Rudd warns of massive hikes in health costs
Posted
Updated
Mr Rudd says Australia must boost its productivity to cope with the ageing population costs. (www.photoxpress.com: Julian May)
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has warned that Australia faces huge increases in health costs over the coming decades.
New Treasury figures predict health spending on Australians over 65 will be seven times higher than current levels in 40 years' time.
Mr Rudd says the figures predict the Commonwealth's health spending will increase by more than $200 billion by 2050, to be almost 8 per cent of GDP.
"That means increasing, in average, Australian Government health spending per person from $2,300 to about $7,200 in 2050," he said.
Mr Rudd says Australia must boost its productivity to cope with the costs of an ageing population.
"This is a product of the increasing age of Australians overall and secondly, the fact that with innovations in pharmaceuticals and medical technologies and the rest, the cost of treating each individual aged Australian will rise as well," he said.
He says with fewer people in the workforce to generate tax revenue, governments around the nation are facing rapidly rising health costs.
Mr Rudd says the only way to pay for it, is to boost the productivity of the workforce.
"It is not to make people work longer, that we speak of, it is to enable people to work smarter by drawing upon the most up to date technology and the most up to date skills," he said.
"That's what makes a difference in boosting our productivity growth."
He says 2010 must be, and will be, a year of reform.
"These are challenging statistics but it's important that the nation becomes familiar with them because we must do something about them," he said.
Showdown with states
Treasury also warns that the states are on a path of spending more than 100 per cent of their tax revenue on health in 30 years' time.
The Government will announce early this year what parts of the health system it plans to take control from the states.
Last year the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission recommended a partial Commonwealth takeover of hospitals and Health Minister Nicola Roxon says the states must be prepared to accept "significant" change.
"We are prepared to invest in the health system but we are going to demand that things be done differently," she told ABC2 News Breakfast.
But the Federal Opposition says Australians are becoming tired of the Prime Minister's failure to deal with the nation's ailing health system.
"We are now only a couple of months away from mid-2010 and the Prime Minister still hasn't even detailed the plan that he says he can implement," Opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton said.
"That's the crazy part about Kevin Rudd's spin on health - he just keeps promising the same thing over and over again but he delivers absolutely nothing."
If the health system needs more money, the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association has a few ideas about where it should come from.
The group's policy organiser, Charmaine Crowe, says the Government's review of the tax system could provide an opportunity to improve care.
"We'd really like to see some cutbacks in the tax concession provided primarily to high income earners capped," she said.
"The major one being those afforded to high-income earners via superannuation. Those sorts of things we'd like to see perhaps redirected to better funding aged care and health care to ensure we can look after our aging population."
University of Sydney Professor Gavin Mooney says other countries have found ways to rein in the expenses.
"This has been an issue that countries in Europe for example have [been] faced with for many, many years," he said.
"Some of them have actually got a much larger proportion of their population currently who are over 65 and the proportion of their national income that has been spent on health care is, in some instances at least, less."
The director of the Menzies Centre for Health Policy at Sydney University, Professor Steven Leeder, says the Government could bring costs down by increasing community-based care options, to avoid costly hospitalisations.
"If a person with a chronic problem can get through their general practitioner and other health professionals a good package of care that reassures them that they are being well looked after and also is there, if they need it, at 2am in the morning, they are much more likely to be able to be cared for without the recourse to sending them to an emergency department in a hospital where care becomes more expensive," he said.
Search for news
Australia Day 2010
Whether you celebrated Australia Day at home or abroad, we'd love to hear from you. Send us your stories, photos and videos.
 Facebook
|
 Email
|
 Twitter
|
Upload |
Latest stories
Video
Related links
Comments (100)
Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.
-
Ken:
25 Jan 2010 8:21:12am
There is a lot of duplication in the health services, blood tests, xrays and scans.
If we were to have a health card with all our details stored on them, then when seeing other health providers, there would be less duplication.
We all worked and paid taxes expecting to be covered in old age, so its time to deliver efficientlyAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Stranded:
25 Jan 2010 8:52:42am
I agree ...
When Rudd says ... "Australia must boost its productivity to cope with the costs of an ageing population..." .... I say GET YOUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER RUDD AND CONTROL YOUR STATE ALP LABOR MATES FISCAL CONTROL.
Kevin Rudd infuriates me ... always blaming others for the MESS that the ALP have created with regard to State based Service delievery !
Kevin Rudd is a FRAUD !Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
ScruffyRanger:
25 Jan 2010 9:14:26am
Well then, maybe you shouldn't have voted for him?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
andrew:
25 Jan 2010 11:36:29am
funny - WA has gone further backward than every other state ever since the liberal party took power.
the fact is - population growth etc has a massive affect on state responsibilites health education etc - and states lack of funding to keep up with demand means they will always be struggling.
time for the federal govt. to take over our health system. less red tape and more dynamic funding abbility to respond to ever increasing demandAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Rob:
25 Jan 2010 9:25:34am
Well your mate Howard also did his fair share on inaction... for 11 years with no attempt at national reform, except when he was about to loose an election...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jack:
25 Jan 2010 9:31:00am
And I understood we lived in a federation, with each State and the Commonwealth being individual sovereign powers !!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Hermit:
25 Jan 2010 12:01:22pm
Indeed, and with the Commonwealth having most of the money raising powers and the States having most of the spending responsibilities.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
teacher:
25 Jan 2010 9:43:07am
good thing we spent all our surplus on cash handouts and primary school halls then
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
andrew:
25 Jan 2010 11:39:52am
had we not - Australia would have ended up in recession - and we would be left with higher debt and higher unemployment.
tough decisions taken during a tough time. thankfully rudd and his govt did what was needed - and already can claim trumpts over the previous govt. and howard/costello/liberal party economic incompetence and their waste of the $100s of billions of dollars they inheritated when times were good.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
tomess:
25 Jan 2010 10:29:24am
But would that be an ID card? In any case, it's great to have a PM who's so honest that he gives us bad news, in an election year, rather than just attending the cricket and stating that his greatest moment was to speak in the U.S. House of Reps.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Informed Giant:
25 Jan 2010 11:55:57am
I think it s a bit rich to attack Howard about speaking overseas given that is all the current PM does.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Tim Hoff:
25 Jan 2010 10:37:25am
Rudd's warnings about the aging population are crocodile tears.
The ALP were totally against the GST (won an election with their scare campaign) when it was one way of increasing tax revenues in an atmosphere of declining income tax payers as a percentage of population.
On 'productivity' they destroyed 'Workchoices' when it was all about rewarding individuals for greater productivity instead of hiding and protecting the "workers rights" of unproductive loafers within a collective wage fixing system.
ALP's so-called universal health care system (Medibank / Medicare) has totally stuffed health care. Generations have grown up thinking that they don't have to pay for something that is just as basic as a roof over ones head. Thanks to the ALP current and future generations will be paying for the last 40 years of "free" health care with future massive tax increases.
Add to that the latest spend fest he calls "stimulus" and the CPRS and all the average Joe Public has to look forward to in the future is TAX and more TAX.
Well you voted them in comrades.......Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
fish:
25 Jan 2010 11:51:32am
Just the tipical ALP they make all these promises to get in and then get the public to pay more and more to finance there pledges, I recall the Lib's (When they were in power) trying to do somthing with the health system and take it out of the hands of the states control, but alass!! the ALP states fought against the take over with the support of the fed ALP.
We all know what state the medical system is in and for
Mr Rudd to warn us about the future of the medical system is just stating the obvious.
All Mr Rudd seems to be doing is buying votes, with the absolute fourtune he has already spent, he needs to find more ways to create an income to pay for the rest of he's idea's.
Weather right or wrong, we all end up paying for it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Hermit:
25 Jan 2010 12:04:39pm
The problem with Workchoices was that it did not provide adequate protection to those with the weakest bargaining position.
The current Fairwork system is barely any better. Randomly pick a child care worker and ask them how their latest pay negotiations are going and you'll get the idea.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Chris:
25 Jan 2010 8:27:49am
Let's begin reducing health costs by encouraging and supporting women to have home births where our brilliant technology shows everything is perfectly normal, and through legislation to allow voluntary euthanasia.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ScruffyRanger:
25 Jan 2010 9:16:00am
Home births? Euthanasia? How is the government expected to maintain tight controls over people if that type of thing is going on?
Doesn't exactly float with America's plans for the future of our nation.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
pablo:
25 Jan 2010 10:49:25am
Sorry granny, you are costing too much and we really think that you need to die now. Not terminally ill? Well, that is not a major obstacle is it - everyone has got to die some day. Depressed? - might be a treatable condition but to save money, lets take the easy way it with euthanasia. Might then be able to sell granny's jewellry to go on that overseas trip we always wanted. Sure, granny might not want to go that way but with a bit of encouragement she will see the light and let us move her on.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
boomer:
25 Jan 2010 8:30:29am
Mr Rudd's anti-aged comments are offensive and without scientific basis.
None of us expect to be immortal, and most medical intervention does little to avoid the inevitable. Lifestyle changes (diet and exercise) are being stalled because of lack of good infrastructure, particularly cheaper healthy food options and safer cycle-paths.
Supermarket costs rip off both the farmers that supply good cheap and the customer forced to buy the produce.
Older folk have slower reaction times and generally poorer eyesight but bike paths are designed for a fit young lothario or a pre-school tricyclist.
Why doesn't Mr Rudd tell us what he intends to do to keep us healthy rather than blathering on about health costs to treat folk who have made themselves sick eating junk food and sitting round watching Oprah on the big screens that Kev gave them with his $1000 voter bribe?Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
ron:
25 Jan 2010 8:50:23am
Not to mention increasing productivity - i.e. work harder. The average 50 hour working week isn't killing the population quickly enough - lets put some more pressure on the workers.
Rudd - you're no better than HowardAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Chris:
25 Jan 2010 9:12:59am
"Not to mention increasing productivity - i.e. work harder."
Increasing productivity does not neccassarily mean working longer hours, and working harder. It can also mean, like Kevin Rudd said, "enable people to work smarter by drawing upon the most up to date technology and the most up to date skills".
In other words, work smarter, not harder.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pickled:
25 Jan 2010 11:45:26am
and yet, lets make it more costly for students to get the education needed for this 'smarter' work. 20 years ago education was free for everyone... now... lets give students less than the unemployed and make em pay for their knowledge which the politicians expect to benefit from.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
ScruffyRanger:
25 Jan 2010 9:17:21am
But... you voted for Kevin Rudd. What on earth are you complaining about? Would you rather relinquish for the next TWO PARTY election?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
the yank:
25 Jan 2010 8:56:51am
boomer...did you actually read the article? There is nothing about Rudd being anti-aged. And without scientific basis? You must be joking!
The elderly will off course need more health care then the young, that is so obvious I am amazed that anyone would question that aspect.
The baby boomers are entering the retirement stage and with that comes the need for more aged care facilities, home care workers, as well as health care professionals.
Are you really thinking that older people don't require extra care? The question is how society will cope with the expense.
One obvious answer is let more younger people immigrate but I assume that other countries with their own baby boomers will not want that to happen.
Getting us oldies to take better care of ourselves, productivity in the work place will help lift the overall wealth of the country meaning we can deal with the extra costs better, improved healthcare products are all part of the mix.
This is one of the most imporatant questions going. Far more important then a few more boats of refugee seekers.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
gregh:
25 Jan 2010 10:30:56am
spot on yank by increased productivity i hope he means more emphasis spent on prevention rather than the panic rhetoric he is giving us at the moment.
Productivity will only increase if become more healthy through activities generated at the workplace and in our own time.
Breaks from the computers at work every few hours by orgainsed in office excersize prgrames,tax deductions for gym memberships and health clubs and by finally enforcing our school kids to activly participate in compulsorary school sports and compusorary school self health programes.
Most of the problem's we are facing are caused by our own obesity and unhealthy lifestyles so that is the best palce to start and address the problem but it must be compulsorary to participate starting at school.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pickled:
25 Jan 2010 11:48:14am
yes, let us have a greater population to handle the baby boomers.. and then... best have another population growth to handle the aging 'x&y & more' population when they retire... and then... we should have another population growth to handle that..... where does it end?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Rob:
25 Jan 2010 9:30:24am
"Why doesn't Mr Rudd tell us what he intends to do to keep us healthy rather than blathering on about health costs to treat folk who have made themselves sick eating junk food and sitting round watching Oprah"
Sorry mate he's the PM, not a health care worker.
Staying healthy is the responsibilty and choice of we the individuals. It's our decision on our live journey.
If veggy-heads wish to get fat on the couch with Operah then they have the choice to make.
Supermarket price regulation is a different matter though.
If Woolworths buys veggies for 1 dollar a ton, then sells them at the store for 2 dollar a kilo then there is definately something wrong... so write to woolliies and coles and ask them and stop blathering!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Merry:
25 Jan 2010 11:28:00am
Mr Rudd: "It is not to make people work longer, that we speak of, it is to enable people to work smarter by drawing upon the most up to date technology and the most up to date skills," he said.
Draw your attention to 'the most up to date skills' Could that be interpreted by employers by employing young TAFEy's & Uni Graduates over older more experienced workers (say those in their 40's) who are required to work until they are in say their late 60's. What effects will 25 years of ageism, rejection, devaluation of their humanity by repeated visits and justifications to the dole office have on their heath?
I would argue that younger people who damage themselves permanently through their own choices (substance abuse and driving abuse) be made to feel as guilty as the elderly for natural aging processes and for working a long and hard life to make this country as stable and as wealthy it is today. Throughout their lives the now elderly paid their taxes and we repay them with guilt.
A user pays system. The elderly have paid a lot of taxes during their life. Now it's time to use. Hypothetically, how long between retirement and death? If I were to say, pulling number from the air, 15 years would that be close-ish? So retirement at 67 and maybe they started work late so from age 30 they worked solidly. hmmm 37 years of tax minus 15 years health care. The government and society get 22 years worth productivity profit.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Wagner:
25 Jan 2010 8:34:58am
Well thank God we have the "Education Revolution" to smarten up the kids of today so that they will be able to solve these problems in the future.
It has been almost 2.5 years and still Rudd spruiks doom and gloom without providing a plan to deal with it.
Rudd is probably trying to take a line out of Jim Hacker's political playbook by gving us a disaster today and a triumph tomorrow in the form of a policy to cope with these issues...or at least that would be a good start.
It is funny though that very little has been mentioned about climate change over the last few weeks...Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
ScruffyRanger:
25 Jan 2010 9:18:14am
You know, I was just thinking; Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for Kevin Rudd?
I dunno... something about looking before leaping?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Rob:
25 Jan 2010 9:31:54am
Well i't s bit better than pulling the plug completely and cutting education costs and saying, ooh we need more skills, so lets import them rather than educating Australians like John Howard did.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Horrocks:
25 Jan 2010 10:23:36am
Rob
you obviously don't have anything to do with either health or education otherwise you would know what a farce the education revolution is. The computers program is useless and the biggest problem with health is that in NSW in particular there have been so many extra layers of beuacracy laid in it's not funnyAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Rob:
25 Jan 2010 11:51:38am
Yes that 14 billion dollars sent to private schools instead of being shared evenly would be a blessing wouldn't it?
It was set up and allocated by the Howard government...
And now the private schools 'need' it??
Yet all the criticism goes to PUBLIC schools where the majority of students are given permission to defer their exams so they can go on holidays with their rich parents.... great huh...?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Rob:
25 Jan 2010 11:54:42am
The computers program actually is excellent, and a great move forward.
You obviously work in a system where computers are 'a given' and see no need for them...
So you would be happy to deny poorer schools and students the right to a computer? Whilst private schools have this equipment provided yet STILL ask for the free computer...
That's the rip-off sonny jim!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Rob:
25 Jan 2010 12:04:17pm
One more thing...
You actually agree with John Howard that Australian's should be less educated and that the immigration rate increased to fill the education gap that had been CREATED by that same policy!
Why don't you please just stop and think about that policy, because that's what happened, then you go and say the education system sucks when your ex PM dismantled it in the first place!
Then look at why refugees are intercepted and yet all overstaying visa holders from OECD are not sent to the same wretched detention centres? hmmm? That's Liberal policy again!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Horrocks:
25 Jan 2010 8:40:22am
simple, stop interfering with nature by allowing scientists to come up with all these different pills and potions that keep people alive longer than what Mother Nature intended. It's ridiculous that by interfering as we have done that life expectancy has sky rocketd which means we live longer and increase our "carbon footprint" perhaps Rudd's climate change would stop or slow down if we weren't so overpopulated caused by this obsession with living longer
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
ScruffyRanger:
25 Jan 2010 9:19:41am
Good idea!
Let's go back to the days of a 35yr life span. I Guess, the up end of that is that we wouldn't have a senior citizen for a PM.
LOLS! Like THAT'S ever gonna happen.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Nup:
25 Jan 2010 11:40:15am
I have to agree with you. At the end of a person's life, we often spend huge amounts of money prolonging their life for a few months longer despite the fact that their quality of life during that period is negligible.
Our medical system is far too interventionist and doesn't seem able to draw a distinction between what is worthwhile intervention and what is simply dragging out the inevitable and prolonging the agony.
When there are young people in other countries who would otherwise have long, productive lives but who are dying from lack of food and water, it seems ludicrous to instead direct our resources towards people who are at the end of their lives.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
MarW:
25 Jan 2010 8:43:16am
Do you really think the children of today are going to pay to look after the elderly when they become financially responsible for them?
Tuesday is Soylent Green day.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter:
25 Jan 2010 9:20:34am
We wont have a choice - the dollar follows the vote. As the population ages, so does the voter base. How can the young affect spending if the elderly vote as block? When the politicians chase the grey vote there's not much we can do.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
MT:
25 Jan 2010 10:34:19am
there will be a larger proportion of elderly people in the future than there is now but they will still be in the minority
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Sharon:
25 Jan 2010 8:43:39am
Apart from the ageing population's increasing burden on the public health system, this report fails to include the increasing cost of supporting members of our community that, despite widely held medical knowledge of the effects, continue to abuse their bodies with alcohol, tobacco, various other chemical drugs, over-eating and lack of physical activity. The extraordianary hike in diseases related to obesity (such as diabetes and heart disease to name just two) are completely preventable. Yet members of the community who choose to live a relatively healthy lifestyle by avoiding these excesses are penalised through the tax system and the increasing cost of both public and private health cover. Whilst I acknowledge that there are a number of people sadly afflicted by these terrible diseases through the misfortune of genetics, for the greater majority it is self-inflicted. How is it that the 'ageing population' is blamed for the spike in medical care costs and not the increasing number of young and middle-aged people occupying hospital beds due to these self-inflicted diseases?
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
MT:
25 Jan 2010 10:35:24am
It is inevitable that the elderly will be expected to foot a larger share of their health bill in the future
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Burningfeetman:
25 Jan 2010 8:48:25am
A couple of things come to mind.
Cycle friendly roads. Cheaper fresh food. Tax unhealthy foods. Stronger moves against cigarettes and alcohol. More financial consequence for those who do over indulge their way to the emergency ward on a Thursday, Friday & Saturday night.
I don't understand why Australia needs to be in the position on national health that this article suggests, when European countries have been doing a LOT better than us for decades. If they can do it, then what's stopping us?
I think our system of government is what truly needs a "boost in productivity".Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ScruffyRanger:
25 Jan 2010 9:20:36am
Yes boost in productivity. Awesome. BUT! We also need to stop voting for people over 40.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
MT:
25 Jan 2010 10:36:49am
surely you mean stop voting for people under the age of 40
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
bcebul:
25 Jan 2010 8:50:39am
A large part of the problem is that Australians over eat and under exercise. This leads to vascular disease and cancer. The biggest health problems.
The government should focus its infrastructure spending on healthy living environments. That is, less roads, more dedicated bicycle and walking paths, more public transport [ walk/pedal to the train/tram/bus] more localised industry [walk to work and shops]. Planners should discourage big box pedestrian unfriendly retail developments. Retail should be located near public transport hubs. Stop spending money on hospitals and doctors. Raise taxes on bad food, alcohol and cigarettes. Make the sick pay themselves to give people incentive to stay healthy. Or, let Medicare reflect the true cost of this current bandaid approach to health care.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
assanhado:
25 Jan 2010 11:48:20am
Absolutely correct! The other aspect not to ignore is healthcare as a economic 'good' is peculiar because as people become wealthier they tend to spend more on it. It doesn't following the law of diminishing returns.
Given the tendency as individuals our appetite for healthcare is open-ended I think one of the 'sleeper' issues in this debate, apart from wastage, duplication, oligopolistic professional associations, individual irresponsibility for one's own welfare etc. is developing a criteria for what health services the public health system should pay for.
I know I wouldn't like to be the person responsible for such decisions and community oversight would be critical but some ROI for alternative treatments may become a necessity.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Mr Medved:
25 Jan 2010 8:54:02am
The future projections for health care costs will not be met. The current costs are not being met by tax revenues, but by unsustainable debt issuance. What is more likely in the future is a reduced public health system on a per expense/per capita basis. A responsible leader would be preparing general expectations for less, not more.
This is a typical example of why Kevin Rudd supports a big Australia. He is willing to lower the long-term living standards and ecological health of the nation to meet the needs of the largest voter demographic (baby boomers).Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Rosie:
25 Jan 2010 8:54:11am
So why is Rudd changing the regulations regarding Super? Surely if the older people in the workforce want to put extra money away to pay for their retirement it would take the pressure off the government having to fund them?? Perhaps money saved in that way would go towards our failing health system.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pickled:
25 Jan 2010 11:55:40am
cause the government need money now to pay for their 'brilliant' governance..... silly!
Who plans for the future?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Blzbob:
25 Jan 2010 8:59:16am
Perhaps if we just breed faster? oh, that was howards plan wasn't it.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Hermit:
25 Jan 2010 12:11:17pm
Mr Howard had a plan to breed faster? Did Jeanette know?
Are you sure you aren't confusing Mr Howard with Tiger Woods?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Anne:
25 Jan 2010 9:03:32am
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!! I seem to recall reading about a similar line of thinking during the polio scare of the 1950s - how are we going to pay for the cost of caring for these polio victims now and into their old age. Read 'The Brain that Changes itself" by Dr Norman Doidge. Become optimistic about ageing - more research, better understanding, longer, more creative and productive lives. Grey nomads contributing to domestic tourism. The 'elderly' will be supporting the economy - not draining from it.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
DanielH:
25 Jan 2010 9:06:18am
Agree with re duplications of tests done * but also look who are having access to Medicare funds aka public purse. allied healths , psychologists , dentists , chiropractors , optometrists ,podiatrists , exercise physiologists, dieticians..etc .
So is it really that surprising that |Health funding projections are rising exponentially..
Can Aussies afford these largess
FYI i am in health profession here .Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Cyril:
25 Jan 2010 9:10:57am
3 score and 10, then off with there heads,
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
theraccoon:
25 Jan 2010 9:19:08am
Then why do we want more people?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
I am a cynic:
25 Jan 2010 9:20:28am
Stop focusing on the ageing population.
How about the number of people suffering from lifestyle related diseases that put a big crimp on the healthcare system. The number of people suffering from smoking related diseases has not lessened a great deal since we realised the hazards of smoking. Or what about the huge spike of type 2 diabetes sufferers that are now in the community. Or melanomas from irresponsible exposure to the sun, or obesity and all the health problems that are related to that. All of these illnesses are ones that there is plenty of information about and we are well aware of the consequences of.
It is not just an ageing population that is affecting the health system. It is the illnesses that can be avoided if we take a bit more responsibility of our own well being that cause a huge strain on the system.
We have become a society that sees healthcare as solving all our problems we have inflicted upon ourselves, instead of taking responsibility for our own lifestyle choices and thinking about the possible consequences these can lead to.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Lin1:
25 Jan 2010 11:35:25am
Take a walk through our hospitals and you will discover that majority of our hospital beds are not taken up by the elderly Australians....only about 5%.
So just exactly where are our taxes going?
Perhaps we need to look more closely at our immigration policies....Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
MT:
25 Jan 2010 11:59:00am
are you saying that our health system is over burdened by immigrants?
it is pretty well established that the elderly use the health system more than the youngAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
I am a cynic:
25 Jan 2010 12:18:13pm
Considering the migrant population don't automatically get full government benefits, I am not too sure where you are going with this argument. Some are paying for their stays in hospital, no Medicare for them.
The hospital beds I encounter are full of patients suffering from lifestyle related diseases.
Amputations due to type 2 diabetes have skyrocketed. Diabetes alone impacts on, endocrinology, orthopaedics, ophthalmology, occupational therapy and that's just to name a few of the areas they have placed a strain upon.
You cannot automatically start pointing your finger at our migrant population, they make up part of the picture, but Australians make up a far bigger part of the picture of who is filling our hospital beds.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Pickled:
25 Jan 2010 11:57:12am
again, dementia is going to be one of our biggest problems- healthy lifestyle or not...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Rob:
25 Jan 2010 12:16:33pm
The facts of life.
How quaint that people deny it.
The irony is that anyone here in this forum who may or may not need it in their later years will be assuming that it is their right to a good aged care.
It's good to have vigor debate about it... but just remember life's journey affects everyone no matter the amount of silicon, lip-suction, mascara, face cream or botox you inject...;-)Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Boomer2:
25 Jan 2010 9:26:42am
Well Boomer,
Let's put it all on Ruddy. How about taking some responsibility for yourself. It's not Rudd's responsibility to make and keep you healthy, it's yours. Bought a TV with your windfall did you. Of course you had no other choice?
I wouldn't complain about the bikepaths either. If you want better, get out and lay some concrete. We are well served by bikepaths in most of our capital cities. I don't remember any at all 40 years ago. All it requires to be safe on them, is a little awareness of other users, some consideration of their needs, awareness of your own limitations and a bit of compensation for them and to get out there instead of cringing at home waiting for someone else to do everything for you.
Don't like supermarket costs. Organise, a cooperative to buy at the markets.
One with slow, reaction times, poorer eyesight, deaf as well and suffering from arthritis (and none of it is Rudd's fault) but still cycling, swimming kayaking and fishing, will be until I drop, and feeling better for it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kez:
25 Jan 2010 9:39:32am
How much of the impending increases are directly related to a blowout in the population over the last few years? With plans to keep on increasing, it's no wonder health costs will also massively increase.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
James:
25 Jan 2010 9:42:19am
The usual drivle from labor - placing blame on certain sectors of the community for their problems (remindes me of a tactic by hitler). Inaction and mismanagement of the health system in all states by labor has caused this mess same for water and electricity problems. How about a government that does somthing rather than talk about the problems only by doing somthing now with things be better for the future.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pickled:
25 Jan 2010 11:58:55am
totally agree.. why can't they do something NOW about managing things better instead of just having another workgroup to talk about it over tea and bickies?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Kat:
25 Jan 2010 9:47:49am
I'm totally over Kevin Rudd threatening the population with ageing baby boomers. I'm a baby boomer. I have no intention of living on for year after year needing health interventions and so on and on till I eventually kick off.
If my quality of life isn't good, ie if I'm riddled with cancers etc. I'll find a way to quit this mortal coil. I don't want to be a burden to anyone, let alone my family. Surely if I feel this way there will be a lot of other baby boomers who feel the same.
In the meantime I'm working on staying as fit and strong as I can, to live a healthy lifestyle as long as I can. For those who smoke, drink to excess, take illegal drugs and otherwise abuse their bodies......let them be highly taxed to pay for the extra medical interventions they always need. Long live Australia.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Lynne:
25 Jan 2010 10:03:59am
Pharmaceutical based medicine has proved to be a very expensive pill indeed. Why is there continuing harassment of herbal products and practitioners such as homeopaths and herbalists?
Two years ago due to enormous stress I found myself with a painful stomach condition. I went to the hospital in extreme pain and I was given two packets of a script worth forty dollars each to the taxpayer which I received for five dollars or something. Their advice was to take them for the rest of my life as my condition was incurable. Still in intense pain with the expensive drugs I ran into our local homeopath and herbalist and for approximately forty dollars I bought some herbs and homeopathics. I was better in a couple of days with plenty of medicine left over in case of a relapse of which I had one.
Why are these sciences always portrayed as a fallacy? A hundred years ago Australians lived much more simply growing a lot of their food and being quite independent and resourceful with herbs and natural treatments for a lot of health conditions. A century of propaganda facilitated by advertising has the country being bled dry by a population chronically addicted to an unhealthy lifestyle with a propensity to rush for the doctor who will hand them pharmaceuticals which are produced by profit driven multi-billion corporations.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
MT:
25 Jan 2010 10:43:35am
homeopathy is rubbish - that is why
it doesnt work (aside from a placebo effect)Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
llanfair:
25 Jan 2010 10:04:57am
While the health sector has some issues, just a few points:
Firstly, Australian life expectancy is currently the third highest in the world, so our health system cannot be all that bad.
Of the countries with greater life expectencies Switzerland spends about 40% more per capita per annum than we do and gets about an extra 3 months average life per person (not a great ROI really). The other country is Japan that spend 20% less per capita than Australia and achieves about 15 months more life.
Two things make Japan stand out - diet and an average of 12 or more visits to their GP's each year (far more than any other rich nation). Prevention (through diet, lifesytle and a regular service) is the cheapest form of health service on offer.
The government's primary health agenda is a step in the right direction. Just make sure it is led by the doctors.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
P Q:
25 Jan 2010 10:12:15am
Kevin Rudd is stating the obvious. Our birth rates have declined while life expectancy has increased. It is only natural that health care costs for growing aged population are increasing faster than tax revenues are collected from diminishing tax payers. So why is this political? Will the Coalition be able to reduce the aged population or increase the birth rate to the extent that it exceeds ageing rate?
Whichever side of politics you belong to, the facts are the same. So can we really avoid increasing productivity rate or taxes?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Nup:
25 Jan 2010 12:02:40pm
There is a third alternative which may eventuate - instead of increasing productivity or increasing taxes, we may have to instead reduce the level of health care provided.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Heather:
25 Jan 2010 10:15:21am
I find it interesting that the boomer generation accepts for the most part the government propaganda that will see an increase in taxes for all, an erosion of their hard earned finances and superannuation, the continuing devolvement of medical services due to an unbalanced focus on administrative importance and; an increase in the acceptability of ageist discrimination that is gleefully disseminated by the media.
It is rarely mentioned that governments mostly plan for their term of office and popular agendas. It interesting that the public have happily bought the, "you are now in control of your health so it's your fault if you get sick," line. Blame the victims indeed! The reality is that some people get sick, some doctors get it wrong and some public health messages are consumed and reified to the detriment of the population. Read some recent reports on the sucess of the "slip slop slap" campaign that has now been linked to vitamin d deficiencies in the general population. For goodness sake, each working generation supports the welfare of the state, and the boomer generation has been doing just that for decades. Society is made up of many people who suffer (and/or enjoy) different circumstances and utopia is just a dream. Wake up folks!
Suck it up, Mr Rudd! You were supported through your school and university; and I bet your parents drew on child endowment and public health services too!
Just go and visit a publicly funded nursing home and see what many of you have to look forward to if the health services decline any further. And while you are at it why don't you volunteer at such places, and just see for yourself just how quickly your aged relatives become institutionalised, invisible and infantalised. You will never find out these things from sporadic Sunday visits to old relatives in nursing homes that serve to assuage your conscience.
After seeing some of these realities for themselves perhaps the boomer generation will be less inclined to accept these preparatory campaigns to further erode their hard earned assets and will get off their backsides and do something to prevent this state sponsored discrimination against aged people. Remember boomers are the product of a government funded breeding program similar to the current one, and as such, the same problems will be faced by those little ones when they reach retirement age. If boomers don't fight this now what chance will the little "noughties" have in 50 years time? Discrimination comes in many forms and is often state sponsored.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
P Q:
25 Jan 2010 10:36:50am
There is Australian children's book titled "The Magic Pudding". It is about a magic pudding which, no matter how often it is eaten, always reforms to be eaten again.
Boomers who believe that they can depend on social welfare to provide for their growing health care needs without at least an equivalent increase in tax revenues, believe in that story is real.
So instead of fighting, perhaps boomers who feels that they are losing out can spend their energy rereading "the Magic Puddung" again and again. By the way, I am a boomer who does not draw on the social welfare, pays taxes towards providing welfare services and have to manage the wealth I built up during my working years to pay for what I enjoy now and for the coming years.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
MT:
25 Jan 2010 10:40:25am
how do you propose to pay for state funded health care if not through increased taxes? perhaps you would like to skim off some of the funding from roads,education or policing.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
juliet:
25 Jan 2010 10:16:55am
as always i am disappointed at how quickly the comment threads on this abc website descend into a labor v liberal slanging match. this important long-term planning issue deserves more thought and consiideration from all of us than just the usual tweedledee v tweedledum politiking arguments.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Rod:
25 Jan 2010 10:22:09am
But as I have noticed, with the repulsive and idiotic comments on here.. Strayans truly are tweedledum and tweedleabsolutelyinbredandstupid
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Jon Jenkins:
25 Jan 2010 10:22:44am
1: Get rid of the federal/state duplication
2: Get rid of the monopoly that specialist physicians have over colleges
3: Get rid of the deliberate over service rorting i.e. multiple GP visits to get simple services like Fluvax/repeat scripts/minor issues that any competent triage nurse can handle
4: Most hospital admissions do not need high level care: less expensive intermediate and/or home care facilities.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
81rdm4n:
25 Jan 2010 10:25:50am
This is typical do nothing say nothing nonsense from kevin 07. You want to cut health costs?? Increase the price of cigarette packs to $50, or $100. Health problems solved!!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bezza:
25 Jan 2010 10:26:26am
Politicians. Do any of us believe any of them now days? Wasn't Rudd going to federalise the health system and save it from collapse? Still waiting for that to happen aren't we. What about the recent baby boom we all hear about? Hmmm with this simply cause another cycle of generational growth and shrinkage in population. Obviously these issues are ones that our short sighted government has known about for decades, yet as always nothing is done in preparation, nothing planned ahead to compensate for what is beeding obvious. Election Politics, short term policy, buck passing, yada yada yada... we have heard is all before.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pickled:
25 Jan 2010 12:08:49pm
I don't think anyone really believes them anymore what with such pearlers as "there will be no GST" other such public blatant backflips... but somehow, we dwindled down to a two party system where it is the choice of the devil we know or the one who has been waiting. hopefully in this next election we start to make a move for something else. I think it might be time to let the tasmanian devil- the Greens, to get their time in the limelite- can it be any worse?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Spinner:
25 Jan 2010 10:29:53am
Instead of wasting time and effort on Mr Henry's business-as-usual "reform of the taxation system", how about some thought is given to reforming the tax system such that the it is more equitable.
Were the wealthy tax avoiders, both individual and corporate, required to pay tax even at the same rate as those who do not have the luxury of writing off the tax liabilities against normal business or personal expenses, there would probably be very little shortage of funds in the treasury coffers any time in the future.
Normal taxpayers incur many unavoidable expenses in the normal course of their business - called living. But they are entitled to no deductions as a result of these unavoidable expenditures. But a large corporation is entitled to claim normal business expenses (all of them) as offsets to payable taxation.
Oh yes; I can hear it now. If we make these people and corporation pay their fair share of tax, they will move offshore and take their wealth with them.
Let them! See if they can get a better deal anywhere offshore. That is most unlikely in this age of high taxation. Probably they would find it much better staying here, even with higher taxation payments.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
PHB:
25 Jan 2010 10:31:55am
Sounds like pre-tax hike spin. Create spin outlining the dire future economic environment ....and then raise taxes. The next piece of spin will be that the government has had to put up taxes to future proof the economy from the demons of the aging population.
The money wasted on the school revolution (don't know how a school hall or gym will improve the quality of the education delivered) and rebates/bonuses would have been better served invested in real infrastructure (not broadband for example) and reducing red tape to improve productivity. Australia is and will continue to remain one of the important primary producers of the world, and broadband will provide little improvement to agricultural or mining productivity.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Carpark Martian:
25 Jan 2010 10:42:15am
Anne is on the money.
An extreme event without the intervention of human innovation/ problem solving is either one that happens overnight (earthquake/ tsunami/ plane crashing into building/ GFC) or one that does not exist.
The media loves a story that linearly extrapolates a current paradigm to it's illogical end. It does serve of course to alert us all to the requirement for change.
If we did not get old in the first place - well that saves our economy 10's of billions of dollars every year. or 8% of GDP globally. - What an enormous driver for change and innovation.
What an enormous driver to nationally and internationally fund anti aging the required billions of dollars to crack the problem of aging.
I've been wandering for some time why anti aging technology has not been pursued with the extreme energy that is associated with say resolving a biological pandemic.
- It would seem that we act on things that cause a lack of control to that sector of the demographic that has control.
Gradual ageing and age related deaths not YET being one of these things.
A bit ironic that the greatest push (and I think the final successful push) for anti ageing is not going to be our fear of death and ageing but rather the fear of loosing control (- of the ability to support and fund this issue).
I think it will not be long from now (say 10 years) till ageing is put at the top of the preventable diseases hit list. Then another 10 to 20 years to find an effective (actual) solution to this disease.
Then we can finally target that most pressing global disease - us!
I.e global population control.
Then perhaps the planet can breath a collective sigh of relief. ....And ponder the issue of global cultural an mental health in a world with so few children and the issue of who should control the planet....Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter of Melbourne:
25 Jan 2010 10:53:46am
dont expect miracles. we haven't had a decent forward looking government in this country since the 1960's, just political hacks. like the roman empire we are in decline and there is no stopping it.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Hermit:
25 Jan 2010 12:21:18pm
It's not so much the absence of miracles that bothers us all, but the lack of decency and honesty.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Greg:
25 Jan 2010 10:56:22am
I guess one of the solution would be to go back to local hospital boards that worked well before being replaced by an enormous State Health apparatus.
Another problem is we do not have enough doctors. This is due to vested interests who tried for years to limit an amount of doctors graduating and coming into the country.When I applied to migrate to Australia about 20 years ago as a professional you were 'fined' 5 or more points if you were a working doctor practicing in Europe (UK was an exception) making it impossible for foreign trained doctors to migrate. I still remember strikes and demonstrations of foreign trained doctors in front of the NSW Parlament House because of difficulties of being recognised.
It is time to look at how the vested interests (especially specialists) guard their turf and do something about it. It is time to provide a simple 'fasttrack' way for nurses to become doctors (in fact I believe we are the only developed countries where it is impossible). I believe the nursing degree should be a part of the doctors degree thus getting right people in.
We need to train more doctors, and especially more specialists (with perhaps staged training) as it is cheaper in the long run for the community.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Tom:
25 Jan 2010 11:05:31am
Have you noticed that Kev has dropped out of the climate change debate?
This tirade is equally as far fetched!
With the help of doctors and medical scientists we will be in a very good position with national health in 40 years time - the exact opposite of the Treasury's predictions!
Come on Prime Minister stop playing the Australian population as fools and start leading us with a positive ambition or two.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mannix:
25 Jan 2010 11:37:19am
Tom - Where on earth did you draw that conclusion from? What is happening in Australia regarding the fiscal challenges from an ageing population is happening in just about every other developed nation on earth. Not matter how good our doctors or medical scientists are we cannot reverse that fact. The ageing population is not the only factor leading to rising health care costs, as medical technology becomes more advanced it also becomes a lot more expensive. Please, don't take my word for it, go and read a forward projections report from the Department of Health and Ageing and see for yourself. Anyone who thinks Rudd is talking this up is having themselves on, Howard Ministers talked about the exact same problem. Go back and have a look at what Costello had to say about the issue when he was Treasurer.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Hermit:
25 Jan 2010 12:25:18pm
... and Mr Rudd's departure from the climate change debate?
Perhaps that was one of last year's number one priorities.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
RJW:
25 Jan 2010 11:08:04am
You don't increase productivity by re-regulating the labour market like the ALP have just done. Nor by increasing government beaurocracy.
Typical Rudd. All talk, flash words, spin & symbolism. But very little in the way of action.
Australia's beginning to wake up to this clown.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Felipe:
25 Jan 2010 11:57:26am
Rudd is merely shifting the focus away from his ETS. As you say RJW, Rudd is all talk but does not deliver. I truly hope the voting public do not fall for Rudd's spin and lies.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
renbe:
25 Jan 2010 11:17:33am
How ignorant can we remain? Are we just unable to see and understand that they are the pharmaceutical and medical corporations and institutions who are discouraging natural means to health?
The solution .... eat more organically grown vegetables and good fruit, drink home-made fruit juices, no need for milk as no animal, once weaned, drinks milk from any other source. Get away from meat and dairy products (helps climate changes!!) as the idea for proteins is too much promoted, we do not much once you are healthy.
No need for vaccinations, enjoy great health. How? Learn about it, read about it and study it, you will be delighted with lovely health for parents and children. Plenty of goods books are available.
To your health and well-being, go more natural (and the Government will save billions of money in the process! ! )Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
MT:
25 Jan 2010 11:55:05am
nevertheless, when you get old your health expenses will increase
this is about demographics - not treatment optionsAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
alco:
25 Jan 2010 11:35:28am
they need to fix the system at all levels stop wasting money on duplication and the private health rebate gov pandering to the baby boomers who are a large lobing group manly the rich wealthy buisness types who have for decades lobied for there colective intrest rather then the good of the country and its now going to come down to will
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Andy:
25 Jan 2010 11:54:08am
Costs increase? Rubbish.
The problem is that the Boomers think that only Gen X and younger should be "user pays", whilst they deserve to be subsidised yet again.
Unless we follow the US and allow finance and other private sector parasites to profit from healthcare. We can't be *that* stupid surely....Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
original :
25 Jan 2010 12:02:43pm
Funning thing economics-can be used to justify anything! According to AIHW in 2007-8 Australia was spending 9.1% of GDP on health care. This means in the future we will be spending less in real terms on health care (8% of GDP).
What a misleading and confusing statement!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Robert:
25 Jan 2010 12:05:11pm
Cut down administration costs.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doug Alford:
25 Jan 2010 12:06:47pm
This Government makes no apology for identify the obvious (but doing nothing about it). We had expensive meeting about health reform with the States last year. Outcome - dont you worry about that.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jack99:
25 Jan 2010 12:13:09pm
Medical Scientist here. I confirm what somebody above said, that the major change in the last 35 years that I have been in the system is the massive increase in bureaucracy coupled with vastly decreased staffing at the coal face.
Ok the latter may be partly technology driven but the former is a law unto itself and has grown to a degree of stupid such that it is now very difficult for us to do our jobs properly. Many of those in the upper echelons have never worked in labs. Large amounts of money are spent on moves and mergers of dubious value.
I dread to think how much the bureacracy will grow when everything is run by Canberra.....Agree (0) Alert moderator
Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.
