, or whether you think I need a dose of reality, and unless you stick to the topic at hand, I will start judiciously using the delete button.
Logical arguments hey? O.k.
Taxpayers pay taxes. Those taxes are used to pay for medical care. Of course people should be entitled to taxpayer-funded medical care, they pay for it.
O.k., so following that logic I should also get a health care card, rent assistance and co-contributions on my super. In fact, we should scrap all means testing because logically it doesn't fit within your statement above.
I hope you don't agree that these things shouldn't be means tested. I certainly don't.
We means test things for a reason - to ensure that those who can afford things don't get them subsidised by taxpayers. It's perfectly logical that where there are private options available that those services are means tested too.
Can you suggest why we shouldn't means test health and education?
Health and education are fundamental rights. Rent assistance and etc are not.
There's a huge difference.
No one is suggesting that people shouldn't have access to health care and education - I'm questioning whether these services should be means tested, especially given that there are private options available.
Could you please suggest why health care and education shouldn't be subject to means testing?
I have already told you why - they are fundamental rights, everyone should therefore get the same standard of care. Letting wealthier individuals opt out of the public system and pay for private care instead necessarily creates a two-tiered system.
The quality of the health care you - and your children - get should not be contingent on your income. The only way for this to be the case is for everyone to use the public system.
The only way to ensure that all children get equal access to educational opportunities is to ensure they are all accessing the same system.
This is clearly why health and education should not be means-tested.
There is nothing further for me to say here.
I'm with Bek- That's what taxes are for. Everyone's taxes should pay for their healthcare.
Besides, if everyone was forced to use the public system- politicians, rich-as-kerry-packer types, everyone- you can bet your arse we'd have a world-class healthcare system in no time. There's nothing like forcing the people in charge to experience what the povvo types have to undergo to ensure that things are made better quick smart.
Thankfully those American-style arguments for a privatised healthcare system don't wash with Australian voters, or we'd wind up with a system as shithouse as the one in the US.
god. people like bretty can't see beyond their selfish arguments to see that easily accessible healthcare means a healthier, more economically productive populace.
further bretty's argument is simply absurd. i don't own a car, why should i have to pay to maintain roads? how childish. never mind the fact that it has been proven, over and over, that privatised healthcare is, more expensive, less efficient and costs taxpayers more than pulic healthcare.
in australia the govt. spends money that should be spent on public health propping up a private healthcare system. it does this with co-contributions, lashing taxpayers to drive them to private health with yet more taxes and so on. there is absolutely no economic argument for private healthcare. if there was then there would be a private healthcare system that didn't dangle from the govt. like a giant lamprey.
healthcare doesn't hold well to market paradigms largely because the value of the service is essentially a meaningless construct. how much will you pay for life saving treatment? how much will you pay to save a loved one? whatever it takes. this means the price point for private medical services (even after the massive infrastructure and staff costs) is several orders of magnitude past viable. either that or the difference, in services or money, will come out of your hide. that's why the govt. has to step in and help you pay for the same thing twice. private health is a massive rort. the only reason it persists is because enough voters are proudly ignorant and confuse their streak of selfishness with economic prudence.
that's not to say private can't provide some services, like plastic surgery, or your own private nurse but real healthcare cannot be adequately provided privately.
Post a Comment