Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[InBenjiWeTrust]

good podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFxJDlEF9UA

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

As both an ardent supporter of universal healthcare and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)

I have downloaded the report (you can source the reports for all procedures under review from health.gov.au,) and it seems that for the most part, it looks as though it is an overhaul of procedures covered by Medicare carried out in line with an update in best practice methods (at least that's how my layman's mind interprets it, I am not a cardiologist despite having a long held interest in it.)

Yes, certain procedures will no longer be covered by Medicare, but these are procedures that appear to be no longer considered relevant or best practice. Other scrapped procedures have been superceded by more descriptive "sub-procedures" (i.e. there was one procedure code to cover all valvular replacement surgeries be it aortic, mitral or tricuspid, these will now be three separate procedures.) The basis of this appears to be better tracking of valve replacement procedures, and removal of technology descriptors as particular technologies appear to have been superceded or no longer available in Australia. This review was undertaken by some of Australia's most prominent and accomplished cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons.

I would like to see if there is any truth to the hip/knee replacements being fully defunded as claimed in the media, or whether it is indeed a scare campaign. I will always support to maintain Medicare as a fully funded entity but I don't disagree with updating the MBS to make sure doctors and specialists are always maintaining a high standard of care and utilising best practice at all times.

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

Hope this could be of some interest :blush:

https://www.atlasnetwork.org/book/self-control-or-state-control-you-decide

free PDF book : SELF-CONTROL OR STATE CONTROL? YOU DECIDE by Dr. Tom G. Palmer

Who should determine the course of our lives? There is no shortage of people who aim to control others, imposing their will and restricting choice through the force of government. A new book edited by Dr. Tom G. Palmer, Atlas Network’s executive vice president for international programs, explains how choosing personal responsibility allows us to regain control over our own lives. Self-Control or State Control? You Decide features essays by experts who delve into the relationship between freedom and responsibility, their philosophical and scientific underpinnings, and the practical value of self-control.

 

[Tiger5150]

As both an ardent supporter of ***universal healthcare*** and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)

No doubting the detail of the facts you posted, but you do realise that we dont have universal healthcare in Australia dont you?

We have a fantastic healthcare system and I wouldnt swap it for another that I know of but its not universal and its not fully state funded and would collapse in a week without incentives for private health insurance.

 

[BZN]

As both an ardent supporter of universal healthcare and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)

I have downloaded the report (you can source the reports for all procedures under review from health.gov.au,) and it seems that for the most part, it looks as though it is an overhaul of procedures covered by Medicare carried out in line with an update in best practice methods (at least that's how my layman's mind interprets it, I am not a cardiologist despite having a long held interest in it.)

Yes, certain procedures will no longer be covered by Medicare, but these are procedures that appear to be no longer considered relevant or best practice. Other scrapped procedures have been superceded by more descriptive "sub-procedures" (i.e. there was one procedure code to cover all valvular replacement surgeries be it aortic, mitral or tricuspid, these will now be three separate procedures.) The basis of this appears to be better tracking of valve replacement procedures, and removal of technology descriptors as particular technologies appear to have been superceded or no longer available in Australia. This review was undertaken by some of Australia's most prominent and accomplished cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons.

I would like to see if there is any truth to the hip/knee replacements being fully defunded as claimed in the media, or whether it is indeed a scare campaign. I will always support to maintain Medicare as a fully funded entity but I don't disagree with updating the MBS to make sure doctors and specialists are always maintaining a high standard of care and utilising best practice at all times.

[/QUOTE]

I hope you are one of the lucky ones ie you dont need treatment or very little treatment.
But which ever it is it doesnt seem to have effected your brain :grinning: as you write some good quality posts, some I dont agree with,
but I personally find you an interesting contributor :+1: .

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

As both an ardent supporter of ***universal healthcare*** and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)


No doubting the detail of the facts you posted, but you do realise that we dont have universal healthcare in Australia dont you?

We have a fantastic healthcare system and I wouldnt swap it for another that I know of but its not universal and its not fully state funded and would collapse in a week without incentives for private health insurance.

Sorry, you are right. It is a poor characterisation of the system. Socialised healthcare would be more apt.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

As both an ardent supporter of universal healthcare and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)

I have downloaded the report (you can source the reports for all procedures under review from health.gov.au,) and it seems that for the most part, it looks as though it is an overhaul of procedures covered by Medicare carried out in line with an update in best practice methods (at least that's how my layman's mind interprets it, I am not a cardiologist despite having a long held interest in it.)

Yes, certain procedures will no longer be covered by Medicare, but these are procedures that appear to be no longer considered relevant or best practice. Other scrapped procedures have been superceded by more descriptive "sub-procedures" (i.e. there was one procedure code to cover all valvular replacement surgeries be it aortic, mitral or tricuspid, these will now be three separate procedures.) The basis of this appears to be better tracking of valve replacement procedures, and removal of technology descriptors as particular technologies appear to have been superceded or no longer available in Australia. This review was undertaken by some of Australia's most prominent and accomplished cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons.

I would like to see if there is any truth to the hip/knee replacements being fully defunded as claimed in the media, or whether it is indeed a scare campaign. I will always support to maintain Medicare as a fully funded entity but I don't disagree with updating the MBS to make sure doctors and specialists are always maintaining a high standard of care and utilising best practice at all times.

I hope you are one of the lucky ones ie you dont need treatment or very little treatment.
But which ever it is it doesnt seem to have effected your brain :grinning: as you write some good quality posts, some I dont agree with,
but I personally find you an interesting contributor :+1: .

No, not a hole in the heart. I was born with a stenosed aortic valve. Two leaflets of my aortic valve were fused.

 

[BZN]

As both an ardent supporter of universal healthcare and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)

I have downloaded the report (you can source the reports for all procedures under review from health.gov.au,) and it seems that for the most part, it looks as though it is an overhaul of procedures covered by Medicare carried out in line with an update in best practice methods (at least that's how my layman's mind interprets it, I am not a cardiologist despite having a long held interest in it.)

Yes, certain procedures will no longer be covered by Medicare, but these are procedures that appear to be no longer considered relevant or best practice. Other scrapped procedures have been superceded by more descriptive "sub-procedures" (i.e. there was one procedure code to cover all valvular replacement surgeries be it aortic, mitral or tricuspid, these will now be three separate procedures.) The basis of this appears to be better tracking of valve replacement procedures, and removal of technology descriptors as particular technologies appear to have been superceded or no longer available in Australia. This review was undertaken by some of Australia's most prominent and accomplished cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons.

I would like to see if there is any truth to the hip/knee replacements being fully defunded as claimed in the media, or whether it is indeed a scare campaign. I will always support to maintain Medicare as a fully funded entity but I don't disagree with updating the MBS to make sure doctors and specialists are always maintaining a high standard of care and utilising best practice at all times.

I hope you are one of the lucky ones ie you dont need treatment or very little treatment.
But which ever it is it doesnt seem to have effected your brain :grinning: as you write some good quality posts, some I dont agree with,
but I personally find you an interesting contributor :+1: .

No, not a hole in the heart. I was born with a stenosed aortic valve. Two leaflets of my aortic valve were fused.

Is that better or worse than a hole in the heart?

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

As both an ardent supporter of universal healthcare and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)

I have downloaded the report (you can source the reports for all procedures under review from health.gov.au,) and it seems that for the most part, it looks as though it is an overhaul of procedures covered by Medicare carried out in line with an update in best practice methods (at least that's how my layman's mind interprets it, I am not a cardiologist despite having a long held interest in it.)

Yes, certain procedures will no longer be covered by Medicare, but these are procedures that appear to be no longer considered relevant or best practice. Other scrapped procedures have been superceded by more descriptive "sub-procedures" (i.e. there was one procedure code to cover all valvular replacement surgeries be it aortic, mitral or tricuspid, these will now be three separate procedures.) The basis of this appears to be better tracking of valve replacement procedures, and removal of technology descriptors as particular technologies appear to have been superceded or no longer available in Australia. This review was undertaken by some of Australia's most prominent and accomplished cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons.

I would like to see if there is any truth to the hip/knee replacements being fully defunded as claimed in the media, or whether it is indeed a scare campaign. I will always support to maintain Medicare as a fully funded entity but I don't disagree with updating the MBS to make sure doctors and specialists are always maintaining a high standard of care and utilising best practice at all times.

I hope you are one of the lucky ones ie you dont need treatment or very little treatment.
But which ever it is it doesnt seem to have effected your brain :grinning: as you write some good quality posts, some I dont agree with,
but I personally find you an interesting contributor :+1: .

No, not a hole in the heart. I was born with a stenosed aortic valve. Two leaflets of my aortic valve were fused.

Is that better or worse than a hole in the heart?

Not sure. I wouldn't wish paediatric aortic stenosis on anyone.

 

[happy_tiger]

As both an ardent supporter of universal healthcare and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)

I have downloaded the report (you can source the reports for all procedures under review from health.gov.au,) and it seems that for the most part, it looks as though it is an overhaul of procedures covered by Medicare carried out in line with an update in best practice methods (at least that's how my layman's mind interprets it, I am not a cardiologist despite having a long held interest in it.)

Yes, certain procedures will no longer be covered by Medicare, but these are procedures that appear to be no longer considered relevant or best practice. Other scrapped procedures have been superceded by more descriptive "sub-procedures" (i.e. there was one procedure code to cover all valvular replacement surgeries be it aortic, mitral or tricuspid, these will now be three separate procedures.) The basis of this appears to be better tracking of valve replacement procedures, and removal of technology descriptors as particular technologies appear to have been superceded or no longer available in Australia. This review was undertaken by some of Australia's most prominent and accomplished cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons.

I would like to see if there is any truth to the hip/knee replacements being fully defunded as claimed in the media, or whether it is indeed a scare campaign. I will always support to maintain Medicare as a fully funded entity but I don't disagree with updating the MBS to make sure doctors and specialists are always maintaining a high standard of care and utilising best practice at all times.

I hope you are one of the lucky ones ie you dont need treatment or very little treatment.
But which ever it is it doesnt seem to have effected your brain :grinning: as you write some good quality posts, some I dont agree with,
but I personally find you an interesting contributor :+1: .

No, not a hole in the heart. I was born with a stenosed aortic valve. Two leaflets of my aortic valve were fused.

But yours wasn't genetic ...is that correct ??

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

As both an ardent supporter of universal healthcare and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)

I have downloaded the report (you can source the reports for all procedures under review from health.gov.au,) and it seems that for the most part, it looks as though it is an overhaul of procedures covered by Medicare carried out in line with an update in best practice methods (at least that's how my layman's mind interprets it, I am not a cardiologist despite having a long held interest in it.)

Yes, certain procedures will no longer be covered by Medicare, but these are procedures that appear to be no longer considered relevant or best practice. Other scrapped procedures have been superceded by more descriptive "sub-procedures" (i.e. there was one procedure code to cover all valvular replacement surgeries be it aortic, mitral or tricuspid, these will now be three separate procedures.) The basis of this appears to be better tracking of valve replacement procedures, and removal of technology descriptors as particular technologies appear to have been superceded or no longer available in Australia. This review was undertaken by some of Australia's most prominent and accomplished cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons.

I would like to see if there is any truth to the hip/knee replacements being fully defunded as claimed in the media, or whether it is indeed a scare campaign. I will always support to maintain Medicare as a fully funded entity but I don't disagree with updating the MBS to make sure doctors and specialists are always maintaining a high standard of care and utilising best practice at all times.

I hope you are one of the lucky ones ie you dont need treatment or very little treatment.
But which ever it is it doesnt seem to have effected your brain :grinning: as you write some good quality posts, some I dont agree with,
but I personally find you an interesting contributor :+1: .

No, not a hole in the heart. I was born with a stenosed aortic valve. Two leaflets of my aortic valve were fused.

But yours wasn't genetic ...is that correct ??

No, it was as I was born with it. Bicuspid aortic valves are a genetic defect. Most older people, like into your late 60's onwards will wind up with aortic stenosis as the valve calcifies over the years (it doesn't seem to be something that has responded well to us living longer.) Not unusual for the elderly to require aortic valve surgery to repair or replace calcified valves.

 

[happy_tiger]

As both an ardent supporter of universal healthcare and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)

I have downloaded the report (you can source the reports for all procedures under review from health.gov.au,) and it seems that for the most part, it looks as though it is an overhaul of procedures covered by Medicare carried out in line with an update in best practice methods (at least that's how my layman's mind interprets it, I am not a cardiologist despite having a long held interest in it.)

Yes, certain procedures will no longer be covered by Medicare, but these are procedures that appear to be no longer considered relevant or best practice. Other scrapped procedures have been superceded by more descriptive "sub-procedures" (i.e. there was one procedure code to cover all valvular replacement surgeries be it aortic, mitral or tricuspid, these will now be three separate procedures.) The basis of this appears to be better tracking of valve replacement procedures, and removal of technology descriptors as particular technologies appear to have been superceded or no longer available in Australia. This review was undertaken by some of Australia's most prominent and accomplished cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons.

I would like to see if there is any truth to the hip/knee replacements being fully defunded as claimed in the media, or whether it is indeed a scare campaign. I will always support to maintain Medicare as a fully funded entity but I don't disagree with updating the MBS to make sure doctors and specialists are always maintaining a high standard of care and utilising best practice at all times.

I hope you are one of the lucky ones ie you dont need treatment or very little treatment.
But which ever it is it doesnt seem to have effected your brain :grinning: as you write some good quality posts, some I dont agree with,
but I personally find you an interesting contributor :+1: .

No, not a hole in the heart. I was born with a stenosed aortic valve. Two leaflets of my aortic valve were fused.

But yours wasn't genetic ...is that correct ??

No, it was as I was born with it. Bicuspid aortic valves are a genetic defect. Most older people, like into your late 60's onwards will wind up with aortic stenosis as the valve calcifies over the years (it doesn't seem to be something that has responded well to us living longer.) Not unusual for the elderly to require aortic valve surgery to repair or replace calcified valves.

Major surgery ??

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

As both an ardent supporter of universal healthcare and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)

I have downloaded the report (you can source the reports for all procedures under review from health.gov.au,) and it seems that for the most part, it looks as though it is an overhaul of procedures covered by Medicare carried out in line with an update in best practice methods (at least that's how my layman's mind interprets it, I am not a cardiologist despite having a long held interest in it.)

Yes, certain procedures will no longer be covered by Medicare, but these are procedures that appear to be no longer considered relevant or best practice. Other scrapped procedures have been superceded by more descriptive "sub-procedures" (i.e. there was one procedure code to cover all valvular replacement surgeries be it aortic, mitral or tricuspid, these will now be three separate procedures.) The basis of this appears to be better tracking of valve replacement procedures, and removal of technology descriptors as particular technologies appear to have been superceded or no longer available in Australia. This review was undertaken by some of Australia's most prominent and accomplished cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons.

I would like to see if there is any truth to the hip/knee replacements being fully defunded as claimed in the media, or whether it is indeed a scare campaign. I will always support to maintain Medicare as a fully funded entity but I don't disagree with updating the MBS to make sure doctors and specialists are always maintaining a high standard of care and utilising best practice at all times.

I hope you are one of the lucky ones ie you dont need treatment or very little treatment.
But which ever it is it doesnt seem to have effected your brain :grinning: as you write some good quality posts, some I dont agree with,
but I personally find you an interesting contributor :+1: .

No, not a hole in the heart. I was born with a stenosed aortic valve. Two leaflets of my aortic valve were fused.

To me people that face such a difficulties and face everyday’s challenges so bravely are heroes to me.
God speed!

 

[TrueTiger]

As both an ardent supporter of universal healthcare and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)

I have downloaded the report (you can source the reports for all procedures under review from health.gov.au,) and it seems that for the most part, it looks as though it is an overhaul of procedures covered by Medicare carried out in line with an update in best practice methods (at least that's how my layman's mind interprets it, I am not a cardiologist despite having a long held interest in it.)

Yes, certain procedures will no longer be covered by Medicare, but these are procedures that appear to be no longer considered relevant or best practice. Other scrapped procedures have been superceded by more descriptive "sub-procedures" (i.e. there was one procedure code to cover all valvular replacement surgeries be it aortic, mitral or tricuspid, these will now be three separate procedures.) The basis of this appears to be better tracking of valve replacement procedures, and removal of technology descriptors as particular technologies appear to have been superceded or no longer available in Australia. This review was undertaken by some of Australia's most prominent and accomplished cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons.

I would like to see if there is any truth to the hip/knee replacements being fully defunded as claimed in the media, or whether it is indeed a scare campaign. I will always support to maintain Medicare as a fully funded entity but I don't disagree with updating the MBS to make sure doctors and specialists are always maintaining a high standard of care and utilising best practice at all times.

I hope you are one of the lucky ones ie you dont need treatment or very little treatment.
But which ever it is it doesnt seem to have effected your brain :grinning: as you write some good quality posts, some I dont agree with,
but I personally find you an interesting contributor :+1: .

No, not a hole in the heart. I was born with a stenosed aortic valve. Two leaflets of my aortic valve were fused.

But yours wasn't genetic ...is that correct ??

No, it was as I was born with it. Bicuspid aortic valves are a genetic defect. Most older people, like into your late 60's onwards will wind up with aortic stenosis as the valve calcifies over the years (it doesn't seem to be something that has responded well to us living longer.) Not unusual for the elderly to require aortic valve surgery to repair or replace calcified valves.

Keep doing what your doing CB,I love your input and hope all goes well for you as you go along in life...I will say mate,the days are so much brighter with you in them....

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

As both an ardent supporter of universal healthcare and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)

I have downloaded the report (you can source the reports for all procedures under review from health.gov.au,) and it seems that for the most part, it looks as though it is an overhaul of procedures covered by Medicare carried out in line with an update in best practice methods (at least that's how my layman's mind interprets it, I am not a cardiologist despite having a long held interest in it.)

Yes, certain procedures will no longer be covered by Medicare, but these are procedures that appear to be no longer considered relevant or best practice. Other scrapped procedures have been superceded by more descriptive "sub-procedures" (i.e. there was one procedure code to cover all valvular replacement surgeries be it aortic, mitral or tricuspid, these will now be three separate procedures.) The basis of this appears to be better tracking of valve replacement procedures, and removal of technology descriptors as particular technologies appear to have been superceded or no longer available in Australia. This review was undertaken by some of Australia's most prominent and accomplished cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons.

I would like to see if there is any truth to the hip/knee replacements being fully defunded as claimed in the media, or whether it is indeed a scare campaign. I will always support to maintain Medicare as a fully funded entity but I don't disagree with updating the MBS to make sure doctors and specialists are always maintaining a high standard of care and utilising best practice at all times.

I hope you are one of the lucky ones ie you dont need treatment or very little treatment.
But which ever it is it doesnt seem to have effected your brain :grinning: as you write some good quality posts, some I dont agree with,
but I personally find you an interesting contributor :+1: .

No, not a hole in the heart. I was born with a stenosed aortic valve. Two leaflets of my aortic valve were fused.

But yours wasn't genetic ...is that correct ??

No, it was as I was born with it. Bicuspid aortic valves are a genetic defect. Most older people, like into your late 60's onwards will wind up with aortic stenosis as the valve calcifies over the years (it doesn't seem to be something that has responded well to us living longer.) Not unusual for the elderly to require aortic valve surgery to repair or replace calcified valves.

Major surgery ??

Mine were both open heart. There's been major advances in procedures since I had it done (27 years ago.)

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Thanks for the kind words gents @TrueTiger & @InBenjiWeTrust

 

[happy_tiger]

Thanks for the kind words gents @TrueTiger & @InBenjiWeTrust

We all love ya bro ...Qlder ....having to live so close to @hobbo1 .....your a champion

 

[crazycat]

As both an ardent supporter of ***universal healthcare*** and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)


No doubting the detail of the facts you posted, but you do realise that we dont have universal healthcare in Australia dont you?

We have a fantastic healthcare system and I wouldnt swap it for another that I know of but its not universal and its not fully state funded and would collapse in a week without incentives for private health insurance.

Sorry, you are right. It is a poor characterisation of the system. Socialised healthcare would be more apt.

And they were going so well till they said:
" and would collapse in a week without incentives for private health insurance"

Rofl. This never did a single thing for Public health. There were two incentives for private health insurance:
1. Peter Costello's 30% private health rebate which got about 0 extra members. For the Billions spent private health memberships did not change.
2. The Scare of increased rates for people over 30 if they did not have private health insurance would have to pay a higher rate.
Yes this got a lot of HEALTHY people getting private health insurance. The insurance companies LOVED this, healthy paying people loosing money monthly.

None of this helps the public system. Take that money and put it into the Public system and watch it deliver.

Private= breucracy. Now stop looking at American failure. None of the changes we have made have strengthened healthcare.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

As both an ardent supporter of ***universal healthcare*** and someone who has congenital heart disease, I was obviously concerned to read the rhetoric in regard to the changes to Medicare, moreso the 188 cardiac services that were under review (there are nearly 1,000 across the MBS under review in total.)


No doubting the detail of the facts you posted, but you do realise that we dont have universal healthcare in Australia dont you?

We have a fantastic healthcare system and I wouldnt swap it for another that I know of but its not universal and its not fully state funded and would collapse in a week without incentives for private health insurance.

Sorry, you are right. It is a poor characterisation of the system. Socialised healthcare would be more apt.


And they were going so well till they said:
" and would collapse in a week without incentives for private health insurance"

Rofl. This never did a single thing for Public health. There were two incentives for private health insurance:
1. Peter Costello's 30% private health rebate which got about 0 extra members. For the Billions spent private health memberships did not change.
2. The Scare of increased rates for people over 30 if they did not have private health insurance would have to pay a higher rate.
Yes this got a lot of HEALTHY people getting private health insurance. The insurance companies LOVED this, healthy paying people loosing money monthly.

None of this helps the public system. Take that money and put it into the Public system and watch it deliver.

Private= breucracy. Now stop looking at American failure. None of the changes we have made have strengthened healthcare.

Is this aimed at me? I don't advocate for US style healthcare. It cost me $3000 to have my son treated for croup when we were there. Thank God for travel insurance!

 

[hobbo1]

All the best with your health @Cultured_Bogan ..
How the hell do you cope with watching the West’s Tigers week in week out ?