So Aussies, how is socialized medicine working out for you?

[Vasquez]

All we get in the States is commentary/advertising from "Canadians" and Brits totally trashing the whole idea. As long as we keep the insurance companies solvent , right? The fear mongering being thrown around on talk radio is intense. If we get it, it's gonna be watered down to please everybody but the voting public.

So how's it working out down under mates?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Moved to the academy.

[Vasquez]

My bad. Thanks.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

All we get in the States is commentary/advertising from "Canadians" and Brits totally trashing the whole idea. As long as we keep the insurance companies solvent , right? The fear mongering being thrown around on talk radio is intense. If we get it, it's gonna be watered down to please everybody but the voting public.

So how's it working out down under mates?

It works just fine. Those who don't have private health insurance can make use of the publicly-funded (not "socialized" ) Medicare system. Medicare is paid for by a 1.5% income tax levy on everyone except lower income earners. People earning over $75,000 a year also pay an additonal 1% levy as a way of encouraging those who can afford it to use private insurance instead.

So the private insurance companies are still doing nicely, because those who can afford it prefer the shorter elective waiting times and other benefits of the private system. But those who can't afford private insurance have the public Medicare system. And those who really can't afford it - those in the lowest income brackets - get that for nothing.

We're looking at all this bizarre hysteria in the US about publicly-funded healthcare as "socialism" etc and wondering what the hell is wrong with you people. What Obama is talking about is the norm for just about all normal, civilised, first world nations. Yet again, the US is being held back by its conservative lunatic fringe.

[chilon]

It works just fine. Those who don't have private health insurance can make use of the publicly-funded (not "socialized" ) Medicare system. Medicare is paid for by a 1.5% income tax levy on everyone except lower income earners. People earning over $75,000 a year also pay an additonal 1% levy as a way of encouraging those who can afford it to use private insurance instead.

So the private insurance companies are still doing nicely, because those who can afford it prefer the shorter elective waiting times and other benefits of the private system. But those who can't afford private insurance have the public Medicare system. And those who really can't afford it - those in the lowest income brackets - get that for nothing.

We're looking at all this bizarre hysteria in the US about publicly-funded healthcare as "socialism" etc and wondering what the hell is wrong with you people. What Obama is talking about is the norm for just about all normal, civilised, first world nations. Yet again, the US is being held back by its conservative lunatic fringe.

Yes. This post is spot on.

I have heard much good about Australia's health care system from Aussies I know and this post is basically exactly what they say.

The problem is how utterly determined that lunatic fringe you mention is in spreading paranoia by talk radio and TV buzzwords. It is not hard to play upon irrational fears in the USA since there is still the strong aversion to anything "socialist" leftover from decades of Cold War media. It seems like some people think that a government doing anything other than providing military and courts for corporate contract enforcement is "socialist".

Sadly the result is that many people in the USA just parrot the lines of their favorite pundit and never even think about what they are saying which makes true solutions unlikely

My main question though is whether you in Australia can always choose your own doctors or is either private insurance or publicly funded insurance based on the HMO model where you can only visit a specialist on their approved list?

[Каие]

It works just fine. Those who don't have private health insurance can make use of the publicly-funded (not "socialized" ) Medicare system. Medicare is paid for by a 1.5% income tax levy on everyone except lower income earners. People earning over $75,000 a year also pay an additonal 1% levy as a way of encouraging those who can afford it to use private insurance instead.

So the private insurance companies are still doing nicely, because those who can afford it prefer the shorter elective waiting times and other benefits of the private system. But those who can't afford private insurance have the public Medicare system. And those who really can't afford it - those in the lowest income brackets - get that for nothing.

We're looking at all this bizarre hysteria in the US about publicly-funded healthcare as "socialism" etc and wondering what the hell is wrong with you people. What Obama is talking about is the norm for just about all normal, civilised, first world nations. Yet again, the US is being held back by its conservative lunatic fringe.

Some of the most sense I've seen in a while on this topic beyond the usual SOCIALISM VS THE WORD'S BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM (US). Good job.

[Oldgamer]

Yet again, the US is being held back by its conservative lunatic fringe.

Thank you! Your statement makes me proud!

[Vasquez]

What about waiting 6-9 months or more for a hip replacement? For some reason that's a benchmark argument in the States, the numbers come out of Canada I think. Do you let old people rot on waiting lists hoping they will die (of non related causes) before having to provide medical care? Are your hospitals filled with old people because they can't be placed in nursing homes that have the ability manage decent medical care? What about non lifesaving surgery, are you screwed or do you go straight in?

Sorry not my words, you can't imagine what we are hearing.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

What about waiting 6-9 months or more for a hip replacement? For some reason that's a benchmark argument in the States, the numbers come out of Canada I think. Do you let old people rot on waiting lists hoping they will die (of non related causes) before having to provide medical care? Are your hospitals filled with old people because they can't be placed in nursing homes that have the ability manage decent medical care? What about non lifesaving surgery, are you screwed or do you go straight in?

Sorry not my words, you can't imagine what we are hearing.

If anyone thinks publicly-funded healthcare means a health utopia where everyone who wants surgery etc gets in straight away is living in fantasyland. Are there waiting times, especially for elective surgery, in the public system? Of course there are - the kind of public funding required to avoid that completely would be crippling. But what are the opponents of public healthcare offering as an alternative? If I had a choice between being a low-income earner who had to wait for non-critical surgery and being one who couldn't get the surgery at all because I couldn't afford the procedure or the required private insurance, I know which I'd choose.

Pointing to waiting times in public healthcare as a reason not to publicly fund healthcare at all is simply bizarre.

As for "6-9 months", the average waiting time varies from state to state, from 26 days in Queensland according to 2005-2006 stats, to 70 days in the Australian Capital Territory. For free healthcare, that's not much to ask. And that's for non-life threatening conditions. Have a heart attack and you go straight in, no question.

Does that sound better or worse than your current situation?

My main question though is whether you in Australia can always choose your own doctors or is either private insurance or publicly funded insurance based on the HMO model where you can only visit a specialist on their approved list?

You're talking to a pretty healthy guy (who has private insurance), so I'm a bit hazy on the details of what happens with people in the public system. My understanding is that you can choose your own doctors for general practice healthcare, though you get what the local hospital provides if you go in as a public patient. Since the standards of all Australian doctors are stringently high, it doesn't make much difference. I haven't been to a specialist for years, but I know my private health fund has dentists who they approve. Mine is excellent.

Our healthcare isn't perfect and the main problem is the clumsy way its funded by the Federal Government but administered by the states. The current Federal Government is trying to reduce the bureaucracy and wastage that anachronism causes, but that's an uphill battle. But when we look at the bizarre, antiquated and inequitable system you guys labour under in the US, it's a mystery to us as to why there is any debate at all. This is a no-brainer.

[Outlaw]

If anyone thinks publicly-funded healthcare means a health utopia where everyone who wants surgery etc gets in straight away is living in fantasyland. Are there waiting times, especially for elective surgery, in the public system? Of course there are - the kind of public funding required to avoid that completely would be crippling. But what are the opponents of public healthcare offering as an alternative? If I had a choice between being a low-income earner who had to wait for non-critical surgery and being one who couldn't get the surgery at all because I couldn't afford the procedure or the required private insurance, I know which I'd choose.

Pointing to waiting times in public healthcare as a reason not to publicly fund healthcare at all is simply bizarre.

As for "6-9 months", the average waiting time varies from state to state, from 26 days in Queensland according to 2005-2006 stats, to 70 days in the Australian Capital Territory. For free healthcare, that's not much to ask. And that's for non-life threatening conditions. Have a heart attack and you go straight in, no question.


Our healthcare isn't perfect and the main problem is the clumsy way its funded by the Federal Government but administered by the states. The current Federal Government is trying to reduce the bureaucracy and wastage that anachronism causes, but that's an uphill battle. But when we look at the bizarre, antiquated and inequitable system you guys labour under in the US, it's a mystery to us as to why there is any debate at all. This is a no-brainer.

Excellent response and spot on, could not have said it any better.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

But what are the opponents of public healthcare offering as an alternative?.

There have been some very good proposals that are much better than a socialized system. But the liberal dems won't have it so we are stuck with this piece of crap legislation coming out of Washington.

[Wilder]

There have been some very good proposals that are much better than a socialized system. But the liberal dems won't have it so we are stuck with this piece of crap legislation coming out of Washington.

Like what?

Come on, you can't expect to make a claim like that and just leave it. It would be great if there are, but..

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Like what?

Come on, you can't expect to make a claim like that and just leave it. It would be great if there are, but..

There are so many better ideas that I can't name them all right now. But for starters, giving people tax credits for insurance, allowing people to purchase hs across state lines (more competition = lower rates), making it harder for doctors to get sued over stupid charges (which would lower cost a lot), and generally making the system more efficient (like they are already trying to do) would greatly improve matters and keep our private system intact. Don't act like the government solution is the only answer, as there are much better solutions that are much more efficient.

[chilon]

You're talking to a pretty healthy guy (who has private insurance), so I'm a bit hazy on the details of what happens with people in the public system. My understanding is that you can choose your own doctors for general practice healthcare, though you get what the local hospital provides if you go in as a public patient. Since the standards of all Australian doctors are stringently high, it doesn't make much difference. I haven't been to a specialist for years, but I know my private health fund has dentists who they approve. Mine is excellent.

Our healthcare isn't perfect and the main problem is the clumsy way its funded by the Federal Government but administered by the states. The current Federal Government is trying to reduce the bureaucracy and wastage that anachronism causes, but that's an uphill battle. But when we look at the bizarre, antiquated and inequitable system you guys labour under in the US, it's a mystery to us as to why there is any debate at all. This is a no-brainer.

It is a no brainer to anyone who puts long term societal strength above short term individualistic concerns.

Unfortunately the USA appears to be going through a phase of identity crisis. The classic USA philosophy of pragmatism as embodied by thinkers such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, Charles Pierce and John Dewey is not the dominant political persuasion. The pragmatic approach to government has been replaced with the abstract belief that only the private sector can effectively overcome society's obstacles to optimal health care.

When politicians can successfully install a belief system that is based on idealism and not empirical evidence it becomes very troublesome to install a system that actually produces the best results. Too many political cheerleaders want their ideas to "win" in a political public opinion debate1 rather than producing the optimal results for a society. It is not hard to draw connections between a commitment to short term individual self-interest and the USA's health care system.

I can't see any that would prevent you from catching up with the rest of the first world in this respect. What "problems" do you have in mind?

Part of this problem is that some states in the USA have more obstacles than just about any other nation in the world. While California has received quite a bit of criticism from US states and even President Obama recently on a wide variety of issues, California still has more unique challenges to overcome than just about any other US state or nation in the world.

California has a wider diversity of native languages spoken than any other state or nation in the world. This presents unique challenges to education that literally have no precedent in any nation at any point in human history. One of the biggest problems for health care is that what works in Sweden, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan or Australia will not necessarily work in California due to many combining factors. Conversely, solutions based on abstract idealistic principles (which the USA 'right wing' media is quite fond of) will not work in California either.



As far as health care is concerned, the USA is hampered by societal divisions. The USA is far, far more heterogenous than nations such as Sweden, Japan and Australia and this does present some unique challenges to government policy that are simply not present in nations such as Sweden, Japan and Australia.

[Angrychris]

ALot of time and money was put into making the American healthcare system the way it currently is and the people with a say, power, and investments in private healthcare dont want it to change.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

ALot of time and money was put into making the American healthcare system the way it currently is and the people with a say, power, and investments in private healthcare dont want it to change.

Like much of america, those who favour the current system will pay to make sure it stays that way, the M-I complex's pushing of ever more expensive 'cold war' style wepons and vichicles dispite there being no arms race is perhaps the best example of this. Public healthcare works, its not as quick as privatized healthcare, because they cut out the poorest parts of society, who often need the most medical aid.

[bushbush]

american rich conservatives are the smartest people in the world. They invent all these "get government off my back" crap and make all the poor people actually DEFEND a system that benefits rich mainly at the expense of lower income.

in this world, there are stupid people and there are stupid low-income conservative americans.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

american rich conservatives are the smartest people in the world. They invent all these "get government off my back" crap and make all the poor people actually DEFEND a system that benefits rich mainly at the expense of lower income.

in this world, there are stupid people and there are stupid low-income conservative americans.

They've got better propaganda than the entire eastern bloc had in the cold war.

[Shi Huangdi]

american rich conservatives are the smartest people in the world. They invent all these "get government off my back" crap and make all the poor people actually DEFEND a system that benefits rich mainly at the expense of lower income.

in this world, there are stupid people and there are stupid low-income conservative americans.

Haven't you noticed that many of the rich are on the Left? Warren Buffet voted for Obama. 99.9% of music stars, actors, and actresses are filthy rich liberals. Obama had all the money in the 2008 campaign, not McCain.

Speaking of Australia, though, an Australian called in to the Rush Limbaugh show today to criticize Australian medicine. Just thought I'd mention it.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Haven't you noticed that many of the rich are on the Left? Warren Buffet voted for Obama. 99.9% of music stars, actors, and actresses are filthy rich liberals. Obama had all the money in the 2008 campaign, not McCain.

Speaking of Australia, though, an Australian called in to the Rush Limbaugh show today to criticize Australian medicine. Just thought I'd mention it.

Yep, I find it funny that people think the right wing is full of rich people. Most Republicans (and other right-wing independents) are middle class, not rich. Most rich people are democrats, actually.