On Oct 11, 10:32*am, Trevor Wilson
wrote:
On 10/11/2011 11:15 AM, kreed wrote:





Trevor is largely correct in what he says, after Medicare rebate you
would only pay about $20 for such a visit, and I am also fortunate to
have a doctor that is of similar good standard to what he describes.
Unfortunately plenty are not that good. *Google "Jayant Patel" for an
extremely bad example, and note also how the state government covered
up for him for years and referred to as "racist" anyone who tried to
report his lethal incompetence which he has been convicted for now in
court.

What Trevor doesnt say is that in Australia, there are not enough
doctors outside capital and major cities, and where there is one, he/
she is not likely to be taking any more new patients as they are full
already.

Also a significant number of doctors - both in public health and
private practice are not Australian, but from India, so I guess we
have India's medical schools to thank for these skills. *While I
personally have had no bad results from Indian doctors in public
health, I do feel we should be doing more to develop the talent of our
own young people in this and other areas.

**Make no mistake: The Australian health system is a very, VERY long way
from perfect. It is, IMO, a disgrace. However, compared to the system in
the US, it is superb. In the US, HMOs gouge their subscribers to an
obscene level. They regularly fail to allow subscribers access to the
best drugs available. Many tens of millions of Us citizens have no
effective access to decent health care, simply because they can't afford
insurance (which is many times more expensive that private medical
insurance in Australia). I don't recall the precise figures, but
something like 60% of all personal bankruptcies are because people
sacrifice everything for expensive drugs and medical services. In
Australia, personal bankruptcies due to medical bills are virtually
unheard of. In fact, such things are virutally unheard of anywhere in
the world, except in the US. HMOs, doctors, hospitals and drug companies
in the US are well aware that people will pay almost anything to
maintain their health. They gouge, gouge and gouge. At the present rate
of gouging, the costs of health care sits at 16% of US GDP. Australia
sits at 8.7%. And, here's the really insane stuff:

* An Australian's life expectancy is 81.4 years.
* An American's life expectancy is 78.1 years.
* The total percentage of government revenue spent on health in
Australia is 17.7%
* The total percentage of government revenue spent on health in the US
is 18.5%.


The stuff you say about the US health system seems mostly correct from
what I have heard over the
years from US colleages and friends.

Also forgot to mention that Australia has the PBS that limits the cost
of
most prescription medicines to affordable levels. (by the government
bulk buying drugs and medicines and getting a better deal IIRC)



This all despite a largely socialised medical system in Australia. The
very same system that the US rejects at every opportunity.

Weird.





"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories
claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were
able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with
the petition---one was an active climate researcher, two others had
relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation.
Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember
any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated
messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core
of about 200 climate researchers---a respectable number, though rather a
small fraction of the climatological community."

I would be very careful quoting from any corporate owned media on
this. *They are not unbiased, and due to this fact, any content they
have should be treated in the same way as "paid advertising" is..

**Cite the source of bias from Scientific American.



Logic.


If any publication is owned by some entity, it will over time tend to
reflect the interests of that entity or its owners.
I would be confident in saying that in the US, just about every major
publication would be owned by a mega-corporation that would have
financial interests it would want protected.


Of course there are spins - like "labor" and "liberal" biased
publications that package propaganda in such a way to make it resonate
with their particular audience.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au