M41
$14 for an STI check - good policy?
May 14 2014
Comments
-
RHP User
11 years ago
that the individual cost for some would possibly be more as the $7 can be charged for GP consultations, and then again for the pathology tests. But then I don't have to make another appointment to get the results, my GP only gets you back if you test positive for something.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I would just try to get more done in less visits. It would not stop me from taking care of myself the way I always have but it may be a deterrent for others. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
11 years ago
If I start ranting here I'll never stop. I'm pretty sure, Neptune, that you would have a fair idea what my opinion of the co-payment - and indeed of the whole budget - is. I scared my dog last night with my ranting.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
to be tested regardless of cost. My sexual health is important. I know I will continue to be tested. Those that do not deem it as important will continue to ignore it and perhaps use this as an excuse. And as Luckydragon23 pointed out GPs will normally only contact you for a follow up if you test positive. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
11 years ago
that it would impact, anyone who would get tested will I think and then those who don't won't. Every 3 months I get a jab in the arse for my birth control so I get tested at the same time, so I do get tested 4 times a year. I also give blood so have to be careful and I am also screened through that but I am not always able to give blood every 3 months.
-
Mischeviouslad
11 years ago
Ok so if you're paying $56 a year for tests....... how much are you spending on your lifestyle that LEADS to the sex you have? I'm guessing $56 becomes VERY small change, and a minor "ailment". Next patient please! DG - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I think in terms of STI rates the copayment probably wouldn't make a big difference, but I think it's certainly plausible that we could see some increase. On the one hand, most of the people who are regularly tested can be assumed to be fairly knowledgeable and proactive when it comes to their health, so they probably won't let the cost deter them. On the other hand, however, there are some people who probably will put off getting a test that they might otherwise have had. To most people with full time employment and / or other income sources the amount of money would seem minimal, but for those who are living on very tight budgets - students, the unemployed, pensioners, the chronically ill - the additional cost may simply not be feasible. Also with free testing it would be easier for a GP to persuade someone who may not be fully cognisant of the risks and transmission of STIs to be checked. There are other health areas where I think we will see substantial negative effects - from individual, social and financial perspectives - as a result of the copayment.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Its always amazing how many people insure their car but not their health. How many people are clogging up the hospital emergency because its freeMy brother and a best mate are doctors and they sometimes work in after hour clinic and people on health care cards turn up there with cold or minor things when all the needed was rest makes me smile when people whine and the smoke, they drink to much they have unhealthy life stylethey can afford mac donnalds and fast foodyet not pay for their own health? the system is crashing, the country has been lucky but just go overseas, and see no welfare and no free ride. the country cannot afford to pay anymore its simple maths as for the unemployed youth don't get me started on that one, as I worked for Centrelink and the job networks and some you could not give them a job, they often come from families where grandparents and parents never worked that being said the migrant visa makes my town a regional area, so we have guys from overseas with a phd pushing shopping trollies to get their permanent residency. All those kind of jobs could go to those that have not had the education or the inclination to study or even the ability to do more skilled jobs. but nahhh mum and dad want there little darlings to start at the top and work their way down. I have a list at home of the amazing excuses that people would give me as to why they walked away from a job, or why they cant take a job. I would breach them and make them go without payment for 13 weeks, but mum and dad would then just support them till they went back on the dole. its a harsh wake up call, its no longer the land of milk and honey and the hand out. you either pay now or pay later, that's the reality of it all. and for std checks, the people that care about themselves will get regular checks the people that don't, will not go anyway. LadyT falling of her soap box and breaking a hip and looking for 7 bucks, shit my doc charges seventy bucks for short visit and 105 for a long visit. No bulk billing bwwwwwwwwa
-
RHP User
11 years ago
As much as I hate it to say it - I don't think it will make a difference. If it was a larger sum of money then maybe. There are people who get tested regularly as an act of responsibility, and those who get tested because a symptom crops up a couple of weeks after a one night stand. The responsible will remain responsible. And the latter are still going to get tested out of fear. Those who just flat out don't get tested (which is a stupid amount of people) - are still not going to get tested. Because think about it - STI's exist for a reason. Sure - some infections might not show symptoms, but that doesn't justify the amount of people that get infected. The underlying reasons for this group of people not seeing a doctor isn't financial. It is fear or sexual education.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' Ok so if you're paying $56 a year for tests....... how much are you spending on your lifestyle that LEADS to the sex you have? I'm guessing $56 becomes VERY small change, and a minor "ailment". Next patient please! DG - Posted from rhpmobile ^^^^^ this too.
-
madotara69
11 years ago
There is a lot of money being focused on medical development and research, I feel that will have far better impact than the difference a cost for testing will make. I personally have a lot of faith in modern medicine and the technology is far better by eradicating these STI problems. Nip them in the bud I say.
-
Paradisepair
11 years ago
It's about the demise of universal health care, which IMO, along with free education is what makes for a truly kind and civilised society... $7 one year, $15 the next and before you know it the kids of junkies and others who need our sympathy and protection are going to suffer hard. Sorry, didn't answer your question....
-
RHP User
11 years ago
A lot of what people are saying has a political base. So I will say two things. One, there are a lot of reports, from outside of Australia, showing how well our economy is going and , relative to other first world countries, paying less to pensioners. Second, this is this government's first budget. In two years, shortly before the next federal election, there will be tax cuts, tax breaks, relaxing on different tariffs, etc. They want a surplus budget before the next election. I may sound cynical but that's the way our modern politicians use our electoral system. As far as the topic goes, people who are responsible will always be responsible and those that aren't, won't. The inbetweeners will do it when they have the money to clear their conscious. Rant over.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Take the $900 Stimulus payment you've been keeping stashed away and divide it by the 'massive' cost of the STI check.....problem solved for many many years. If you've invested wisely you could probably lash out and buy a new Vibe too. Meh I pay way more than $14 for my checks maybe I'm going a bit overboard and I should just leave out a few of the less common ones :) ...........or not
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Spurberry'Because think about it - STI's exist for a reason. Sure - some infections might not show symptoms, but that doesn't justify the amount of people that get infected. The underlying reasons for this group of people not seeing a doctor isn't financial. It is fear or sexual education.And this is where I think where there might be unintended consequences. I tend to agree with everyone that says "those that get tested now will continue to get tested." $7 is not a lot in the grand scheme of things to most of us (though I agree with Paradisepair, $7 this year, $15 next year...), and if you're already motivated enough to do it you're not going to be dissuaded, even if it was $50 a test. It's those that don't currently go, that we're trying to encourage, which I think could be affected negatively. I disagree that "those that don't never will," which many seem to think. I, for instance, didn't have my first STI check until my mid-20s. I certainly knew better, and it wasn't for lack of education or common sense (though you could definitely argue against the latter.) I'd say the reason people don't get checked up is psychological. When you have a psychological aversion to something, any barrier or obstacle to doing something becomes magnified, and we tend to latch on to that and use it as an excuse not to act, no matter how insignificant that barrier might be. We're not rational people at all, and anyone who claims we are is a liar or a fool. GP bills are DESIGNED to act as a disincentive, to make us think twice about whether we really need to go. That could be enough to tip some people over the edge who are already anxious about getting tested. It's certainly not enough of a deterrent for those of us already used to it and convinced of the value of doing so. But it might be the feather that reaches tipping point (is that a mixed metaphor?) It's certainly not an incentive in any way, though I take madotara's point that perhaps more money into medical research might help there (though 1. I can't see the current Government's medical priorities extending to STIs, and 2. prevention IS better than cure.) I should also point out that the notion of 'personal responsibility' means diddly squat when it comes to communicable diseases. No doubt you're familiar with the concept of 'herd immunity' (it's been discussed a lot in reference to the anti-vaccine nutters) where, "in contagious diseases that are transmitted from individual to individual, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted when large numbers of a population are immune or less susceptible to the disease." (Wiki, my emphasis.) What we know about STIs is that the only prerequisite to getting one is to have sex with one new person -anyone can get them from any walk of life, the only truly safe sex is with a monogamous partner after you've both been tested, and people don't always know they've got 'em. Along with condoms, the best way to prevent them (short of abstinence) is for you and your partners to be regularly tested, so you don't end up acting as a vector. One of the important things to do to minimise their spread then is to encourage as many people as possible to get regularly tested by removing as many barriers, disincentives and stigmas as possible. The first two are the exact opposite of the desired effect of the GP fee, and I think that's just one, albeit tiny, unintended consequence of that policy (which I could tear into on a whole bunch of grounds.)
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Out of curiosity, what's the alternative here? To have someone else pay for them? - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Proud to have not voted them InBring On DD
-
Dryphuz
11 years ago
Quoting 'ralf74' I also give blood so have to be careful and I am also screened through that but I am not always able to give blood every 3 months. Do you know if they give you the results if they find something in the screening? Or do they just tell you you should have your doctor do a blood test? Could be a way to get tested for free and bypass the whole $14 problem...
-
RHP User
11 years ago
It will be up to the GP whether they want to charge the $7? So he/she may charge the initial visit and scrap the 2nd visit to get your results. Or maybe if you have a great rapport with them, they don't charge you - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Reading through the documents and some news reports have covered this, doctors can choose not to bill the fee on compassionate grounds. Will be interesting to see further detail on how this is regulated. Highly compassionate or politically motivated doctors may choose to waive fees to all patients as a commercial pressure or for political beliefs. I'm sure we will read a lot more on this thread before it is introduced (if it is passed by parli in the first instance).
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Just quickly, I think $7 isn't overly much (I think $5 would be a little more appropriate), but not here for the political side... Other than to say it WILL have one good effect and that is, it will stop people from going to the Doc at the 'drop of a hat', as many do... That will take pressure off the cost of Medicare (given that the Medicare payment to the Doc is about $52.00 per person per 10 minute consult). My main question or comment is about the "testing for STD's (or STI's as I see some people call them). Whatever, I get tested prior to starting a new relationship with any lady and ask for results from her. (Only new to the Adult Dating thing). I have a big problem with condoms that's "two-barreled". First, they don't protect against some STD's, E.G. Herpes, as they can be on places that make contact even when a condom is on, especially during oral (Oral herpes can be transferred to genitals and vice versa)... Also the many different strains of HPV (Human Papilloma Virus or Genital warts), that are passed on from the thighs, butt, testes etc. The other is the one many men have and that's the "Race to get it on before you miss the boat"... It stems mainly I think, from the subconscious fact that one hates them. Plus the feeling is dulled considerably anyway... Other than those things... They're fine. If I'm not going to be hopping from bed to bed and actually hope to establish something more full-time and maybe even permanent, with the right person... If I have results for all STD's, that are only day couple of days old (fresh from the Doc) and also results from 3 months prior (that means getting tested every 3 months, which many do anyway)... surely that is even more conscientious, safer and fool proof than a 'less than 100% effective' condom? Obviously I would have a satisfactory way to ID myself to show they were MY results. Lady's... thought's please???
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Dryphuz' Quoting 'ralf74' I also give blood so have to be careful and I am also screened through that but I am not always able to give blood every 3 months. Do you know if they give you the results if they find something in the screening? Or do they just tell you you should have your doctor do a blood test? Could be a way to get tested for free and bypass the whole $14 problem... it says... Dear Me, Thank you for allowing us to test a sample of your blood. I am pleased to advise you that the sample you provided did not show evidence of hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV, HTLV or syphilis. and all the tests were negative. You are welcome to continue donating blood and we look forward to seeing you at one of our collection centres soon. Please contact *phone number* to make an appointment to donate. Should you require any further information please call *phone number* during business hours and ask to speak to one of our medical staff. Thank you again for your support of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service. Your sincerely, *signature & name*Clinical Nurse ConsultantMedical Services Department They do not screen regularly as far as I know, I think they do random checks. I have been donating since I was a teen and this is the first time I have received the letter. There are check boxes for sexual activity before donating so may be dependent on what you check there. It certainly is not a way to avoid going to the GP to do it, it is just a nice thing to do :)
-
RHP User
11 years ago
some of the tests are via urine screening, so you need blood and urine samples and in some instances the doctor may wish to do a physical examination.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Orangesound' Reading through the documents and some news reports have covered this, doctors can choose not to bill the fee on compassionate grounds. Will be interesting to see further detail on how this is regulated. Highly compassionate or politically motivated doctors may choose to waive fees to all patients as a commercial pressure or for political beliefs. I'm sure we will read a lot more on this thread before it is introduced (if it is passed by parli in the first instance). I'll add... The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that just the announcement of a new $7 Medicare Sick Tax for GP visits—even before it reaches the Senate or goes into effect—is driving away half of all patients from some health centres. . In general, sorry, no STDs here OP, and I won't be visiting the quack's any more than I have to, as usual. I can think of way better places to spend my time... ah, and money.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Orangesound' Reading through the documents and some news reports have covered this, doctors can choose not to bill the fee on compassionate grounds. I had a long talk about this tonight with a good friend who is a GP. She told me she finds the thought of asking people for money horrifying, and she hates the idea of being a tax collector. One of the main concerns she has is that people with children won't seek help as fast as before. Say for instance a child has an asthma attack. Seven dollars might be the difference between "It's probably not necessary, but let's see the GP just in case" and "We'll wait to see if things get better and reassess tomorrow", with potentially devastating outcomes. Now, I know we're talking about STIs here and not kids, and yes, five dollars out of the seven will go into research, but how much more will end up being spent on treating illnesses that could have been easily cured if detected early enough? The virus that causes genital warts can also cause cervical (and other forms of) cancer. Chlamydia can lead to infertility. So which conditions would cost less money? The HPV virus that takes less than twenty bucks to get rid off, or cancer, where the cost of treatment can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I sympathise with your friend Meander. Drs already roll their eyes over concerned parents in mine and my child's experiences as parents at least. A wait for an appt here can take 3 hours and then the Dr is so stressed, also in our experience, that they crack and end up moving on to greener pastures. . I've been thinking about paperwork and costings and pensioners. How much of the tax will go toward managing the spending of it in government and Dr circles. . There's a 'Royal Perth Hospital Sexual Health Clinic'. Probably one in every state? Is this the solution to our $7 fee for sexual health at least?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Openly1' ... Other than to say it WILL have one good effect and that is, it will stop people from going to the Doc at the 'drop of a hat', as many do... This is the crux of it, this untested and unquestioned claim that "many" visit doctors unnecessarily. Many according to whom? Anecdotal evidence from Tuscan's brother or doctor friend? A hunch? Because the current gub'ment said so? Do a search for "Evidence around GP co-payments and over servicing" - the first two articles (APH Library and ABC Fact Check) give a pretty good review of the current state of the evidence. As well as both suggesting it's far from clear how much of a problem "over servicing" is, the first points out that "consumers often have limited knowledge as to whether a health condition is serious and warrants medical intervention, or is trivial and will resolve itself." - ie. the person that should be determining whether something is serious or not is a doctor, not the person self-diagnosing. It also points out that "public health messages promoted by governments often encourage consumers to visit their doctor even where symptoms may appear mild, for example, in relation to urinary tract infection. Consumers are also encouraged to have regular check-ups as a preventative measure..." - which is where we're at with our STI checks. As it stands, GP visits are at pretty much the same level now as they were a decade ago, with 5.3 visits per capita (as of 2010). Now, I know my grandfather has taken up a few of those, since he needs to go to the doctor's fortnightly, sometimes weekly. Which is another point made - I'll just quote this concluding paragraph in general: "An ageing population, rising levels of chronic disease, new medical technologies and the emergence of targeted medical interventions have all been cited as driving increased service utilisation—as has inappropriate medical practice and doctor shopping. However, the evidence around over servicing driven by consumers remains thin. In addition, current health messages that are configured to encourage consumers to seek medical advice if they are unsure about a health condition would potentially conflict with the imposition of a patient co-payment." So this leads onto the second article, which goes through the evidence that yes, charging a co-payment does reduce visits. They conclude: "While [Shadow Health Minister] is correct that the average person will visit the GP fewer times, there is only evidence to suggest the low income and chronically ill will get sicker." In other words, don't worry, it only really affects poor people. That ain't the kind of society I want to live in. 'User pays' is a terrible, unjust concept when it comes to health. We already pay for healthcare through our taxation system - the burden should not be shifted to some poor soul unfortunate enough to fall ill. I think it's horrible that we're moving towards a system where price-signals force people to second-guess their own health concerns. How is that world class? I think the cost of somebody missing out on a diagnosis far outweighs the impost of an unknown number of people setting off 'false alarms', particularly when all evidence suggests that the burden disproportionately falls on the poor. I agree health spending is a growing problem with an ageing population, but this is not the solution. Read the article "Six dollar co-payment to see a doctor: a GP's view" - it also provides a good overview of the situation, and makes some recommendations on areas where costs could be cut. Or, hey, since retiring boomers are going to be the ones putting the strain on the system, maybe they could share a bit more of the burden? Maybe close down some of those tax loopholes? After all, if the Government gets its way they'll be able to retire at 65-67 (with the PM and Treasurer conveniently coming in at 1-2 years under the cutoff date - not that they need it with their fat parliamentary pensions), while their kids are left to pick up the slack and work until we're 70 (another rant I could go on about.) If we want to keep our world-class health system, we shouldn't be creating barriers to access it because of some neoliberal wet dream about 'user pays'. We should also be discussing how this idea originated with a think tank funded by the private health sector, and questioning whose interests they're looking out for? And hey - you don't want that low-income, 20-something uni student/bartender you're so fond of shagging giving you something nasty because they were dissuaded from getting an STI check, do you? I just hope this flops at the Senate, as it appears it will.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Nah, not good policy.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Unfortunately, there are people (it's a common little reaction in humanity) who, when faced with the possibility of bad news, prefer to "bury their heads in the sand". Basically, if I don't worry about it or do anything about it, it doesn't exist or will go away. If you have one of these people who HAS engaged in unprotected sex, say... with someone in the 'high risk' category (prostitute, junkie etc) or if they, themselves have shared the odd needle or something else risky, they can have a built in mindset that tells them "I'd rather not know" or "If I get tested and it's bad news, I have to deal with it... It becomes real". So, they don't get tested and they decide that so long as they feel OK, they are OK. These are the people that, unfortunately, can be responsible for perpetuating the spread of STD's. I'm sure Meander has come across this mindset (it probably has a psychological term that covers it, besides the "Ostrich Syndrome"). There are also the virus, such as HPV (Wart virus), which is not fatal, but it's incurable and it cause the cell mutations that become cervical cancer (hence the reason for pap smears). Estimates range but suggest that 60 - 70% of the population have the virus, which most caught in their EARLY sexual life (late tens- early 20's) but only a small percentage have any symptoms (i.e. visible warts). There is NO test for males, other than visual inspection by someone trained to recognize them but the majority have no visible symptoms. There is a test now available in recent years for women. It can't be protected against by condoms as the virus infects areas such as the scrotum, butt, inner thighs, labia etc.The only thing you can do is have a Pap smear regularly to catch the mutated cells before they become cancerous (when found they are generally frozen or lasered off by a gynecologist). So, finally, in answer to the question, as has been said already IMO, is those who don't get tested now will continue not to regardless of a $7 charge and those who do, like myself (every 3 months, or before I have sex with a new partner, so I always have recent test results to present) will continue to do so, again regardless of a $7 charge. My Doc doesn't charge me for the results because I just call him and he will tell me if there's anything, and I pick up copies of the results next time I go past. So $28 a year is of no consequence to me. And I think the co-payment WILL have the effect of stopping some people from going to the Doctor at the drop of a hat. I know heaps that go to my Doc for a weekly visit just to have their blood pressure taken (which many Chemists do for free) and to have him listen to their heart (He's told me...). That will bring down the cost of Medicare to us all...
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Obviously.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'neptune_drift'" In other words, don't worry, it only really affects poor people. That ain't the kind of society I want to live in. Those penniless people are the ones I work with on a daily basis. This policy says to me they don't matter as much as the "normal" population. It makes me feel physically ill.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Openly1' Unfortunately, there are people (it's a common little reaction in humanity) who, when faced with the possibility of bad news, prefer to "bury their heads in the sand". Basically, if I don't worry about it or do anything about it, it doesn't exist or will go away. If you have one of these people who HAS engaged in unprotected sex, say... with someone in the 'high risk' category (prostitute, junkie etc) or if they, themselves have shared the odd needle or something else risky, they can have a built in mindset that tells them "I'd rather not know" or "If I get tested and it's bad news, I have to deal with it... It becomes real". So, they don't get tested and they decide that so long as they feel OK, they are OK. These are the people that, unfortunately, can be responsible for perpetuating the spread of STD's. I'm sure Meander has come across this mindset The mindset of "If I'm not told there is something wrong with me, then I'm fine" has nothing to do with living a risky lifestyle. In my 20 years of working in this field I have found quite the opposite: Those men and women engaging in high-risk activities tend to be very informed about STIs, causes, treatments, ways of transfer, etc. and are more willing to get tested and keep themselves (if not always others) safe. They don't think "it won't happen to me", because they see it all around them, every day, and they are aware they are vulnerable.So in my opinion saying these people "can be responsible for perpetuating the spread" of STIs, is a very irresponsible statement to make.Everyone can be responsible and I personally think the ones who think they are exempt from STIs are those with an arrogant mindset who think they know it all, but don't. (I have never heard a client say "But he looked healthy and clean" or "You can't catch anything from blowjobs", something I've come across here more times than I care to remember.) I had a discussion with some doctors and nurses yesterday about the prostitutes in Kings Cross. The number of women (and men) who get tested every three months (either via the Medical Centre or other health care services they frequent) is very high. Good on them for doing the right thing, and I sincerely believe they will be amongst those for whom 14 dollars will not be a deterrent.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Can you really put a price on you own safety and that of others? I don't thinks so, this is a life style we all choose it is our responsibility to see that it is a safe life style. I'll pay what ever it cost, and if it was to much I would stop doing it. Not that I have an active sex life any way
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Might I assume you are not on a pension and living in Community Housing? The bigger thing I'm hearing you say though is that everyone who chooses this lifestyle should choose being responsible.I think we all know the reality is different. So, are the people not getting tested regularly solely to blame for the consequences?* I don't believe so for a second, but even if it were true, the extra costs associated with illness will again affect the taxpayer. * Not suggesting you meant this, allsorts.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'LadyTuscan' Its always amazing how many people insure their car but not their health. How many people are clogging up the hospital emergency because its freeMy brother and a best mate are doctors and they sometimes work in after hour clinic and people on health care cards turn up there with cold or minor things when all the needed was rest makes me smile when people whine and the smoke, they drink to much they have unhealthy life stylethey can afford mac donnalds and fast foodyet not pay for their own health? the system is crashing, the country has been lucky but just go overseas, and see no welfare and no free ride. the country cannot afford to pay anymore its simple maths People that are working already pay towards our health system via their taxes. And many also have private health insurance. Yes there are those who develop chronic illnesses as a result of unhealthy lifestyle factors that they *know* are putting them at risk (to differentiate from those who don't have much knowledge about the link between lifestyle and health), but there are many more who need regular medical attention because of factors outside of their control and it is these people who will be disproportionately affected by this policy because they are also usually on low or very low incomes. Of course our health system needs attention but this is probably the most inefficient, stupid way to go about it. In the end it won't save any money because people will put off going to the GP until their condition worsens enough for them to end up in hospital. Treatment by a GP is much cheaper than extended hospital treatment, possible surgery, rehab etc. Plus that puts even more strain on public hospitals already stretched to the limit, and which at that time would also possibly be suffering the effects of the money ripped away from them by the Federal government in this budget (unless the states have managed to increase the GST by then and make up some of the shortfall). You want to see a health system crash, that is when it will happen. The best way for governments to save money on health is to focus on the 'upstream' factors and treatment, which prevent people getting sick (or sicker) or injured in the first place. GP visits are a part of that - a prime example being the STI screening being discussed in this topic. This government has taken money away from preventive health in many areas; it is completely backwards in its approach. This government wants Australia to be another America, and this budget contains the first moves towards that. As an average non-uber rich person I know which health system I would rather be relying on.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
"You want to see a health system crash, that is when it will happen." Realised I didn't word that very well in my previous post, of course I didn't meant that anyone wants to see that happen.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Apologies Meander "The bigger thing I'm hearing you say though is that everyone who chooses this lifestyle should choose being responsible.I think we all know the reality is different." It would be nice if it were a perfect world I was merely directing my comment to the member here on RHP as I thought that was who the OP was directing his Question at. Not the general public. If they can afford to play here they can afford the extra $7 bucks. It sux how the Government is making us pay for their shortfalls. We can complain about it until the cows come home they wont change their mind. God forbid they take a pay cut and give up their paid holidays I run my own sheet metal company. I have invested over $ 250K into it. I work 16-18 hour days pretty much 7 days a week and probably harder than them too(as do most of us). I don't get paid as much as they do. I've gone of topic again I'll end my rant here
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Unfortunately being a paid member on RHP and being a responsible human being are not always the same thing. hence my comment earlier about my clients being smarter sometimes when it comes to safe sex than some forumites.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I'm on Single Parenting Payments, I work part time, pay a mortgage and all associated costs with my Centerlink benefits and measly wages (I live in regional bumfuck central). First visit will = $7 (if passed in the Senate). Testing will also attract an additional $7, Follow up visit for results an additional $7. My GP insists on my coming back for results as they can't tell who is on the other end of a phone line, Privacy Act! So for each 3 month check it is $21. Mate, if I can put more than $15 worth of fuel in my car at one time I feel loaded and decadent. Two middies, fuck you! Will I still get tested, hell yes. God help me if the kids get crook, I need scripts and follow up appointments, oh well, then I couldn't afford the petrol money to get laid. It all works out in the end I guess. Yep, Australia becoming America more and more each day....... (PS. I was a highly paid Exec in Sydney paying uber taxes for decades, I didn't ask for this shitful life that I now lead. I didn't even know people had to count pennies for decades, I rolled in it, my life was one of excess. I never imagined this would become my world, from posturing to having not been to a hairdressers or bought a take out coffee in 18months. You don't realise how quickly your life can change)
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I think its harsh to expect your GP to absorb the fee. They are cutting the medicare rebate by $5 I think, and when you adjust for inflation, the $7 needs to be made up somewhere. At the end of the day, you get the care you pay for. The poorest among us may find care elsewhere (I suspect there will be concessions made to get it through the senate), but if you're earning an average income or better, your days of free healthcare are gone. Mind you, we spend $100's at hairdressers without a thought, yet bitch about a $30 GP fee. As for STI testing, in WA you can get free Chlamydia testing through the government for FREE! Google it for details. You just download the form and go from there! Peace everyone.
-
Taby_DK
11 years ago
There is no price on sexual health. We both get texted regularly and if the test was free or $100 it would not make a difference to us. Taby
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Are those of you that enjoy a decent income still get bulk billed? As far as I knew, unless you had a pensioner card you still had to contribute on top of the lofty taxes you pay? I assumed bulk billing was only for pension card holders, or if you visit a superclinic? Would love clarification on this.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
There is no doubt that we needed to have a tough budget because we could not continue on the way the country was/is going. We have to make changes to revenue and expenditure to live within our means. I have not seen a Doctor that bulk bills in years. So, in reality I've been paying more than $7 a visit more. I do believe that there are some things that should not attract the extra charge - child immunisation, diabetes checks and STI checks are among those I believe should come under fixed medicare charges as the consequences to the heal system of these not being done are greater. But the reality is if my visits to the Doctor are going to cost more, then I will just have to pay it. I will need to think more about planning going to the Doctor and make sure that when I'm thee for something else, I get my STI check done at the same time. The other thing is the over-servicing by Doctors. I believe that with something like an STI check, you should not have to return to the Doctor unless you need treatment. That clear results should just be sent to the patient. That is a saving to the public purse and that would then eliminate the need to have to charge the $7 for the first check..... Just a thought.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Seriously . For the cost of a couple of beers whilst your out that's nothing , it's your own health why wouldn't you pay , my gp costs me a lot more than that too
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Unlimited visits for a year at set prices of $50 & $15. . They only ask for our Health Care Card at the counter of the clinics that bulk bill in our area Coriander.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
STI checks whether your in the lifestyle or not are a good idea periodically because you spouse may be in the lifestyle without letting you know. Seen that too many times then get the just tell her she got it from ahhh! Yeah! Some of those nasty little bugs have no symptoms on very minor ones that can become monsterous unchecked. First no news is good news normally and I do say normally you will not be normally there is that word again be notified of a negative check unless it was a check required because a partner turned up positive and listed you amoung their sexual contacts. If your Dr. charges to tell you the results even more so if they are negative results please don't automatically assume that the Dr's dictate what gets billed and what doesn't for the most part. The number crunchers and admin people do that and most of the time the Dr's have very little idea unless you tell them about the billing. Big misconception "All Dr's are rich" Ha.
-
HedonicGent
11 years ago
Think most of the issues have been discussed at length already so just wanted to add some useful info for those not in the know already. Also anyone with distinct STI clinical experience please correct me if I appear to be wrong. In WA at least there is completely FREE STI testing at Royal Perth & Fremantle Hospitals (& that will move to Fiona Stanley Hosp when it opens I'm sure) at their Sexual Health Clinics. RPH appts call 9224-2178 & Freo call 9431-3145 or 9431-2874. I think KEMH has it as well for ladies but I'm obviously not very aware of that service. I don't think there's anywhere else fully free in WA but since I can access those services I've not looked into it further. For those who use privacy as a barrier to getting tested you can use an alias name if you'd prefer (so no one you know in the health service can see your results) - they ask when you make the appt. What I don't know is whether other states have similar free services. There have been some good points made about the difficulty of avoiding HSV (Herpes) & HPV (Genital Warts) infection given condoms only protect the parts they cover & HPV can be transmitted by hands too, if used sexually on both genitals. The main thing, I think, with HSV is avoiding touching active lesions although technically one can always shed the virus without lesions, albeit with a low likelihood of infecting someone. HSV1 (oral/cold sores) can be transmitted to genitals and HSV2 (genital) can be transmitted to your mouth but the likelihood is lower than oral-oral or genital-genital transmission. People should be clear that HPV isn't a single entity and that there are over 40 types that can be transmitted sexually. The types that cause actual warts (6 & 11 cause 90% of warts) are not high risk for cervical cancer. Having the HPV vaccine is of significant use in avoiding the two types of HPV (16 & 18) that cause the vast majority of cervical cancers & the two types (6 & 11) that cause 90% of genital warts so it's worth getting although the older you get the more likely you've been exposed to these strains as they're so infectious, hence they vaccinate kids before they have sex. That's my 2 cents anyway. Glad people are talking about this!
-
melbcpl01
11 years ago
So basicly the liberals are screwing you for screwing ,
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'BradBi' There is no doubt that we needed to have a tough budget because we could not continue on the way the country was/is going. We have to make changes to revenue and expenditure to live within our means. This idea the government is trying to sell that there is a 'budget emergency' in Australia is a complete fallacy designed to try and fool people into accepting the budget measures. The reality is quite different and reading some non-Murdoch material will quickly make that clear. And there are plenty of ways to decrease expenditure and increase revenue that don't punish those least able to afford and fight it....taxing the mining companies properly, and cutting down on all the concessions they get is just one of many actions that should be happening, but isn't.
-
notsoinnocent20s
11 years ago
I was discussing this with my friends the other day. I currently go once a month, probably will take that down to once every 3 months. Hopefully given I go to the uni GP they will cover the cost
-
On_Safari
11 years ago
Even to their own detriment. I don't know where you lot go see a Dr for only $7 but it's been my experience as Coriander queried that only bulk billing surgeries are free and you have to have a Healthcare/Pension Card or be under age 17. Everyone else pays. My visits cost me $62 (credited back about $26 by Medicare) plus the $14 you're talking about is still a smaller price to pay than losing your sexual health in my opinion. Now Dryphuz in answer to your query about giving blood and getting results that way. Drug users cannot give blood, regardless of the fact their addled minds wouldn't entertain the idea; even recovered drug users decades down the track cannot donate. If you've ever stuck a needle in your arm you can never donate blood. The burden STI's are placing on our health system is no less than the rise in Diabetes, Heart Disease, Obesity and the myriad of other illnesses becoming an everyday reality for our "soft society". As for using the new fees to subsidise tests for others.....why not. What's most important here however is being responsible for your sexual safety and the safety of your playmates and future playmates. Maybe they could subsidise condoms?
-
Mischeviouslad
11 years ago
So..... we're saying people won't or can't pay $7 to visit a doctor when they're sick? Dont believe it.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'melbcpl01' So basicly the liberals are screwing you for screwing ,
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' So..... we're saying people won't or can't pay $7 to visit a doctor when they're sick? Dont believe it. The fact you (and other posters) are saying this means you have never been poor, be thankful for that. There are many disadvantaged people or low-income earners who may have to make the choice between spending 14.- to get tested for STIs and buying petrol. Thank you Coriander, for sharing something so personal.
-
On_Safari
11 years ago
Not everyone has more. And all too many have nothing 😕
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'MrsPeachy'They only ask for our Health Care Card at the counter of the clinics that bulk bill in our area Coriander. SORRY! That should be Medicare Card. . I didn't honestly believe DG could possibly be serious.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' So..... we're saying people won't or can't pay $7 to visit a doctor when they're sick? Dont believe it. But the point I made is that people can't or won't pay when they're 'not sure' - eg. for regular preventative check-ups, or if they have mild symptoms (which could be the start of something more serious - they're not doctors, so they can't know.) It doesn't really matter if you believe it or not. The entire policy is based on that assumption, and there's research to show that is the case.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I fucking struggle to buy petrol & food. Really I do.Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' So..... we're saying people won't or can't pay $7 to visit a doctor when they're sick? Dont believe it. I pay a mortgage, rates, water, electricity, house & contents insurance, phone, petrol, food, God I wish I had a spare few bucks to have an elusive drink to 'meet' an RHP guy every now & again. I don't have that luxury. A spare $8 dollars to buy a glass of wine to 'meet' someone? Not in my spectrum. Not in my world. Fucking believe me brother. I have to risk ninja when the kids aren't home. I have no option. Apart from abstinence, sure. I don't have a cent spare, I'm not exaggerating DG. I'm POVO. It's awesome. Come live my truth babe. Believe it!
-
madotara69
11 years ago
We recently moved way out of town to be closer to work, Tara two months short for long service leave, me about a year off, we had been under paid during those years and through some foul play from the employers they sacked us. We are fighting a battle and are sure for winning what we are entitled too, however there is a time process and it takes a while. Last week we paid our bills, and were left with $37.00 for food. We had a lovely chicken and veggie soup, simmering in the slow cooker and we are ok, but sometimes $7 may for many, be far more than pocket change. Even if we had a desire to play up a bit, and say the one or ones required a clean ticket, we simply could not afford to spend money on getting tests done, so we would just not play simple as that. Lucky for us we don't place that much importance on playing up outside of what we already have. To be honest, the amount of talk off all this disease getting around it seems as though it is rampid in the scene, so is there a lot of scare mungering going on? wonder what the actual percentage of STI infections are? Not speaking against safe sex, though I believe condoms and screening is merely band aids and a short lived pass time, if research and development gets the funding it needs to wipe out these bugs all together. Lets hope that every $5 bucks comes to a worth while contribution. Maybe someone is getting it right?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I knew my lover liked Pav so whilst Aldi shopping last week bought some whipping cream & eggs. They had kiwi fruit reduced but 8 would go to waste, so I walked down to Woolies and bought 1 x kiwi for 40 cents. Blueberries were $9 at Woolies so walked back to Aldi to get a pack for $5. No middies & skitttles, but why can't I have a moment in my life that I can treat my man or feel emancipated? It took me longer to buy cheap ingredients than it did to make. I'm glad he enjoyed it though Small things hey?
-
erotictouch4u
11 years ago
Quoting 'Meander' One of the main concerns she has is that people with children won't seek help as fast as before. Say for instance a child has an asthma attack. Seven dollars might be the difference between "It's probably not necessary, but let's see the GP just in case" and "We'll wait to see if things get better and reassess tomorrow", with potentially devastating outcomes. My view is that the $7 disincentive should not be for children or pensioners and for the rest of us there should be a 12 visit limit before the $7 cuts in. This would then allow the normal "healthy" adults to get regular STI and health checks while still discouraging the healthcare hypocondriacs from multiple unnecessary bulk-billed visits which drain the public health purse and increase waiting times at local GPs.ET xox
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Hope you & Tara get a fair deal in all of this, sounds evil, made me crave soup though.... But you are right, $7 is more than pocket change to many. $7 can be the difference between fuel or milk. How cool do you feel putting $3.50 worth of fuel in the car? All cool, rich this week, I could afford cream & blueberries.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I am apparently right wing. Want wa to be its own little country. I am a propagandist, and not good for the country. Gee I guess this means he don't want too root Me? Bloody politics is fucking up my shallow see life. It amazes me how people can sum up who you are and your whole life, from reading a forum post. I am defined by my on line dribble.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'eagertongue4u'My view is that the $7 disincentive should not be for children or pensioners and for the rest of us there should be a 12 visit limit before the $7 cuts in. This would then allow the normal "healthy" adults to get regular STI and health checks while still discouraging the healthcare hypocondriacs from multiple unnecessary bulk-billed visits which drain the public health purse and increase waiting times at local GPs.ET xox Are there really *that* many hypochondriacs, or are they just the boogeymen - scapegoats and smokescreens cited to bring about an agenda (like the end of universal healthcare.) Sure everyone probably knows or has heard about one or two of these (it's prime 'current affairs' type show fodder), but I'd imaging the vast bulk of people that visit doctors more frequently than average are those with chronic conditions (oh, you have type 1 diabetes? Lupus? Maybe you should just try taking more 'personal responsibility'?), children and the elderly. A world class health system is one in which you should never be put into the situation where you have to decide: your money or your health? If you have concerns over your health, you should never be disincentivised to pursue them, no matter how trivial a $7 fee may seem to some. The reality is, that constraint overwhelmingly affects those less fortunate. Those that can afford to pay for it have already paid for it through their taxes. As a general economic principle and a matter of public health policy (such as in fighting the spread of infections and diseases,) it's a short term solution with long-term costs. Early detection and treatment for just about any condition are both more cost-effective and treatment-effective than late-term diagnosis. This isn't about dealing with a 'budget crisis' and blowouts in health costs - if it was, the money would actually be going towards the budget deficit, and not to a newly created research fund. This is purely ideological, about further introducing ideas of 'user pays' to our healthcare system. That stinks. There are lots of ways GP wait times and visits could be improved. I'm interested that in other states you don't have to go back in for STI test results (they'll just call you to come in if you've tested positive.) In NSW you do, and they can't tell you over the phone as mentioned because of the Privacy Act. This seems ludicrously inefficient to me. If we can fill out and lodge our entire taxes online, surely we can develop a secure system to access test results online?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'LadyTuscan' I am apparently right wing. Want wa to be its own little country. I am a propagandist, and not good for the country. Gee I guess this means he don't want too root Me? Bloody politics is fucking up my shallow see life. It amazes me how people can sum up who you are and your whole life, from reading a forum post. I am defined by my on line dribble. Tuscan my love, that's unfortunate. I'm sorry that happened. I still luvs ya though, even if I do think you've got some ol' fuddy duddy conservative views (and you think I've got some bleeding-heart naive hippy ones.)
-
sunin60
11 years ago
Just had check even though safe sex is mandatory requirement for us:1st visit out of pocket $42.50Pathology Dept out of pocket $101.952nd visit $42.50 There is only one clinic in area without at least 100 km trip and time off work etc so this is the cost per person. Yes another $7 each seems like a great idea. Same as the increase in fuel (we only pay $1-60 ltr), as well as all the other cost that are to escalate. And yes sorry I nearly forget to mention it will be great to work on until at least 70 with no pension available after. Gees now you have my blood boiling, S%@t now I have pain in the chest, Oh no not a heart attack s%@t, Oh well that will save me from the money crisis. Dead and Gone. RIP Did I vote for these turkeys on their election promises? Oh well.smiling?
-
sunin60
11 years ago
Hell Just worked out the savior to all this trouble! Sell off all our assets. Now I am not sure whether to sell the farm to keep the sheep or to sell the sheep to keep the farm?After we just cut down the trees to see the forest ( didn't seem to work out too well). I thought sex was just a bit of adult fun to be enjoyed. Oh Well. Silly Me.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Being able to access your own test results has its own problems though. I can see it now: people putting that one medical term they don't understand into Google or Web MD and reading they have terminal cancer. ;-)
-
madotara69
11 years ago
Quoting 'Meander' Being able to access your own test results has its own problems though. I can see it now: people putting that one medical term they don't understand into Google or Web MD and reading they have terminal cancer. ;-) Chances are Google would take one to a free $15 last will in testimony web page.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Whilst its all fine to be harping on about a $7 fee for most in reality I'll bet it probably won't prevent this very very very small minority of people from receiving a check or other care anyway - it will be re-badged as some other exception after they test the waters a bit and see what has and hasn't worked - all governments like to talk tough and then later find out that their 'solution' to problem X isn't achievable so they regress back to an earlier working but less efficient method. They'll always put out the risky and less popular policies early on into a term as most peoples brains don't seem to recall much beyond a 6 month period it would seem :). Still there is no denying the 200 thousand million dollars that was consumed in the previous governments 6 years through some worthwhile and many very worthless schemes and whether you like it or not this has an 'interest only' repayment of 1 thousand million dollars a month - notice how I didn't use the term billion as it rolls off the tongue far too easily. Something has to give somewhere. This repayment means each taxpayer currently pays an average of $1100 of tax per year too just to cover the debt - not pay it off just to maintain it. Now wheres that $7 gone in there.Like many people I know I'll be paying way more than that $1100 figure and I'll probably (hopefully) only go to the doctor once this year if at all. I'll also go to a full paying doctor because I hate the places and want to get back to work or beers with the boys or whatever but I'm probably at the other end of the spectrum anyway - I'm quite lucky and I know thisWelfare benefits are going up next month too but I'm not sure of the amount. The bottom line is you have to try and find a happy medium between the hippys and and the hardarses but that is how it always will be - both keep each other in check
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I don't really consider the STI checks as a typical doctors visit even though it is because its a lifestyle choice and I go to a proper clinic that does full checks with no talk of anything near $7 fees either - if only. Weird that I will typically visit these more than a doctor but you get that
-
RHP User
11 years ago
In regards to the medical research fund that the government proposes to establish with the money generated from the copayment, I would strongly encourage people to read this article on The Conversation website... "Proposed medical research fund is unfair and unethical", written by an associate professor of medical ethics at Flinders Uni.
-
madotara69
11 years ago
Quoting 'Luckdragon23' In regards to the medical research fund that the government proposes to establish with the money generated from the copayment, I would strongly encourage people to read this article on The Conversation website... "Proposed medical research fund is unfair and unethical", written by an associate professor of medical ethics at Flinders Uni. Will read
-
RHP User
11 years ago
another must-read article, "Australia's 'unsustainable' health spending is a myth" by Professor Jeff Richardson of the Centre for Health Economics at Monash. It addresses the fallacies being spun by the government to try and garner support for their proposed copayment and decreases in health funding.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' So..... we're saying people won't or can't pay $7 to visit a doctor when they're sick? Dont believe it. That shows what a privileged life you have led, you should feel very thankful. Just like the majority of responders here who have said that basically $14 is nothing. But whether you believe it or not, there are many people to whom $14 is a very big deal. As Neptune mentioned this move among all the others proposed by the government is an ideological one. And although they would never admit it publicly, it is driven by the base conservative notion that anyone who is not well off is lazy and not deserving. In the minds of these Liberal politicians who have led privileged lives since birth (and mostly received free tertiary education let's not forget), if you are poor then it's all your own fault and you should suffer accordingly. In their world there is no such thing as systemic disadvantage, or things that happen that are outside of people's control such as illness / injuries / losing your job. That is why just about all Liberal policies have a disproportionate effect on those with the least money, and the rich people and corporations get no or very little pain (the 'levy' they are proposing for high income earners is a mere drop in the bucket for those who will actually pay it; many will no doubt find a creative way to avoid it as they do when it comes to paying their fair share of tax).
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I think there is a lot of general misunderstanding about the way a country's economy functions, and that it is much more complex than and not comparable to a household budget. Debt for a country is a fact of life and not necessarily a bad thing, the bigger picture needs to be looked at. Australia was one of the few countries to come out of the GFC in a very good position, and it was largely because of targeted spending / stimulus. The countries who put harsh austerity measures in place did not fair so well. And yet we constantly have the Liberals telling us that Labor 'wrecked' the economy. Heh. If the budget is in such dire straits, why is the government spending billions on fighter aircraft that hasn't met even basic reliability and performance standards?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Luckdragon23' another must-read article, "Australia's 'unsustainable' health spending is a myth" by Professor Jeff Richardson of the Centre for Health Economics at Monash. It addresses the fallacies being spun by the government to try and garner support for their proposed copayment and decreases in health funding. Over here, its at least three hours to get into ED , and even harder to get a bedDoctors are not taking new patients they are full due to the aged population if you think about who is working and who is benefits, then remember if your a worker money goes from you to someone that cant work etc. Do you know the percentage of workers to non workers? Do you know what the tipping number is when one cant support the other? Australia is a credit card think of it this way, your all concerned about costs, so who goes to work in one car? you could share, who has a house with a spare bedroom? you could bring a homeless person in and share. who believes in the boat people? you could give each one of them half your pay and put them up in your home. there are lots of ways to help out the unfortunate and you can always get close and personal and give up half of what you have to support and pay for another human. I don't like the budget much either, and as for doctors my family is in that boat and they see one patient every nine minutes, can you imagine how hard that is? Most of it is not needed, most is stuff that people could go to the chemist or its cost of scripts etc or they need a repeat. In life as in all things free stuff tends to be of no value. Australia is not a money tree, we are so out of touch with the grim reality of life in the hard lane like it is overseas. We whine if we have to wait for out doctors appointments, try walking for a day while your having a baby to see a doctor if there is one.how about writing on a bit of board and no books at all. god we are a soft and expectant lot, like the government is one big tit for us to suck off , if we gave half our pay to charity? who is up for that one? I don't think so I think Huge Jackman has the right idea he is putting his money where is mouth is and paying for the arts. Some of the mine giants contribute millions that we never hear of, why because they don't put it all over the papers. Gina Rhinheart who everyone hates spends millions of dollars on overseas schools and orphanages for girls and even spends her xmas day there handing out gifts. look at yourselves each individual and ask, what he heck a I doing to help? what am I giving up? who cares what a government does to pay of its credit debt? I do, I don't like it anymore than anyone else but shit I have kids and I would hope to think they are not going to live worse off, because I was to selfish in my own needs. how about you guys write your own budget on here? How would you cut costs , what programs would you cut? and while your at it how good is your own home budget? anyone up to their eyeballs with a credit card? and before some say I have a silver spoon in my mouth, I have been on the disability pension and the dole and lived on the streets with no money at all. So please don't give me the right wing bleeding liberal speech ladyT grumpy old cow
-
Mischeviouslad
11 years ago
I prefer "responsible". Those who genuinely can't afford, are looked after through many program's.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Luckdragon23' Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' So..... we're saying people won't or can't pay $7 to visit a doctor when they're sick? Dont believe it. That shows what a privileged life you have led, you should feel very thankful. Just like the majority of responders here who have said that basically $14 is nothing. But whether you believe it or not, there are many people to whom $14 is a very big deal. As Neptune mentioned this move among all the others proposed by the government is an ideological one. And although they would never admit it publicly, it is driven by the base conservative notion that anyone who is not well off is lazy and not deserving. In the minds of these Liberal politicians who have led privileged lives since birth (and mostly received free tertiary education let's not forget), if you are poor then it's all your own fault and you should suffer accordingly. In their world there is no such thing as systemic disadvantage, or things that happen that are outside of people's control such as illness / injuries / losing your job. That is why just about all Liberal policies have a disproportionate effect on those with the least money, and the rich people and corporations get no or very little pain (the 'levy' they are proposing for high income earners is a mere drop in the bucket for those who will actually pay it; many will no doubt find a creative way to avoid it as they do when it comes to paying their fair share of tax). yep those poor people, those would be the ones with a fag in their lips and a stubby in the fridge? Or that have big mac for dinner? what on earth makes you think that all politicians were born into money? There are the working poor, yes and then there are the I don't want to work poor, believe me I see them all the time at Centrelink. and what is it with the rich them and us crap, don't we go asking for jobs from those people? Do not the rich create industry and commerce so we can get a job? what are you doing with your life? how are you contributing? forget about those rich people and focus on you, are you offering solutions? how do you help the poor? I agree the tax doges for the wealthy can and is not good but the wealthy also do a hell of a lot with their dollars, think of Bill Gates and the mine kings over here, one gives a hell of a lot, has started Indigenous employment programs and now is working to eradicate slavery all over the world get up and make your own way in the world, there is no bloody excuse if your fit, got a brain and can work then so you should and pay taxes like the rest of us What can put in into poverty is often the wrong choice you make, sometimes you cant help but make the wrong one as you have not had parents that showed you the way. But you can offer stuff to people, there are millions of programs for people to lift them out of poverty, but if you choose to stick stuff up your nose, or in your arm or you choose not to get treatment or take the help offered then you choose poverty. ask anyone working in a woman refuge what its like, how people go back into the same old thing over and over and over again. it it not better that we lift people up by the shove at times, rather than the ohh you poor thing? pity never helped anyone. DG is right sometimes you have to make people take responsibility for their lives and honey everyone in Australia can get assistance if the need it. Not one person is on the streets without a form of income, they have community teams that go into the streets to keep people on benefit. I just rented a house to a couple of guys, yes homeless and down on their luck. I did not take a bond, I furnished the house and put in all the kitchen wear and blankets They stopped paying the rent, even though I gave them four chances. they had the power cut as they did not pay it so I paid a bill to get it back on again. they had drunk parties, and smoked dope in the house and still I did not kick them out. but in the end I had to and they threatened to do get mean. I got one of my prison guys to offer to move them, he is a bit of a pit bull. The moved and took all the furniture and made my house a tip. so you can see I do not buy the bleeding heart stuff anymore. LadyT needs to get on the road and forget about life at the sharp end
-
RHP User
11 years ago
These forums are getting me down more than the real world lately. . The politicians, who are provided with items some of us would consider luxuries as an everyday event, out of our tax dollars are living it up on our money. Trust me, they will not take one single cutback. . When they become responsible for themselves (with our miney!) then they can manipulate me into supposedly behaving in a way they believe is more appropriate. . $14 is just the beginning... the pointy end, that won't even be lubricated as it's inserted until it tears the guts out of our Nation. . And to partially agree with Tuscan. Some people will choose to buy alcohol and drugs and cigarettes before they will take themselves, their family or children to the Dr and pay $7 for the visit. I don't have the hard line attitude to go with that though. There are awesome models available in the world for Australia to take on instead of the convict 'punishment' philosophy it still bases it's decisions on. Dispirited Peachy... too used to taking it up the arse.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
and I read today... Colin Barnett is set to introduce a new Hospital Tax, charging patients for treatment at our emergency departments. . Betcha we have to pay for lube... . On the original topic, we shouldn't be charged a call back fee anyway because it is a follow up...
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I'd pay $500 for an STI text to be safe. Quibbling about a few dollars when your health and your life could be at stake. Not worth it.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
over 50s get a blood check for everything warts an all , every three months , better than dieing of ball cancer
-
RHP User
11 years ago
dont vote labor WHO PUT US THERE WITH A HUGE BILL , and always do gee when will u people learn , any way i will sit back and watch the ranting returns
-
Mischeviouslad
11 years ago
I wonder.... what would be said at me if I said what LadyT just did But then.... I'm totally "privileged" right... lol
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Thank god I am a senile old lady, I did get some flack in my private mail but I flashed my tits and all was forgiven. Besides I love that we can have a good debate and then do a group Bonk! How good is rhp We can have reds in the bed, instead of under the bed. And neptune I love your fuzzy wuzzy ideals as well. I was a hippy chick, we know how to really protest, I even got arrested once , now off to put one flowers in my hair. And free love...it's what we do
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Flowers in our hair... it was so much easier back before AIDS came along.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I don't agree with you (another hippy here), but always love you for expressing exactly how you feel without holding back. Screw the haters. (Use protection though, will ya? These STI checks are becoming a hassle.)
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I always do. But see is not on my dance card for now anyway. The convent just does not allow it,prudes! I am also heading north on my girls road trip. Two fat old chick's in a caravan. Time to wipe me bum with gum leaves, because I care for the environment no loo paper for us, we are tough! I like that I have no idea where we are going and no idea for how long. Grey nomad life is great.
-
yankmychain56
11 years ago
I have noticed a few people on here require an STD document from a doctor before meeting with you. smart move.I would be more than willing to do so (waste of time for me since i dont have an std), but for that persons peace of mind that is fine by me, and I have no problem digging around in my car for the change to pay for it.I dont think that the rest of Australia should have to pay for someone else's lifestyle. Contrary to popular belief, the health care system here is rife with corruption, and many doctors and patients are ripping off the system, making it harder for people with a REAL medical condition to see a doctor. I HATE going to an emergency room ( I dont go until I am one step short of an ambulance or in one), and there are people in there that have a cold or something while some woman is having a baby in the toilet.it sickens me. how much is your life worth? ten dollars?twenty? thirty?or is that SUV payment more important than paying for your own health care?It should not be the governments (or the peoples) problem if someone wants to live a self destructive lifestyle. All the Michael Moore lunatics beat a drum about Castros medical system, saying that cuba has the best medical care system in the world. It does.... with no windows in the hospitals and 1950s surplus microscopes. for a while Castro didnt have an AIDS or HIV problem...... because he put them ALL in quarantine (jail), which is what you are supposed to do with diseases that are out of control, remove them from the general public. end of rant
-
yankmychain56
11 years ago
we didnt have an STD problem until the 'free love' hippy generation came along. compare life in the 'uptight' conservative 50s and early 60s to the lifestyle we have today.credit cards didnt exist. everyone paid CASH. you paid for a house, a car, put kids through college and might even own a boat, ALL without credit cards.And people werent OPENLY HAVING GROUP SEX with strangers at woodstock. It was a private thing with select people that you knew.when you were a kid and went out to play, it was 'be home before dark' (no mobile phones) and you parents had NO CLUE where you would be, but if you werent where you said you would be, it wasnt you A S S when you got home.introduce the 'free love' hippy generation.the world turned in to a TOILET overnight. within ten years countries were falling apart.because of the destruction of the CORE of ANY civilization.the family.rant number 2 ended
-
Mischeviouslad
11 years ago
Not sure where you get that idea about no issue with STIs, yank..... but respectfully...it's crap lol There have been significant issues with STIs throughout recorded history, and to blame the 60s is an Olympic triple jump leap. And the lady (I assume) licking the dicking in your picing... I hope she wasn't a 'strange place' lol
-
RHP User
11 years ago
15/05/2014 Based on early advice from the Department of Health, this is a summary of how the AMA understands the $7 co-payment will be implemented by the Government. The co-payment will be introduced from 1 July 2015 and will apply to A1, A2, A11, A22 and A23 GP consultation items. It will not be applied to Chronic Disease Management items, health assessments and mental health items. Other key features of the co-payment proposal are: Department of Veterans’ Affairs arrangements are not impacted by the co-payment. The co-payment does not count towards the Medicare Safety Net. Medicare rebates – except GP items – will be frozen for 2 years;The same low-gap incentive relating to concession card holders and children under 16 will apply beyond the above threshold if no patient contribution is charged by the GP, with the relevant MBS rebate also being lifted by $5. This means, in relation to GP visits beyond the threshold, the fee charged to the patient will be effectively be the same as it is now if the patient were bulk billed (ie the net fee increase of $2 to the GP does not apply);The current bulk-billing incentive items will be renamed “low-gap incentives” and will only be payable where a GP only charges concession card holders and children under 16 the co-payment for any visits within the above threshold. Taking into account the lower rebate, $7 co-payment, and the low gap incentive, this would see a small net fee increase to the GP of $2 for these patients compared to current bulk billed arrangements;The 10 visit threshold includes pathology and imaging visits, i.e. the total co-payment exposure for concession card holders and children is $70 per year;For concession card holders and children under 16, the co-payment will be limited to 10 visits per year (NB: only those visits where the $7 co-payment is applied count towards this threshold. Those visits where no co-payment is charged, or a smaller/larger co-payment is applied don't count towards this threshold);The $7 co-payment will also apply to out-of-hospital pathology and imaging services;Patients of GPs that waive the copayment will only be eligible for the new lower rebate and the GP will not be eligible for low gap incentive discussed later;Privately billed GP patients will have their rebate cut by $5 in relation to the above items and thus face an increase in out of pocket costs;The Medicare rebate for the relevant GP consultation items will be cut by $5. For those GPs that currently bulk bill patients and decide to charge the $7 co-payment, this would see a small net fee increase of $2 for general patients compared to current arrangements;It will not be mandatory for GPs to charge the co-payment;There are a number of issues to still to be worked out in implementing these changes. In particular how GPs will identify in real time the number of co-paid services a patient has had. The AMA will keep you updated on this and more as information comes to hand.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
15/05/2014 Based on early advice from the Department of Health, this is a summary of how the AMA understands the $7 co-payment will be implemented by the Government.. The co-payment will be introduced from 1 July 2015 and will apply to A1, A2, A11, A22 and A23 GP consultation items. It will not be applied to Chronic Disease Management items, health assessments and mental health items. Other key features of the co-payment proposal are:. It will not be mandatory for GPs to charge the co-payment; . The Medicare rebate for the relevant GP consultation items will be cut by $5. For those GPs that currently bulk bill patients and decide to charge the $7 co-payment, this would see a small net fee increase of $2 for general patients compared to current arrangements; . Privately billed GP patients will have their rebate cut by $5 in relation to the above items and thus face an increase in out of pocket costs; . Patients of GPs that waive the copayment will only be eligible for the new lower rebate and the GP will not be eligible for low gap incentive discussed later; . The $7 co-payment will also apply to out-of-hospital pathology and imaging services; . For concession card holders and children under 16, the co-payment will be limited to 10 visits per year (NB: only those visits where the $7 co-payment is applied count towards this threshold. Those visits where no co-payment is charged, or a smaller/larger co-payment is applied don't count towards this threshold); . The 10 visit threshold includes pathology and imaging visits, i.e. the total co-payment exposure for concession card holders and children is $70 per year; . The current bulk-billing incentive items will be renamed “low-gap incentives” and will only be payable where a GP only charges concession card holders and children under 16 the co-payment for any visits within the above threshold. Taking into account the lower rebate, $7 co-payment, and the low gap incentive, this would see a small net fee increase to the GP of $2 for these patients compared to current bulk billed arrangements; . The same low-gap incentive relating to concession card holders and children under 16 will apply beyond the above threshold if no patient contribution is charged by the GP, with the relevant MBS rebate also being lifted by $5. This means, in relation to GP visits beyond the threshold, the fee charged to the patient will be effectively be the same as it is now if the patient were bulk billed (ie the net fee increase of $2 to the GP does not apply); . Medicare rebates – except GP items – will be frozen for 2 years; . The co-payment does not count towards the Medicare Safety Net. . Department of Veterans’ Affairs arrangements are not impacted by the co-payment. . There are a number of issues to still to be worked out in implementing these changes. In particular how GPs will identify in real time the number of co-paid services a patient has had. The AMA will keep you updated on this and more as information comes to hand.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I wonder how much it's going to cost just to implement co-payment...
-
RHP User
11 years ago
whole episode reminds my of Chicken little really Today the medical centre - the one that I never go to, sent me an SMS today saying they will not be charging the extra $7 and will continue to bulk bil with no increase being passed onl. I think I had the displeasure of going there two years ago and must be on their spam list somehow. Surely this is not the only place in Australia doing this So they must have worked out that there must be... a) enough cream to still maintain a hefty profit from keeping customers happy - obviousb) perhaps even an opportunity to gain others customers from other centres that don't offer the same reduction so from the above, typically its $2 not $7 in the worst case for most visits and plenty of exemptions completely for those hold a concession card - that's like 1 billion people in Australia these days isn't it ? (could be wrong there)Whats considered as a health assessment I'm wondering......it would be quite humorous if this included an STI test thereby negating the whole point of this rant thread Hee hee.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I have had to go for so many tests, and more today ahhhhhhh he actually said, thanks for coming lol LadyT trying to hold her water for an ultra sound and more needle marks than a junky!
-
yankmychain56
11 years ago
AIDS, and a whole litany of other diseases didnt exist until the 70s. It might have been an unknown disease in the 60s (when it started to become rampant), but you have to admit, unmarried sexual activity was generally looked down upon in all societies, so people had to sneak around. hence, less sexual activity, and it was with someone you knew.yes, you had your secret neighborhood sex club, but it wasnt rampant, and in all societies where it did become rampant, those societies collapsed (Rome) Internal moral decay. God forbid I mention Sodom and Gomorrah ( and yes they did exist, the ruins of those cities and about a dozen others have been found in what is now called The Dead Sea).The ONLY reason we dont have people literally rotting away right now (we did in the 60s and 70s), is because of all the new drugs that keep your anus from falling out and your weenie acting like a garden sprinkler when you pee.'excuse me, doc, but I scream and rip the urinal off the wall when I pee'. welcome to the real life world of Charlie Sheen And again, the reason I am really not too worried about my weenie falling off (like John Holmes), is that I like to 'sniff it out' before i dip my wick, and I dont dip it in to something different every night, weekend, or month.Again, people that bitch about paying for their own sexual well being should eat two less meals at MacDonalds and pay for it, and not make ME have to pay for it.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'yankmychain56' AIDS, and a whole litany of other diseases didnt exist until the 70s. It might have been an unknown disease in the 60s (when it started to become rampant) I'm sorry, but does not make the least bit of sense to me. AIDS started to become rampant in the 1960's, but didn't exist till the 1970's? STD's have been for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years. (Take Syphilis, for example.)
-
RHP User
11 years ago
That's the only new sexual disease that I know of last century. June 1981 was the first reported cases affecting 5 'gay' men according to aids.gov. There were 270 reported cases by the end of the year. By 1982 thousands had been affected by the disease. I remember it being pushed initially as a 'gay' disease and then 'junkies' because it was transmitted by blood on dirty needles. I was scared shitless after I realised my boyfriend of the time was also involved sexually with men. A very scary few years ahead for me then. All well now, whew! It's more our aging health he n me're worried about. The copayments arer being invested in a medical research fund, imo they are an necessary impost on a struggling society. I'm sure there something's funny there about getting to Maccas on our scooters in our dotage? Some may suppose I'm in my dotage already, depends what meaning you put on the word. ;-) . Did anyone notice that they're attempting to introduce a hospital tax now? A comment I read about that today suggested, "it was unlikely that hospital EDs will charge a copayment because of the administrative burden, it puts hospitals in an invidious position.". . Naw Tuscan. xxx
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 14361 Comments: 120840
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1355 Comments: 14709
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2425 Comments: 17234
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2405 Comments: 12737
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 794 Comments: 5154
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1148 Comments: 6957
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 622 Comments: 2145
-
LGBT
Topics: 156 Comments: 1150
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share