Celebrating Positives (offset of the Gripes Thread)

[Marty_d]

Fully taxpayer funded health and education would be the sign of a civilized country.

[red750]

3 hours ago, nomadpete said:

I believe we should get rid of health insurance companies

Hold that  thought. I am having a disagreement with my fund at the moment. I will withhold comment until it is resolved.

[facthunter]

You don't REALLY want the Government doing everything. It would be too Cumbersome and people tend to build empires/careers out of a Roundabout. Keep Corruption OUT of things. Shine Lights in dark places. Keep Em Honest. Follow the Money Trail.  Nev

[Marty_d]

Not everything but health and education are more expensive under private systems.

As always, insurance companies need to make a profit for their shareholders so it stands to reason that they will overcharge and under deliver whenever they can get away with it.

Our family health cover is around $450/month and we're with one of the better ones. I would much rather pay that in extra taxes and have the public health system improved than give it to overseas investors.

The USA is a perfect example of the worst way to do health care. 

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Keep Em Honest. Follow the Money Trail.  Nev

Where's a Don Chipp when we need one?

[old man emu]

18 hours ago, nomadpete said:

I believe we should get rid of health insurance companies and make all medical care into a universal government funded health care programme.

Insurance is a system whereby the high value of a risk is covered through small contributions made by very many people. It's a sort of 'manmy hands make light work'. If the insurer is the government, as is the case with Medicare, at least each person contributing a small amount knows that a chunk of that small amount is not being stripped off and handed to investors, as it is with insurance companies. Of course, not 100% of contributions to a government scheme is used to pay medical expenses. There has to be an allowance for administration costs. But that is better than a system which adds investor returns to outlays and administration costs.

[facthunter]

It has to be kept efficient. Don't want Hey SLOW down Mate. You're showing US UP. Nev

[Marty_d]

Had a great ride today, over to Richmond, through to Sorell, then up the Tasman Highway to Orford on the East Coast.

Interesting names along that road. I went over the Bust-me-gall and Break-me-neck passes, fortunately doing neither, then up Black Charlie's Opening without even buying him dinner first.

On the way back I came via Midway Point and while passing the end of the runway at Hobart Airport, saw a C-17 parked on the tarmac so rode in for a closer look.

Very enjoyable!

 

Edited Saturday at 09:11 AM by Marty_d

[Jerry_Atrick]

Maybe a new thread? The NHS here is free at point of use. Goin to a GP costs nothing at the time. When I first came to the UK in 1996/97, I was amazed at how good it was and considering the public/private system in Australia, one was waiting longer at Aussie public hospitals, etc. But the NHS as a service has deterioriated sigfnificantly since then.. there were waits in A&E/Casualty/ER literally for days - I think 99 hours was reported at one stage! 

 

It wasn't the "Slow down, mate" attitude. The front line staff are generally (admittedly not always) conscientious and while they aren't running at break-neck speeds for 12 and beyind hours, they put in a decent amount of work. In addition, They are always on call, etc. One of the good things under TTony Blair was it was well fundedm a politics was as removed from the service as possible. You could get a GP appointment almost anyhere in the country same day, Even if you were privately insured (not very common at the time), you would go public for anything not elective. Private insurance was (and still is) very expensive.

 

The problem is when the converatives came in, they played political football with it. Reform after reform, introducing more and more layers of management and administration, splitting them into trusts with an eye to prrivatising the system took more and more of the budget away from front line services and more and more in to management and admin. In addition, hell bent on ideology, they privatised services - some critical, which meant more of the budget to investors and more admin and even less of the budget to actual front line services., Of course, in private enterprise you tend to "innovate", which means in these sorts of situations, finding ways to extract more profit from a flat revenue.. and that rately results from captial investment. 

 

Of course, having a private/publoc model like Australia doesn't mean any of the above won't happen, either. The Howard reforms seems to have worked more for the insurance companies than the patient. I can recall before I left Australia, medical insruance was paid to Medibank Private, HBA, or a handful of others.. But the cover was almost limitless for what compared to today seems to be a very small premium. I have been researching medical insurance and it is now very expensive (of course, I was O/S when he introduced the changes, so I will have to pay the full loading when I return), and there are caps that mean once you really need the insurance you are pretty well SOL (ship outa luck). I am not against the loading per se, as it represents increased risk with age without previous contributions, but on my return to Aus, I may perpetually travel around (grey nomad???/) and use travel insurance   - a lot cheaper.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

59 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Had a great ride today, over to Richmond, through to Sorell, then up the Tasman Highway to Orford on the East Coast.

Interesting names along that road. I went over the Bust-me-gall and Break-me-neck passes, fortunately doing neither, then up Black Charlie's Opening without even buying him dinner first.

On the way back I came via Midway Point and while passing the end of the runway at Hobart Airport, saw a C-17 parked on the tarmac so rode in for a closer look.

Very enjoyable!

 

Looks like a lovely day for it!

 

Sorry about my poost afterwards. For some reason your post didn't come up, nor was there a notification of replies to the thread.

 

 

[red750]

In a post last Saturday, I `said I was having a problem with my health insurance fund.

 

For background, I also mentioned in the Random Thoughts thread on 22 Oct, that I had ordered two new pair if glasses because the fund was offering a 100% refund, no out of pocket expenses. I took a copy of the email to Specsavers when I went for the test.

 

Firstly, when I went to pick up the glasses, they had made two pairs of long distance lenses, not one with reading lenses. So I had to wait another two weeks for them.

 

The claim went to the fund, and I was knocked back $200 for "cosmetic coating. The item number on the bill was not a Medicare approved number, so they refused to cover it.

 

Forward to today. I had an appointment for fitting the reading glasses. I spoke to the store manager and complained that I was out of pocket $200 because of the item number, when I thought the price advertised, $299 per pair, was all-inclusive. I was not told there would be extra for the coatings. I also said I did not ask for special coatings.

 

The store manager said the coatings were applied to allow them to use thinner, lighter lenses so they wouldn't be heavy on my nose. I said that if I had been told that at the time of ordering, I would have passed, because I couldn't spare the $200. I was doing OK with my $25 chemist reading glasses. Of course, she went into how the reading glasses have equal prescriptions both sides, but your eyes are different so need individual prescriptions.

 

However, she offered to refund me the $200, but would have to take back the coated lenses and replace them with the thicker standard lenses. What a stuff-up. Now they are stuck with four lenses to my prescription and I have to wait another 2 - 3 weeks for the new glasses. At  least the $200 is being refunded to my credit card.

 

I felt like going to Fair Trading about it. Poor promotion, poor communication between Specsavers  an. CBHS health fund, and insufficient explaining when I ordered.

 

I need that $200 because I have to buy a new phone. I have an old iPhone 6 which has done me perfectly well till now. But due to changes in the telecom networks coming into effect on December 1, old phones like the iPhone 6 and 7 will no longer be able to make emergency 000 calls, a bit like when they removed 3G services. About the cheapest you can get is around $350. (Samsung Galaxy A17 5G)

[Marty_d]

You can get cheaper phones than that Peter.

My daughter just got her first one - under $200.

Probably not a recognized brand - HCM or something - but standard android and not much different to Samsung.

[red750]

I'm a Woolies Everyday Rewards member. They have a Black Friday special of a Samsung Galaxy A17 at $100 off - $249, plus 1000 reward points. I think I'll go with that. Never used an Android before.

[onetrack]

Static Ice advises JB Hi Fi are also selling that phone at $249. They also list Officeworks selling it at $247.

 

https://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=Galaxy+A17&spos=3