Bulk-billing for poor may be illegal in Victoria?!?

The MaDDeSTMaN · 08-08-2005, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Community health centres fear they could be breaking the law with their medical services.

Victoria is seeking urgent clarification from Canberra about whether community health centres can provide bulk-billing medical services, amid fears disadvantaged patients might lose access to free medical care.

Community health centres employ doctors and bulk-bill patients. The Medicare payments go to the centre and the GPs are paid a salary.

The GPs were recently told by the Victorian Department of Human Services they may be contravening the Health Insurance Act 1973, which says that "unless the (federal) minister directs otherwise, a Medicare benefit is not payable in respect of a professional service that has been rendered by, or on behalf of, or under an arrangement with the Commonwealth, a state, (or) a local governing body …"

Complete article available here: http://theage.com.au/news/national/b...353209149.html

This is incredible IMHO, why has this become an issue now if the act they are referring to hasn't changed since 1973?!?

What does everyone else think?

RED_EL_XR8 · 08-08-2005, 10:14 AM

I think being held-up to pay private insurance, or more tax, then to receive a higher bill than if you weren't insured in 1st place, and still unable to fully insure ones self, then ultimately I don't feel to much sympathy for any highly subsidised poor.

GraveDilute · 08-08-2005, 10:24 AM

I think that private insurance is a rip off. Personally I've benefited from Bulk Billing (my wife's OB bulk bills as the local hospital doesn't have the appropriate staff) and think it is a good system.
What drives up the costs of health care are requirements to get a doctor's certificate when you take a day off work for a cold or something. Also, how about implementing a plan to restrict number of bulk billed appointments per year? Don't know why some people have to go to the doctor every week.
Have a system where, say 4 visits a year are covered under bulk billing, and then after that you pay full price, concession card or not. Bet that reduces costs

Racecraft · 08-08-2005, 10:26 AM

The medical 'trade' and I use that word over service deliberatley is a shambles in Australia.. No longer are you a patient, you are now a customer.. I have private health thankgod, and I make sure I milk every entitlement out of the policy every year, to re-coupe some of the cost...

Without sounding harsh, and excluding special cases and elective surgery etc..If you can't afford medical bills and expenses why should the government turn around and charge others more?? It is fundamentally wrong imho... If the government wants to pick up the tab, thats great, but I am with Red on this, the more they charge me the to stay healthy, the harder it is to care about anyone else but me!

RED_EL_XR8 · 08-08-2005, 10:40 AM

Limiting the number of visits will disadvantage those who are actually sick, its subsisdising the sickies and the ingrown toenails I despise.

I dont expect a level playing field, we need a healthy community, and like everything else I expect to pay tax to cover those who cant or cant be bothered. My gripe is that even after paying a fortune I cannot get adequate cover.

Medicare I'd love to see it gone tomorrow.

NAK302 · 08-08-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

I think being held-up to pay private insurance, or more tax, then to receive a higher bill than if you weren't insured in 1st place, and still unable to fully insure ones self, then ultimately I don't feel to much sympathy for any highly subsidised poor.

i know what your saying. we've just done our tax and because we are high income earners without private cover we get to subsidise the medicare users by another couple of grand. the system sucks. basically higher income earners are forced to pay extra medicare or pay some rip off merchants for private. aaah its a great country not to be in sometimes :togo:

to all you folks that go to the doctors and pull your medicare card out each time you get a sniffle, i hope my levy helps you get better, quickly

:

parawolf · 08-08-2005, 01:14 PM

Amen on the medicare rate. I spend lots of personal time ensuring that I am a healthy human so I can attend work, to earn more, just to be slabbed with a medicare levy because I don't need private health insurance. HUH!? I'm already working harder so I have the luxury of paying more in tax, so I have to pay more in tax because i'm healthy at the same time?

*PFFT*

MITCHAY · 08-08-2005, 02:00 PM

What about the people who dont go to the doctor. I never go unless im really sick. I havent been to the doctor for about a year now and the last time i went was because i had whooping cough. (I tell you now you dont want that)

Whats funny is that high income earners get taxed the most when they bludge off the government the least or not even at all.. It doesnt make sense at all.

parawolf · 08-08-2005, 02:21 PM

Least we get the biggest tax cuts ;)

I visited the doctor a few months ago, the doctor asked if I had been visiting another practice and I said no, then asked why. Last time I had been there was for a sprained ankle 5 years prior.

MITCHAY · 08-08-2005, 02:24 PM

Maybe if you it wasnt a requirement to get a certificate for a day off it would be allright. I mean you still get sick leave so they still pay it so what does it matter if they are actually sick or not.

Maybe 3 days sick leave before having to get a certificate might be alright. I mean whats the point in goin to the doctor for a common cold for one day off. Its just stupid.

Last time i was sick i got 6 weeks worth of doctors certificates. 4 weeks for whooping cough and 2 weeks for extreme nose bleeds caused by that. It was no holiday at all.

The MaDDeSTMaN · 08-08-2005, 08:40 PM

What I don't understand is why, if the act hasn't changed since 1973, this has just become an issue now.

And while I can understand peoples feelings towards medicare and taxes, as a person with a chronic illness who needs constant medical supervision and treatment just in order to live, I would be SEVERLY worse off (as in, having to choose between paying the rent and other bills OR seeing a doctor for an essential checkup and to get another script for the insulin I need 4 times a day just to live) if the system was changed to a 'user pays' system.

Given how many people are only employed on a casual basis, and therefore do not have sick pay and therefore are left out of pocket if they can't go to work, not only because of loss of the pay they would normally have received, but also costs incurred by needing to go to the doctors and getting things from the chemist.

A while ago when I was working for Shell (employed as a on-call casual worker), I had to take a few days off because I got very sick, and could not work. As a direct result of that, I not only missed out on over $500 of pay that I would normally have received, but I also had to pay nearly $100 just to see a doctor and get a few things I needed from the chemist, all because I earnt too much per year to be entitled to any concessions. Keep in mind, that was on top of the $100 or so it cost me every couple of months for my insulin, as well as having to pay to see a doctor each time I needed a new script.

No offense to anybody here intended, but unless you have to live with a chronic illness or know someone who does, you may not be able to understand just how expensive simply staying alive could be if we had a 'user pays' system.

I could write more about this, but I feel I have said my point of view...

Feathers · 08-08-2005, 08:54 PM

My mother has had a kidney transplant for about 8 years now, and for one months supply of her anti-rejection drugs, without a govt. subsidy they would cost $23,000.
To have had to purchase the dialysis machine that sat in our loungeroom, and the boxes of canulas and tubes and chemicals and other things that she needed 3 times a week, just to keep her alive would have cost a fortune.
And because she was born with her kidney problems, private health funds will not cover it.
If it was a user pays system neither my mother nor I would be alive right now. There is no way that my grandparents or my father could have possibly afforded the hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for operations and medical supplies or medication.

The MaDDeSTMaN · 08-08-2005, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathers

If it was a user pays system neither my mother nor I would be alive right now. There is no way that my grandparents or my father could have possibly afforded the hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for operations and medical supplies or medication.

Exactly, sure having to pay heaps in medicare taxes may not seem fair to those who never get sick and don't know anybody who gets sick, but then there are those who simply wouldn't be alive today under a 'user pays' system, and that doesn't seem fair to me either.

More examples, ever heard of Cystic Fibrosis, MS, MND or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome? No people who I have ever met who have suffered from any of those did ANYTHING which led to them suffering from them, and under a user pays system, they would either have lived much shorter lives, or had no real quality of life. Some of those things you're born with, some we still have no idea how you get them, all of them prevent the person from leading a 'normal' life to some extent. Should these people have to suffer and even die much quicker just because they can't afford the treatment and medication they need?

**Captain Stubing** · 08-08-2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The MaDDeSTMaN

What I don't understand is why, if the act hasn't changed since 1973, this has just become an issue now.

The Health Insurance Act 1973 is called that, because that's when it was passed by parliament. That doesn't mean that it hasn't changed, since 1973, you might find it's been updated and amended many times, and probably rewritten since that time.

MITCHAY · 08-08-2005, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The MaDDeSTMaN

More examples, ever heard of Cystic Fibrosis

My cousin had CF. She had a lung transplant got something and died last year. So that sort of stuff i understand.

Its the employers fault for requiring an employee to get a certificate for the day off so they have to go to the doctor just if they are feeling a little ill. They have to pay out sick leave anyways so what does it matter to them.

The MaDDeSTMaN · 08-08-2005, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

My cousin had CF. She had a lung transplant got something and died last year. So that sort of stuff i understand.

I'm sorry to read that you have personally experienced a loved one living with Cystic Fibrosis, and that they lost the battle last year. CF is something that NOBODY deserves to have.

parawolf · 08-08-2005, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Its the employers fault for requiring an employee to get a certificate for the day off so they have to go to the doctor just if they are feeling a little ill. They have to pay out sick leave anyways so what does it matter to them.

But I don't think that sick leave is a tax liability just like annual leave is. So you don't see employers telling their employees to reduce their "sick leave" balances, but you do see them asking their employees to reduce their annual leave.

I understand that people are born with viruses/disease/illness/sickness/whatever, and there should be consideration or compensation for this. I'm no heartless bastard, but yeah its just the issues with people being forced to go to the doctors, being charged a fortune just for a note.

LuvinmyEB · 08-08-2005, 09:43 PM

I didn't ask for epilepsy, panic disorder (and all of it's off shoots), diabetes and it's long term complications, multiple allergies, IBS, PCOS, poor eyesight or migraines that leave me paralysed down one half of my body.

The only thing that I inherited from my parents directly was short sightedness and migraines. The others have been thrown in from generations before them, that were only discovered after I developed them. I can tell you that if it wasn't for Medicare I WOULD be dead. I go to the doctors every 3 weeks (let alone other specialists) sometimes more often.

Yes there are people that are a lot worse of then me, I realise that.
I've seen them, I've nursed them in their final moments. The last thing that you are thinking about when you are nursing someone with a terminal disease in a public hospital is how much of your tax dollars are keeping them as pain free and comfortable as possible.

Now you try going to any health fund with diabetes alone and see how many will cover you. I'll guarantee you that it is impossible to get private health cover because you are nothing but a huge risk to them.

RED_EL_XR8 · 08-08-2005, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The MaDDeSTMaN

What I don't understand is why, if the act hasn't changed since 1973, this has just become an issue now.

And while I can understand peoples feelings towards medicare and taxes, as a person with a chronic illness who needs constant medical supervision and treatment just in order to live, I would be SEVERLY worse off (as in, having to choose between paying the rent and other bills OR seeing a doctor for an essential checkup and to get another script for the insulin I need 4 times a day just to live) if the system was changed to a 'user pays' system.

Given how many people are only employed on a casual basis, and therefore do not have sick pay and therefore are left out of pocket if they can't go to work, not only because of loss of the pay they would normally have received, but also costs incurred by needing to go to the doctors and getting things from the chemist.

A while ago when I was working for Shell (employed as a on-call casual worker), I had to take a few days off because I got very sick, and could not work. As a direct result of that, I not only missed out on over $500 of pay that I would normally have received, but I also had to pay nearly $100 just to see a doctor and get a few things I needed from the chemist, all because I earnt too much per year to be entitled to any concessions. Keep in mind, that was on top of the $100 or so it cost me every couple of months for my insulin, as well as having to pay to see a doctor each time I needed a new script.

No offense to anybody here intended, but unless you have to live with a chronic illness or know someone who does, you may not be able to understand just how expensive simply staying alive could be if we had a 'user pays' system.

I could write more about this, but I feel I have said my point of view...

If you'll check back on my previous comment you will see I was in no way advocating a user pays or goes without system. Health insurance is supposed to cover you from sickness or injury, we maintain a welfare system to support those who cannot afford health.

You ask why an act from 1973 has not been substantially changed? Guess why? Its been one teams crowning glory and it has destroyed health care in this country.

You may feel neglected, so to do those of us who are paying through the nose, paying for a substandard service and for an insurance system that still can still leave us with a massive bill and the associated worry.

The MaDDeSTMaN · 08-08-2005, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

If you'll check back on my previous comment you will see I was in no way advocating a user pays or goes without system. Health insurance is supposed to cover you from sickness or injury, we maintain a welfare system to support those who cannot afford health.

Indeed you did not advocate a user pays system, and I did not intend to imply that you, or anyone else did, and I apologise if it seemed that I did.

Sad fact is that there are some people who can not get Health Insurance, because we are considered 'bad risks' due to the odds of complications arising from the conditions we live with.

I don't have the answers, nor do I claim to. However, the sad fact is that there are many people out there who would be much worse off if medicare was scrapped and there was no other scheme put in place to help in some way.

Getting back to the thread topic, I choose to use my local community health centre when I need to see a doctor (always the same one too) for a blood test, check up, script or referral to a specialist for such things as eye tests. If my local community health centre was no longer able to bulk-bill, I would have no choice but to neglect my health needs as a direct result of being unable to afford the costs involved. That's why I feel so strongly about this, I don't feel that it is right for me to be forced to neglect my health needs like that.