Subisidising healthcare for the elderly :(

Ahh Jack, if I've misunderstood you (and I did read your post a couple of times, and again after your post), I apologise. However, you fail in that you assume that everyone can afford to fund a basic health system while paying the same amount. Sorry mate, it's not possible, and that is one of the reasons Medicare has failed to deliver. Another cause is the increasing cost of health care - no, not nurse's wages or doctor's fees, but the cost and type of machinery required, the ever increasing number of tests and complexity of such. I think you'll find that neither you nor I could fund what is now considered basic health care.

Cheers
Richard

You've lost sight of the fact that the medicare levy and the surcharge are taxes and are the same percentages for everyone. If it wasn't called the Medicare Levy/Surcharge and was just part of the normal income tax we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
These are approximate figures I'm using but one thing to keep in mind is that when the Levy was introduced, a person on the 17% tax rate had their tax increased by 9% when the 1.5% was added, a person on the 30% rate had an increase of 5% and a person on 47% had a 3% increase in tax. That's a pretty eqitable way to share the cost.
Anyway, we've got a good system and can anyone think of a country they'd rather be in at the moment?
I've been to a lot of them and I can't think of one I would want to spend more than a couple of weeks in.
Maybe we should put it into perspective and sit in front of our computers, in our nice warm homes, after a steak dinner and click our fingers every three seconds. It's never likely to be one of our kids starving to death on each click.
Life just isn't that bad for us.

I have read through these posts and until now resisted the impulse to add my thoughts
BUT Start of Rave

Health costs are only one part of our tax structure and each generations tax add to the overall
To pick health care and say " why should we ( as younger people who don't use the system as much as the older generation do) have to pay a high medcare levy"
Who paid for your schools and in some cases universities you were edcuated in ,who's taxes subsidised you childhood imunisation programs or the hospitals you were born in who payed the taxes that built the roads you used to go to school.
Should we have said we are finished school cut all funding we don't need them anymore as some of the arguements "I should only pay for what I use Now in my prime of life"
Every time you step outside you are using , as I am , infrastructure paid for by previous generations
Grow up there is no free lunch and you only get out of this world what you put into it

End of Rave

Brilliant point Ashore

Didnt they do the " user pays" system in Russia.

What a great success that is/was. :rolleyes:

Al

hear hear Ashore, very valid points.

Ashore, wasn't able to give you as greenie :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingermick

And Jack, do you think that any person who earns a high income would be in his/her posittion were it not for the society they live in?
Sure, you can be a highly motivated go-getter, but if you live in a third world country the top of the chain would still be pittance.

---

Well, no it wouldn't. In many third world countries top of the tree is a helluva long way from a pittance. There was an article this week in The Australian by an African journo. His main point was that the leaders of many African nations (and it sure as hell doesn't stop at Africa) spend more each year on their Mercedes limos than most of us - the people of a rich nation - will earn in several lifetimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingermick

If you are successful in a society you have an obligation to that society. If you are a failure, you also have an obligation.
If societies didn't work this way they would never hold together.

---

Spot on. The societies that don't hold together are those where the community as a whole - and as individuals - forget their obligations to each other.

Ashore - you hit the nail fair on the head, Have a greenie!

Col

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack E

For some of us the Medicare levy and surcharge equals a whole lot more than the cost of a bandsaw. :( :( :(

Yes I do believe in a fair medical system and fair to me means equality, not only in the cover provided but in the cost of the cover :mad:

Jack

---

Jack I too fork out a ridiculous amount for the levy but seeing what I see everyday as part of my job I believe it is justified.

Despite this levy a significant proportion of our society is not receiving adequate health care. I saw a patient today with severe deforming rheumatoid arthritis significantly impairing his quality of life, who was on no treatment because he couldnt afford it. This patient was in his 50s and could not dress himself, unlock a door or drive a car.

This is unacceptable in Australia and scrapping or reducing the levy will make this situation worse. I say keep it going and I would be happy if it was even increased in those subgroups that can afford to pay for it. I'm sure those that are making $200,000 a year would not miss a few extra thousand...

For the rest of us, at least you can sleep well knowing that you are contributing to the welfare of the less fortunate.

regards

Marios

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingermick

And Jack, do you think that any person who earns a high income would be in his/her posittion were it not for the society they live in?
Sure, you can be a highly motivated go-getter, but if you live in a third world country the top of the chain would still be pittance.
If you are successful in a society you have an obligation to that society.

---

If you are successful you do indeed have an obligation to society but a society such as ours gives EVERYONE an opportunity to be successful.
BTW, I am a tradesman, not management, not somebody who had a company land on their doorstep, I worked to get where I am and everyone in this great country has the opportunity to do the same, that's why it is great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingermick

If you are a failure, you also have an obligation.

---

What is the obligation of failures, to be a burden on society and cause the successful to subsidise their existence.

I do acknowledge the unfortunate such as the disabled and even those who have succumbed to severe bad luck and misfortune but I think those taking advantage of the good will of our society far out weigh those who genuinely need a hand.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashore

Health costs are only one part of our tax structure and each generations tax add to the overall
To pick health care and say " why should we ( as younger people who don't use the system as much as the older generation do) have to pay a high medcare levy"
Who paid for your schools and in some cases universities you were edcuated in ,who's taxes subsidised you childhood imunisation programs or the hospitals you were born in who payed the taxes that built the roads you used to go to school.
Should we have said we are finished school cut all funding we don't need them anymore as some of the arguements "I should only pay for what I use Now in my prime of life"
Every time you step outside you are using , as I am , infrastructure paid for by previous generations

---

Very good points Ashore, well done :) :) :)

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by routermaniac

I say keep it going and I would be happy if it was even increased in those subgroups that can afford to pay for it. I'm sure those that are making $200,000 a year would not miss a few extra thousand...

---

That sort of statement is where my whole gripe with the tax system as a whole comes from.
It is a poor attitude when people say "the rich will pay for it, they won't notice it".
You will more than likely find that people who have money are not the ones who are flippant with it and "a few extra thousand" matters.
Why should $1000 mean any less to a $100,000 earner than it does to a $50,000 earner. :confused: :confused: :confused:

If you were earning $40,000 and somebody who earns $20,000 said they would be happy for you to pay a whole lot more than them would you be happy?

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashore

Grow up there is no free lunch and you only get out of this world what you put into it.

---

Correct!

And while I agree with those whose social consciences would have the rich paying for the poor (to paraphrase many of the above points), I think there is also a great inequity in the reverse scenario.

What about those who have lived frugal (but none the less enjoyable) lives, forgoing many of the day to day "necessities" and some pleasures for many years, carefully making provision for tomorrow, while their friends who earned as much, or more than they, were content to urinate their futures against the nearest wall or puff them up in smoke.

Why should the careful people now have to subsidise the dialysis or diabetes treatment of those who chose a self indulgent lifestyle, spending all they earnt as they earnt it?

I'm sure they are happy to contribute (or even pay totally) to the well being of those worse off through circumstance of birth or education, but why should they suffer the prejudice of more expensive health care because through careful management they have accumulated sufficient assets to live independantly???

Why are they not entitled to the same benefit as their wasteful, partygoing bretheren? Why are they denied subsidised rates, bus fairs and medication??

Why are they penalised for their careful management?

It would seem in our society, all animals are equal except the squirrels, or is it the others have paid enough in entertainment, tobacco and alcohol taxes that their medical treatment should be covered for life anyway??

Cheers,

P (Tired of hearing how tough and unfair life is today!)

:o :o :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

It would seem in our society, all animals are equal except the squirrels, or is it the others have paid enough in entertainment, tobacco and alcohol taxes that their medical treatment should be covered for life anyway??

---

Peter,

I have probably paid more tax through entertainment, tobacco and alcohol than the average person my age aswell :D :D :D

I think we all know that nothing is going to change, in fact, like somebody has already said, it is only going to get worse.

Jack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackE

have probably paid more tax through entertainment, tobacco and alcohol than the average person my age aswell

---

So things aren't all bad then??

:D :D :D

P (Note: the above post was a Football induced rant, and the :o smilie was as close as I could get to a Maroon one!)
:D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

So things aren't all bad then??

:D :D :D

P (Note: the above post was a Football induced rant, and the :o smilie was as close as I could get to a Maroon one!)
:D :D :D

---

No, things aren't bad at all, just having a bit of a whinge about tax on a thread that I didn't start this time :D :D :D

My rants tonight are also football (with a few rums) induced.

I know you are a Queenslander Peter so why are you using smilies tonight, you just got flogged :D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack E

I know you are a Queenslander Peter so why are you using smilies tonight, you just got flogged :D :D :D

---

Different strokes!!

:D :D :D
P

Are you using puns again :) :)

Jack.

This theme of the haves paying for the have nots is becoming too regular for me to get upset or to comment.

The law is very simple, if you have income you pay taxes and the greater income the greater the taxes. The medicare levy is a tax to fund government expenditure, like all other taxes and has nothing to do with health care costs. It was misnamed by politicians to make the tax more palatable. :(

If you don't like paying, get yourself a good accountant, reorganise your affairs so that you pay less but stop whinging about it. :mad:


Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

If you don't like paying, get yourself a good accountant, reorganise your affairs so that you pay less but stop

---

Sturdee,

That is exactly what I and am sure most others in my situation do, doesn't help the situation though. :) :) :)

Jack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Correct!
I'm sure they are happy to contribute (or even pay totally) to the well being of those worse off through circumstance of birth or education, but why should they suffer the prejudice of more expensive health care because through careful management they have accumulated sufficient assets to live independantly???

---

I do to a degree agree with your sentiments. I have worked very hard in my short 30 years to get where I am today. Migrating to Australia at age 13 I was behind the 8 ball, I had to learn the language and do it quickly if I was going to get anywhere.

This meant that when everyone else was outside having a great time I was working my backside off. Despite the odds I managed to get myself through medical school working fulltime during all but one for my uni breaks and working part-time for the rest of the year.

It does annoy me to see those on the unemployment benefit spending it at the local pub or smoking the lungs away.... BUT I also recognise that the American system of ignoring these people and further marginalising them is not the answer either!

If we were to withdraw all these benefits what do you think would be the overall outcome???? I would argue that a significant majority would turn to crime to support themselves... and that would be crime affecting YOU, ME and our singificant others.

There is no easy way to fix this, there is no easy way to determine who deserves to have their healthcare subsidised or not. If we were to use the argument that those at "fault" for their medical ailments should not be assisted, you would find that we would not treat the vast majority of patients.

90+% of what we spend in healthcare goes to treat obesity, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease and smoking related illnesses. That is the reality.
We are a self-destructive lot (except maybe for Zed given that he is half monkey ;), they are much better behaved.. ), it has to do with curiosity, apathy, depression, etc...

In summary I think our system is not great but it could be a lot of worse.... ie look at the Americans! :eek: Some further planning is necessary to make the current system sustainable in the near future but to be perfectly honest, I can't see a way out of not shifting the burden to those of us that are better off, at least in the short term.

If a significant amount is spent on education of the public and preventative medicine it maybe that in the next 4-5 decades that some of these issues are less relevant but from experience this is often thrown in the too hard basket.
Although probably the most rewarding aspect of medicine, changing behaviour is a lot of work and in this current system there is little incentive for medicos to be involved in it (apart from the moral one that is).

One way that the above could be achieved is to offer a benefit to those doctors who practice preventative medicine... it would be hard to monitor but the income of GPs in England is very much dependent on this.... is it working??? Time will tell.

regards

Marios

Routermaniac,

Well done on your dedication, hard work and success. I watched my partner go through mediacl school and fully appreciate the effort required.

I do agree with your comments, especially those about the poor American health system.

I also agree that most medical treatment is for self induced ailments.

As I said recently, This will probably get worse and I guess we can only accept that fact.

Still nothing wrong with discussing it though.

Jack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack E

Sturdee,

That is exactly what I and am sure most others in my situation do, doesn't help the situation though. :) :) :)

Jack.

---

That is as it should be as you are entitled to reduce your tax liability so that you pay the least amount of tax. However having done that you should be happy to pay your taxes. :)

But it should be remembered that the medicare levy is a tax and has nothing to do with the cost of the health care system. It is to fund government revenue, like all other taxes.

There is not, nor has there ever been a straight nexus between health care costs and the levy except in some politicians weird minds. :mad:

I don't mind if you have a debate on the health care system, its benefits to the community and its adequacy or otherwise nor do I object to a debate on the tax system but it p****s me of that people claim that just because they pay taxes the healthcare system is rorted by the not so well of.


Peter.

Geez, after that I think I'll have a little lie down and think about all the LN planes I could have owned if I hadn't been paying the medicare levy! :( :( :( :( As opposed to all the ones I own now... ie NONE! :mad:


PS

Completely agree with you Jack, can't see things changing in a hurry... and at least we bother discussing these things unlike most of our politicians! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

However having done that you should be happy to pay your taxes.

---

I will NEVER pay taxes with a smile on my face:D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

it p****s me of that people claim that just because they pay taxes the healthcare system is rorted by the not so well off.

---

I don't think it is rorted, the medical system would be a pretty difficult one to take advantage of unless there was a genuine need for care (unlike many other systems).
I just enjoy seeing others views on the amount some people pay compared to others for a service that all are and should be entitled to.

Jack

We will always have people to whinging about their contribution to the socialist based components of our society. There will always be a "yeah but what about...the single mum with 14 kids who rents the garden shed to the drug smoking perpetual uni student whose gay lover is living off a grant to explore the socio-sexual-political-gluteal ramification of being a gay shed dwellers lover" Personally I find it the sign of mind that does not understand simple economics (as opposed to complex economics).
After living in Indonesia for a while and seeing houses with 4 luxury cars in their garages and built off the mansion's back walls a shanty town with raw sewage in the alley - I realised that many people would rather have gold plated taps in their bathrooms, even if it meant that society was too poor to provide its members with sewerage pipes.
A wealthy society (i.e. one that it is a pleasure to live in and that affords its members things like reliable power to run forum-browsing computers on) is inefficient in wealth distribution and its wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few (on a sliding scale of lots = little, few = lotsa$. That is why it is important to pay lots of tax and to 'waste' it on things you may not strictly approve of, it means that your chances of getting rich are increased. Proof - what about the country that can afford to go to war 1/2 way round the globe on fabricated reasons (or even better to fund several massive gov't organisations that earnestly and dilligently got the reasons for waging war wrong) and what country has the highest concentration of billionaires and millionaires? ?? ??? ????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack E

I will NEVER pay taxes with a smile on my face:D :D :D

Jack

---

I do. :D

I have been listening to good advice for many years and now the amount I have to pay is not enough to get upset about. :D


Peter.

It sounds like we may need to have you over for dinner Sturdee to let us in on some of your secrets :)

Hmm, an interesting discussion I've started here. I've been at a conference all day so I couldn't contribute.

Please understand though, for future reference, that in the cold light of day I'm happy to hand over my medicare levy/surcharge. I was just having a lighthearted whinge because I was really looking forward to buying that bandsaw!

The way I see it, It may be 'inequitable' now, but if it's the same when I'm a bit older then two enquitieis wil make an equity........................

I abhor government bashing, it's a terminal disease in this country that distracs us from the real problems. I wouldnt wan't y'all to think I was a whinging pratt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LineLefty

Hmm, an interesting discussion I've started here.
I was a whinging pratt!

---

Your whole argument seems to me and correct me if I'm wrong is that because wour tax refund is not as high as YOU IMAGINED your wife ( the poor long suffering woman) is going to spend the returne on a " washing machine" with which to keep your clothes looking somewhat reasonable.http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...cons/icon5.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...cons/icon5.gif
And for this you have started a thread that has polirazed the forum into age groups with views so opposed that xmas cards may be sent post due this year .http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ons/icon10.gif
To help you with your first problem
http://www.patented-antiques.com/ima...wash_light.jpg

A hand made item may save you the $400
as to your second problem however I can't help Dna restructure is beyond me http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ons/icon10.gif



BTW great thread gave everyone a chance to vent their anger/Rage/resolve




The trouble with life is there's no background music.

(Confession) I am a high income earner.

Do i mind paying extra to support the "baby boomers"......not on your life.
It is through their efforts that I, as an unskilled person(no formal qualifications), have the ability to earn a high income.
I would willingly pay for these people until the cows come home.... and shall continue to do so.
People forget, that in years gone by, a high income wasnt attainable by the ordinary person but generally one had to be born into money, extremely talented or have a benefactor.
The "baby boomers" changed this, effectively society was changed from a class based one into one where everyone was considered equal.
They didnt do it easily either, wages were considered low, house prices high etc.....not much has changed really in that respect.
The "baby boomers" in effect changed the mindset of the country, they introduced a point of veiw that if YOU were prepared to make the odd sacrifice you could have everything and more that was available.
In effect the rewards were there.....you just had to want them bad enuff.
Sons and daughters were given a skill that cant be bought for all the money in the world, but could be sold for the reverse.......A WORK ETHIC.
It makes no difference to me what they did with their earnings,most worked bloody hard and were entitled to spend their money as they saw fit at the time.

Thanks to a minority of "baby boomers", who occupied places high in the beauracracy,they didnt want others to suffer the inequalities that they themselves experienced, ie: work and struggle.
It was those people that gradually eroded the work ethic until it didnt exist anymore and they replaced it with the "nanny state welfare ethic".
Nowadays we have an ageing population and less people in the workforce, people dont have to work if they dont want to....in most cases they are better off, if not in cash terms, most certainly in real terms than those that choose to work for a living.The Health Care Card for example!! Subsidised prescriptions, rent assistance, bond assistance....the list goes on.
Its a pretty poor state of affairs when welfare payments are indexed at a more regular rate than the wage rate in general.
The Medicare levy isnt payable on welfare payments. Is It ?
So there you have it:
The "baby boomers" who have earnt the privelege of subsidised health care.
The 'Working Poor" who deserve the privelege of subsidised health care.
The "sit my **** and dont do SFA" who get more benefit than the other 2 put together.

Like i said earlier, i dont mind paying the levy, i just wish that i had more of a say in who benefits from it.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LineLefty

Hmm, an interesting discussion I've started here. I've been at a conference all day so I couldn't contribute.

Please understand though, for future reference, that in the cold light of day I'm happy to hand over my medicare levy/surcharge. I was just having a lighthearted whinge because I was really looking forward to buying that bandsaw!

The way I see it, It may be 'inequitable' now, but if it's the same when I'm a bit older then two enquitieis wil make an equity........................

I abhor government bashing, it's a terminal disease in this country that distracs us from the real problems. I wouldnt wan't y'all to think I was a whinging pratt!

---

Linelfty I dont think anyone misunderstood you. You were expecting a bandsaw which has become less likely, I think ALL of us can relate to that :) , that is the beauty of this forum, the unifying link of wood! (and the ubeaut cap, Neil will be ordering one ASAP!)

I dont think you should feel bad, you started an excellent discussion. We are all different and all entitled to our views, such is life. In fact if the rest of Australia got off their backside and started discussing these issues we would all be much better off.

Have a great day

Marios

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by routermaniac

I do to a degree agree with your sentiments. (snip)

If we were to withdraw all these benefits what do you think would be the overall outcome???? I would argue that a significant majority would turn to crime to support themselves... and that would be crime affecting YOU, ME and our singificant others.

---

Well I only agree with my sentiments to a degree as well (which is why I was trying to express them in the third person :o),so we must think similarly! ;)

The fix is easy. There was a movie about it sometime ago, the gist of which was that in the US prisons had become so overcrowded they just fenced off New York(?) and bunged the baddies in there and left them to their own devices.

Here we could just send 'em to Tasmania. Sort of like the Olympic City selection really, the infrastructure is in place and they have a history of that sort of thing there. Or if Tassie was too unpalatable, New Zealand would be ok.

That would leave the rest of us to live in utopic (myopic?) surrounds, where the sun came up each day on our retirement villages and the nurses fed us our rolled oats each morning while we read agreeable articles of peace and harmony in the morning papers (or listened to PodCasts).

The only problem with having all the problems sorted and living easily, would be that threads like this would cease to exist, and our unused consciousness would... ... would.. .. .. ..

P (Sorry I've been eating Apricots again.... ... )
:D :D :D

Midge, your pills are in the TOP drawer :D

Richard

Yeah, that'd be right, top drawer pills for you, while the rest of us take what we can get, scavenged from the pharmacy floor. Classless system indeed! Hmph :mad:

BTW did you know that apricot kernels contain arsenic? Apparently they also cure cancer... Now there's the real issue - why are the drug companies making a motza selling chemo drugs when you can get the same result chewing a few apricot seeds?

What, poison yourself ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craigb

What, poison yourself ?

---

Yeah, cut out the middle man :D

Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

BTW did you know that apricot kernels contain arsenic? Apparently they also cure cancer... Now there's the real issue - why are the drug companies making a motza selling chemo drugs when you can get the same result chewing a few apricot seeds?

---

Now here's the thing:
Treated pine contains arsenic too, and apparently it CAUSES cancer.

Maybe Silleopethy works because people become euphoric when they find such a simple, cost effective cure, and then die happy??

P (The real test... ... starts tonight, and it's being televised live!)

:D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

............The fix is easy. ................ Here we could just send 'em to Tasmania.
P (Sorry I've been eating Apricots again.... ... )
:D :D :D

---

Don't forget our Traditions midge. Tassy and NZ aren't appropriate (though the NZ solution is appealing)
We should send them to that shaky group of isles off the coast of france.