An Intro to the Australian Health Care System

[KSMike]

I'm curious how many advancements in medicine originate in the profit-driven U.S. system vs. the Australian, Canadian, and other systems where profit is considered evil?

The original post is very well written and much appreciated. I can't help but notice how so many of the anti-U.S.-system posts originate or are propagated by people who don't live here.

[blarg]

I'm curious how many advancements in medicine originate in the profit-driven U.S. system vs. the Australian, Canadian, and other systems where profit is considered evil?

Where did you get the impression that "profit is considered evil" in the Australian system? Providers are private and in business for themselves. They make a good profit. That's not evil, nor is it treated as such.

Lots of innovations come from Australia. One you may be familiar with is referred to as a CPAP machine and it treats this condition called sleep apnoea.

Another is Lap Band surgery.... Do a bit of googling and you might be surprised.

[blarg]

I can't help but notice how so many of the anti-U.S.-system posts originate or are propagated by people who don't live here.

I wanted to address this separately. How exactly was my post "anti-U.S.-system"? It wasn't meant to be.

[Aussiegrouch]

I'm curious how many advancements in medicine originate in the profit-driven U.S. system vs. the Australian, Canadian, and other systems where profit is considered evil?

Not wanting to turn this into an Australian versus American war but : Courtesy of this website: http://www.whitehat.com.au/Australia/In ... ionsA.html

Electronic Pacemaker - the heart pacemaker was developed at Sydney's Crown Street Women's Hospital in 1926

In the 1930s Sister Elizabeth Kenny, a bush nurse working in country New South Wales and Queensland, developed a radically new and controversial method of treating children with polio. Her work went on to be internationally acclaimed and is regarded as providing important foundations to the discipline now known as physiotherapy.

In 1948 Dr John Cade, a Melbourne psychiatrist, discovered the use of lithium carbonate (usually just referred to as lithium) in the treatment of bipolar and similar disorders.

Many firsts associated with in vitro fertilisation, including the birth of the first frozen embryo baby at the Queen Victoria Medical Centre in Melbourne1984.

The Bionic Ear- the cochlear implant was invented by a team led by Professor Graeme Clark at The University of Melbourne and in 1978 the first person received the implant at the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.The Bionic Ear has brought hearing to more than 50,000 people in over 80 countries.

Aspro - Aspro was invented by the chemist (see more infGeorge Nicholas as a form of Asprin in a tablet. The product was developed in Melbourne between 1915 and 1917, and George's brother Alfred Nicholas together with Henry Woolf Shmith were key to its manufacturing and marketing success By 1940 it had become the world's most widely used headache treatment.

Begg Orthodontics - During the 1940s and 1950s Percy Begg of Adelaide developed a system of using relatively cheap and lightweight stainless steel braces on teeth to replace the expensive and painful systems which had been earlier used for 'training' and straightening teeth. Begg's technique soon spread throughout the world.

Australian surgeon Professor Earl Owen not only designed (in association with optical company Zeiss) the initial suite of instruments used for microsurgery, he has also pioneered numbers of the microsurgical techniques. He is regarded as probably the most important pioneer of microsurgery.

Relenza - The world's first anti-flu drug was developed at several institutions in Victoria and released onto the market in 1996.

Spray-on-skin for burns victims developed by Dr Fiona Wood and used to great effect after the 2002 Bali terrorist bombings.

Discovery of the Helicobacter pylori bacterium which causes stomach ulcers and gastritis leading to its successful treatment. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren made this discovery in 1982 and received the Nobel Prize in 2005 for their work.

The world's first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer with the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives was developed by Professor Ian Frazer and others at the University of Queensland during the 1990s and eventually approved for use in USA in 2006. The vaccine does not act against cancer but against the virus that causes cervical cancer. It was released onto the market in 2006 under the name Gardacil.

Cheers
Graham

[nobody]

I don't think it's profits that drives technological advancement. It's investment in research and development. Yes, money for investment can come from profits, but there are other funding structures that can be used, such as public money from tax. Currently in the USA's system there is a large amount of profits being given to corporate owners (shareholders) and corporate officers. That is money that is no longer available for research and development, and it's a lot of money.

There is nothing wrong with paying people well, especially people who have a lot of education and responsibility, but, seriously, anybody could live a very comfortable life on a fraction of what these people are paid. Also, when you have profit as your main motive for even being in the health care business there is little incentive for the types of advancement that actually improve our health and wellbeing. It is more profitable to make "me too" drugs rather than something truly new and improved, just as one example.

I think this is one area that should be a public good funded by public money, especially if we are to have a national system that covers everyone.

I'm curious how many advancements in medicine originate in the profit-driven U.S. system vs. the Australian, Canadian, and other systems where profit is considered evil?

The original post is very well written and much appreciated. I can't help but notice how so many of the anti-U.S.-system posts originate or are propagated by people who don't live here.

[mars]

Hi Blarg

That was a great post

Two things I want to mention -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

She has visited Great Britian on several occasions and likes the country very much. But when talking about their health care system, she said it stank as when you reach a certain age, if I remember it was 55, if you have a catastrophic illness, etc. you are pretty much out of luck as they see you as "being end of life." She stated they would keep you comfortable, etc. but for example if you had a diagnosis of cancer, little treatment would be done so that younger members of society could benefit.

[/end quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi All

Well, my Mother is 90 years old, and lives in England, and she gets everything she needs healthwise, at no cost, regardless of her age. I speak to her about 3 times a week, and for the last few years she has had to be constantly going to the Doctor and different hospitals for treatment. She would be amazed to read the above quote. It simply is not true.

My father-in-law gets very expensive treatment for his leukemia (arrested), and he is (I think) about 80 years old. All free.

What is true is that some hospitals within the National Health Service are second rate, and patient care has been allowed to deteriorate. This is a management issue which hopefully is now being addressed, but I will not be holding my breath.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blarg wrote
Also, dental cover is a big hole in the system here that is widely acknowledged. I just purchase private cover, and my dental cover is fine, but if you were poor, this wouldn't be an option.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I cannot be sure what happens in New South Wales, but in Victoria - if you are poor - or in other words on a pension or medical benefits - then all dental treatment would be nearly free. $23 per dental session, with a maximum cost of $92.
This means unlimited treatment, after a waiting period. However, the waiting period is not that important because emergency treatment is available just about straight away- again for $23. Basic dentures are free with a voucher, and very specialised services have some minimal extra costs. And the Dentists are terrific.

I checked today, and was told that most of the funding for this service is paid by the state. So this is the hole that Blarg talks about. It is a Federal hole, but there is no hole in Victoria, and I would think that the other states are also doing something about this.

I now get better dental treatment than when I paid my ex-Dentist a minor fortune over many years for fixing my teeth, which were constantly awash with acid reflux, which he didn't bother to mention, and I did not know about.

Anyhow, that was a great explanation of the Australian Health system. But it is important to remember that it is a partnership between the Federal Government and the different State Governments. They are always arguing about who should pay for what and how much. Obviously not perfect, but better than most.

Even cpap machines will be loaned to you indefinitely (by Monash Sleep Centre) if you cannot afford to buy one yourself.

cheers

Mars

[KSMike]

I don't think it's profits that drives technological advancement. It's investment in research and development. Yes, money for investment can come from profits, but there are other funding structures that can be used, such as public money from tax.

What percentage of one's pay do you think is a fair maximum for the combined taxes we must pay? Health care if only one demand for more taxes; there are a thousand other people all sticking their hands deeper and deeper into my wallet. Where do you draw the line?

As to Australian medical inventions - I didn't claim, and certainly don't believe, that great things haven't come from Australia; I'm sure the examples cited are only the tip of the iceberg. My question was, how many advancements have come from a profit-driven system as compared to one that is less so.

I wanted to address this separately. How exactly was my post "anti-U.S.-system"? It wasn't meant to be.

And as I began to read your post it sounded pretty unbiased. However, as I continued to read, it sounded more and more like there was an axe to grind with the U.S. system. If my impression was wrong, I apologize.

Let me say this. I'll come right out and claim proudly that I'm about as conservative politically and fiscally as anyone you're likely to find. But neither myself nor anyone I know claims that the U.S. system doesn't need to be overhauled. Those who criticize those of us who are anti-Obamacare, nearly always accuse us of wanting the system to stay unchanged (usually accusing us of defending the insurance companies). This is patently incorrect. I believe the insurance companies are the lowest form of life. The system MUST be overhauled. But - this is not a job for the government, or at least the U.S. government. It must be done privately in some form. And again I ask, where do we draw the line on taxes?

[nobody]

What percentage of one's pay do you think is a fair maximum for the combined taxes we must pay? Health care if only one demand for more taxes; there are a thousand other people all sticking their hands deeper and deeper into my wallet. Where do you draw the line?

I think you might have misunderstood my post. I have not suggested simply raising taxes to fund health care for people. The money already exists in the current system, but because of the structure it is being used on obscene incomes, advertising, lobbying etc rather than on things that improve our overall health and wellbeing. Effectively it is like a tax that yields little to no benefit for the majority of people in our society.

[DreamDiver]

I'm curious how many advancements in medicine originate in the profit-driven U.S. system vs. the Australian, Canadian, and other systems where profit is considered evil?

The original post is very well written and much appreciated. I can't help but notice how so many of the anti-U.S.-system posts originate or are propagated by people who don't live here.

I live in America, and much as I love my country, the health care system is a sewer of corporate incest masked as capitalism. We do not have the vaunted capitalist system many would like to pretend we have. There are too few companies offering too few options benefiting only a few at the top with regards to profit. I'd call that a profit-run oligarchy - not free-trade capitalism. When the money runs dry, the guys at the top build themselves a golden parachute - take the money and run. Look at the banks - they took money from our American citizens designated to help get citizens out of a messed up economy and used it to buy out smaller banks - same old stuff. Then they came to congress begging for more. We live in a corporate debtor nation - not a capitalist nation. This capitalism pretense is entirely and utterly bogus.

Blarg - great post.

[KSMike]

What is an obscene income? Who determines what is obscene and what is "fair?" A government czar? You or I?

They're rhetorical questions; I can agree to disagree. This topic is like any other that is highly-charged and mostly politically motivated. Neither side is ever going to convince the other.

[nobody]

Who determines what is obscene and what is "fair?"

Per capita GDP, for one.

[DreamDiver]

What is an obscene income? Who determines what is obscene and what is "fair?" A government czar? You or I?

They're rhetorical questions; I can agree to disagree. This topic is like any other that is highly-charged and mostly politically motivated. Neither side is ever going to convince the other.

I think people do. They did in France when they killed all the aristocrats. They won, and they wrote the history. Not that you can chop the head off a corporation, but I feel a distant concern for those who run today's billion-dollar corporations. What will it take for that kind of revolution? If television and radio all suddenly went off, I suspect people would wake up from their media-induced soma pretty darned angry with the current state of America. I don't want to be a corporate aristocrat that day.

[PST]

I'm curious how many advancements in medicine originate in the profit-driven U.S. system vs. the Australian, Canadian, and other systems where profit is considered evil?

Not that I'm against profits, but I'm curious how many advancements in medicine anywhere originate in profit-driven heathcare providers. The overwhelming majority of top hospitals and medical schools where new discoveries are made are not-for-profit institutions. Take at look at the U.S. News Honor Roll of The U.S.'s best hospitals. You see places like Johns Hopkins Hospital (No. 1, a private university hospital), the Mayo Clinic (No. 2, a not-for-profit organization), Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center (No. 3, a state university hospital), and so on all the way down the list. There is not a for-profit to be found. And think about it, when you pick up a newspaper you often see something like, "Doctors at the Cleveland Clinic announced today ..." or "Doctors at Duke University Medical Center announced today ...," never "Doctors at Hospital Corporation of America announced today ...." The cutting edge of medical research is found at not-for-profit institutions.

Not that this matters much. The whole healthcare debate in the U.S. and most other places is solely about finance, not providers. And I'm sure we'll never see "Doctors at Aetna announced today ...." I will grant that pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment manufacturers are for-profit corporations, and they contribute to new discoveries, but they are for-profit corporations in all of these countries.

The original post is very well written and much appreciated. I can't help but notice how so many of the anti-U.S.-system posts originate or are propagated by people who don't live here.

Is that a surprise? This is a new thread, but it has its roots in a thread called "Problems in Canada with Socialized Medicine?" that cited alleged problems in Canada's system. There have been many other posts in recent weeks criticizing the healthcare systems of other countries in order to argue that the U.S. shouldn't adopt anything similar. The many Canadians in this group didn't just up and start trashing U.S. healthcare one day. They defended their system against accusations they felt were unfounded, and then responded by mentioning some flaws in ours. That's human nature, tempered with Canadian modesty and courtesy.

[JeffH]

The main thing I noticed about KSMike's post was like every republican I've ever seen, he offered no solutions, just attacked what the dems are trying to do.

BTW, Mike, Bob Dole, from your state, came out today in favor of healthcare reform.

Why ANYBODY would defend the crap system we have in this country is beyond me.

And you can NOT bring up the cost without taking a good hard look at the deficit run up under Bush and the republican controlled congress of the last several years. Heathcare reform will be a bargain compared to the shit sandwich the right left for the youth of this country.

[KSMike]

Yes, I heard about Dole's endorsement. I'm not sure why that's relevant however.

Per capita GDP... I'm missing something. How does that define an obscene income? For those who demonize people who produce, create, and employ, do you give athletes who make tens of millions of dollars a pass because they can run fast? Or is it just those nasty bankers and business people you hate?

I did not defend the current system. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I accused the insurance companies of being the lowest form of life. And I said the current system must be overhauled. As to Republicans not offering a solution, the exact same thing can be said about the Democrats. And as to deficits, I've railed against every bailout and handout that has been done in the last year, including Bush's - but surely you aren't suggesting that deficit growth stopped at the end of the Bush administration.

So I'll ask the question again: what total, combined percentage of your gross pay are you willing to give up for all this utopia? Finally, do you really, seriously think health care run by the U.S. government would be good health care? (And please, don't invoke Medicare when answering that - do you think Medicare would be as good as it is if the entire U.S. population was dumped into it?)