Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 5632x7680 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

National Health
Scheme
Sir, — I would like to comment
on some of the statements made
in your editorial of December 1
praising Labor's health scheme.
You stated that Labor's pro
gram "shows on the whole a
well-balanced approach to the
dual problem of reducing the
cost of treatment to the patient
and of respecting his and the
doctor's freedom of choice". I
submit that on the contrary
Labor's schemc offers a lesser
service, at no reduction in cost to
the average patient.
The clearest example of this is
in hospitalisation. After each
wage-earner in the family has
paid at least 1.35% of taxable
income as a health tax, standard
ward hospital accommodation, if
available, is free only if the
patient accepts hospital-provided
mcdical attendants.
Lei's compare the choices
available to- patients accom
modated in a 4-bed hospital
ward, costing about $35 per bed
per day to provide, exclusive of
medical care.
The patient who accepts
"standard-ward" classification,
with treatment by sessional doc
tors, is charged nothing. The tax
payer in the next bed is charged
S15 per day for identical hospital
accommodation, just for the
privilege of being sure which
lion, or deliver her baby. She
will also have to pay the cost of
any necessary prostheses,, such as
artificial hip joints, which are
very expensive.
The only reason I can think
of, for charging $15 per day to
the hospital patient who wishes
to choose her own doctor, is to
strongly discourage private prac
tice with its individual contract
between the patient and doctor.
Big Brother knows best, and will
see that you get adequate
medical care, so long as yon
don't insist on nominating the
brand, or mind it changing from
hour to hour. If there are any
other reasons, 1 would be pleased
to hear them.
Another example on the unfair
treatment foreshadowed for
some taxpayers is in those cities
where the number of public
hospital beds available make it
inevitable that many patients will
have to go into private hospitals.
Again looking at non-luxury
accommodation (4-bed ward),
the hospital, will charge about
$35 per day.
The Government's proposed
Health Insurance Commission
will reimburse, the patient only
$16 per day, in spite of his hav
ing paid his health insurance tax,
and in contrast to the $22 to $30
per day rebate he currently re
ceives from intermediate level of
hospital insurance.
At the moment, except in an
emergency situation, you have
complete freedom of choice of
who will care for you when you
g6 into hospital. Under labor's
plan there is -no prospect of the
costs to the patient being any
less than under the present
scheme, but your choice of
which doctor will nominally be
looking after you in hospital will
be considerably restricted, and
no guarantee can be given as to
which doctor will perform a par
ticular procedure on you, in the
standard-ward arrangement.
PETER HUGHES
President,
Liberal Party
ACT Electorate Conference
Turner.
Sir, — It is regrettable that
Mr Hayden saw fit to allow
Senator Wilkinson (who is not
the Labor Party's spokesman on
health matters and is not even a
member of the Labor Parly
Health Committee) to reply lo
my criticisms of the injustices of
the Hayden health scheme in re
lation to eye patients (Letters,
November 30). He has simply
made a politician's reply by say
ing nothing.
I requested in my previous let
ter that Mr Hayden quit his
generalities and explain his way
out of the fact that his health
scheme is not good for my eye
patients. As he would not impli
cate himself by answering this I
challenge him to answer through
the columns of your newspaper
the following points,
(1) Why has he rencgned on the
Scotton-Deeble 'Health Insur
ance Planning Committee Re
port' recommendation, Page
15, section 264 "there does
appear to be a good case for
treating ophthalmologists'
consultations on the same
basis as consultations with any
other medical practitioner as
far as medical benefit entitle
ment is concerned".
(2) Why has he made a similar
about-face from a letter he
sent to all doctors in April,
1973, reiterating the above re
commendation.
(3) Why a patient referred to an
eye doctor by another doctor
receives only $6.40 medical
benefit from a scheduled fee
of $17.50 if spectacle lenses
are prescribed when a com
prehensive health-care program
has been promised to the Aus
tralian people. (Mr Hayden,
The Australian Health Insur
ance Program, November,
1973).
1 emphasise that my motiva
tion in attacking this aspect of
Mr Hayden's health scheme is
not in any self-interest but on
the behalf of the sections of my
patients who are being cruelly
discriminated against in the same
scheme.
LEO F. SHANAHAN
Eye Surgeon,
Turner.
Sir, — The implication of one
point seems to have been over
looked, in your readers' con
troversy on the National Health
Scheme, although the point
frequently has been repeated by
Mr Hayden: . "The National
Health Scheme will cover all the
people: at present one million are
not covered".
What this really means is that
14 million are to be levied, com
pulsorily, in order to cover one
million who do not at present
bother to insure themselves
against the financial loss of doc
tors' and/or hosiptal fees.
To benefit a one million
minority, many of the 14 million
majority, in addition to the com
pulsory levy, also will pay a pri
vate health fund, to ensure better
than mediocre and hurried
medical and hospital care.
That the majority must be
penalised to benefit an uncaring,
irresponsible monority, seems a
negation of democratic prin
ciples.
K. S. BELL
Fairfield,
NSW.
$