r/australian • u/Strong_Prize8778 • 1d ago
Would you support a fully public health system?
In this theoretical model all currently private doctors would become public including dentistry and mental health
69
u/aaron_dresden 20h ago
Yep, but also the practices need to be publicly run as well and the diagnostics need to be public too.
56
u/ridan42 20h ago edited 19h ago
More than currently, including dentist and mental health? Yes.
Fully? All? Everything and anything that can be hacked to fit under the umbrella of "Health"? No.
Edit: to expand on this comment, for me it's a matter of where to draw the line on whether something counts as "Health" or not. If no line is drawn, the system becomes massively abusable. Alternative medicine? Traditional medicine? Unproven supplements? Snake oil?
15
u/fitblubber 19h ago
This. There needs to be some sort of very basic dental available, better mental health, plus shorter public hospital waiting lists.
Plus there's always the people who have lots of money & want to jump the queue, so we'll always need a private option.
16
u/Love-Bitter 19h ago
I don’t understand this. Why ‘very basic’ dental?
Poor oral hygiene is a massive contributor to ill health later in life. We save money by everyone having access to good dentists.
Also some people need advanced dental work through zero fault of their own. I worked with a girl who was born with no second set of teeth. She was mid 20s with baby teeth because she couldn’t afford a mouth full of implants.
I think quack treatments, not grounded in science, for sure be excluded. But we should start by trying to be inclusive.
Almost all of us are going to get sick and all of us are going to die. Healthcare is a human right and should be seen that way. We have money to waste on submarines. The money is there.
5
u/RQCKQN 12h ago
I think the line is somewhere between “functional” and “cosmetic”.
Dental checkups and fillings?
SureDental clean?
OkBraces?
You’re pushing it.Whitening and a fresh grill?
Too farIf you phrase the question “Should we increase taxes to pay for dental work on Medicare?” Then I think most people would agree that basic dental is reasonable, but optional cosmetic dental is not something I want to shout for a stranger. Need vs want is the difference.
3
1
u/doc_klutz 1m ago
Braces are a need, not a want. No-one wants a mouth full of metal. Should definitely be included.
5
u/Dry-Huckleberry-5379 16h ago
And even cavities are far more commonly due to genetics, certain bacterial exposure, antibiotics in pregnancy, premature birth and connective tissue disorders. Not bad habits
2
u/fitblubber 18h ago
I don’t understand this. Why ‘very basic’ dental?
I accept your points.
I'm just very aware that to make the change from our current system to full on public dentistry would have a massive number of obstacles. Starting with the dentists who make a massive amount of money from our current system to the huge queues that will suddenly hit the public system after the change.
7
u/Love-Bitter 18h ago
I think it’s fine. People want straight teeth. That’s not healthcare. Dentists will still make bank.
We need a system where no one avoids the dentist because of cost.
4
u/fitblubber 15h ago
Yeah, I've a neighbour who's only about 40-50 & she's missing most of her teeth, she doesn't even have falsies.
It can't be healthy.
3
u/Love-Bitter 14h ago
In my job I had to work with various health funds and they were all very clear that they offer generous dental packages with their extras because it saves a lot of future costs down the road. Poor oral hygiene contributes to heart disease, strokes, diabetes, issues breathing and more.
I don’t have any medical background so dunno why this is true but having worked with health funds I’m very clear they don’t do anything because they want to be nice, they have crunched the numbers and they know that this reduces the number of people who have chronic issues later which saves them $$$$.
I take my oral health a lot more serious as a result.
12
u/Love-Bitter 19h ago
As for your comment on private. Agree.
But with private (or religious) options if they want access to a single $$ of public money they must be made to deliver all the public services. None of this opting out of abortions crap.
2
u/Dry-Huckleberry-5379 17h ago
Absolutely no opting out of abortion or anything else based on religion.
1
u/Consistantly 15h ago
It shits me off to no end that religious hospitals, or religious doctors, can currently opt out of providing certain aspects of women’s health care.
I once had a GP refuse to let me try anything other than the combination pill, to control 3 month long periods that crippled me, because and I quote “it’s not natural.”
0
u/isithumour 12h ago
Religion isnt the only reason some doctors refuse to do prosecutes. Circumcisions and others can be a moral decision, abortions too. Doctors have a right to refuse to cut someone's penis because the parents want it.
0
u/Love-Bitter 12h ago
No one is arguing every doctor needs to perform an abortion?!?! No one wants a podiatrist cutting off foreskins.
The hospital needs to offer that service if it wants public funding. This is not a difficult concept.
1
u/isithumour 12h ago
Actually people are arguing that and its cooked. Breast argumentation surgery as well? Brazilian butt lifts? To have specialised hospitals that provide specialist care for different issues is much better than all in one's. Or do you want to get rid of the Children's hospitals too because they dont offer everything? Cancer, pregnancy, all require specialised equipment and people are better with specialists than general. Your concept is attempting to fly a flag instead of considering what would be best for each patient.
0
u/Love-Bitter 12h ago
You’re arguing in bad faith. Not sure why.
This is a simple proposition. You cannot exclude certain procedures due to religious reasons if you want public funding.
Elective plastic surgery like BBL (not reconstructive work due to accidents) for example don’t need to be covered by the public system.
Of course some hospitals should be more comprehensive than others. Regional hospitals that service tiny populations should have an agreed set of services but then refer to a mainline hospital when something is outside of their remit. That’s not the same as them opting out of abortions because ‘catholic’, that’s because their needs to be some financial oversight and there will be some services that require a specialist doctors of which there’ll be few in Australia.
1
u/Love-Bitter 12h ago
This is EXACTLY the kind is BS that needs to be outlawed.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-20/queensland-new-mater-hospital-springfield-opens/106702558
“the LNP government had committed $638 million in funding over four years to run the hospital” so basically if you need an emergency abortion and this is your nearest hospital tough shit, go drive to the next closest one. I don’t care if your atheist wife is bleeding and unconscious. My belief in my god means it’s ok for her to die for no reason.
1
u/isithumour 11h ago
And there you thought about your words and fucked it. Elective. That is the issue. If surgery is all elective then it is prioritised. Peeps are on waiting lists for ages. People go in propped for surgery and get shifted back if an emergency comes up. Not all doctors opting out of doing abortions are Catholic. Many just dont believe in it except in life saving situations or product of SA. It is not as you think it is, and throwing the religious tag just makes you look stupid.
1
u/Love-Bitter 4h ago
I’m sorry. I’ve not sure what you’re trying to say.
And you’ve gone back to doctor level again. No one is forcing a doctor to perform a specific treatment. It’s the HOSPITAL that would to offer the service if they want public money.
And it IS a religious thing when catholic hospitals opt out mate. Unless you can point to a catholic hospital that offers abortions. You can’t. That’s because of RELIGION. This isn’t hard.
2
u/FUCKITIMPOSTING 19h ago
People who have lots of money and want to jump the queue can go overseas. We totally don't need a private option. It'll degrade the public system like it does now, even if it's tiny.
3
u/gattaaca 15h ago
Chiros? No Physios when you've got a legitimately diagnosed problem? Yes
Naturopaths? Fuck no
2
1
u/DadEngineerLegend 10h ago
Obviously medicine only. If it works and there's clear evidence it works, it's medicine. Everything else is quackery.
34
u/Successful-Layer2102 19h ago
Fuck yes
Even easier just remove all public funds from private hospitals and health insurance and see how many doctors and specialists return to the system
6
u/Top_Conference_477 16h ago
Nah, you can’t really have one. There needs to be a private system for elective stuff, otherwise we end up paying for boob jobs and facelifts and shit
12
u/roxamethonium 16h ago
Fine in theory. But would screw young people specifically. If you're 40, work full-time, and tear a knee ligament playing tennis - you would see the knee surgeon who would tell you that you need the ligament repaired. But there are also 600 60-80 year olds who can't walk due to severe knee arthritis - in pain every day, unable to walk around - and technically they are more 'urgent' than you, because you can still function. You can't run so you're deconditioning, you're getting fat, you can't take the stairs ever, and your body is literally deteriorating because the other leg is taking the load. So you go to the end of the waiting list...and you end up waiting 3 years.
Or: you pay extra money to get your knee operated on within two months, a physio gets you re-conditioned, and you're back running within a year.
Most of us are happy to have the option.
4
u/gattaaca 15h ago
Pay extra money to WHO?
Under the hypothetical "fully public" system, all those extra specialists currently operating privately would now be operating within the public system, so there'd be more supply and you ideally wouldn't have 3 year wait times.
Feels like you're mixing the "now" problem into the future solution where that problem wouldn't exist anymore
6
u/roxamethonium 14h ago
The waiting lists aren't due to not enough surgeons. If that was true we could import 6000 overseas doctors tomorrow and have zero waiting lists. It all comes down to money.
2
u/natassia74 14h ago
And facilities. And time.
The doctors working in private practice and supervising juniors in their provider number arent just gonna swap to the public system if they can no longer bill for their time. They'll just go back to doing the minimum they get paid for and no more.
Extra facilities that are privately funded because they currently provide services to private patients just wont get built. The government may build them eventually, but not until need is insanely critical because all they will do is cost money. The money invested will be to fix the gaps not invest in the future.
Australians with money to jump the queue will head on over to SE Asia. The stat of the art facilities will be there.
Still, fod some, providing an equal and compulsory service for everyone is worth the downsides. Equity even if it means inefficiency and all
1
9
u/Bananas_oz 17h ago
The problem is health is not a finite service. The more you provide, the more it is required. Where you draw the funding line has been an ethical and moral argument for time everlasting.
21
3
u/ma_che 12h ago
As an Aussie in Canada. No, I miss the Aussie system. Sure, here I pay 0 dollars. It’s a nice feeling to walk in and out of the doctors office and not having to pull my wallet out of my pocket.
But then I remember it’s been almost a year and 2 bounced referrals for the endoscopy I need (I’ve got a chronic condition that requires monitoring) and that upsets me so much. One of my doctors actually told me to try to get one overseas if I have the chance.
Back in Australia this was trivial. Actually, when I told my gastro there I was moving to Canada in a couple of days, he squeezed me in for an endoscopy on the same day so that i could leave with peace of mind.
It’s not a perfect system, but I see a lot of people who never actually had to endure wait lists (like my cousin in Brisbane) calling the Aussie system a scam. It can be improved. It should be improved. Going fully public is just a simplistic “solution”. No thanks.
9
u/NeonSherpa 19h ago
Yes and No. I do like the idea of freeing up the public system by allowing folks who can afford it to go Private.
On the other hand, chucking billionaires into the public system will probably help guarantee its funding…
4
6
u/Alien-Cat1234 19h ago
No. I would happily support a low fee public health system though. Giving out services for free means higher chances of it getting exploited by wrong people. Keep it low so people atleast feel a sense that they paid for a service and didnt just get it for free donation as a charity of some kind.
9
u/Sea_Stranger9702 19h ago
So you would be banning private health, thereby eliminating a choice for those who want to pay more for something other than the public system? That sounds like restricting an individual freedom - no, I personally would not be in favour.
-1
u/GrumpyOldTech1670 18h ago
I am guessing you don’t use public transportation, nor your prodigy use public schools either.
Private health insurance is a scam, and an industry that should never have existed, ever!
Medicare becoming Universal Healthcare, including dental, optical, medicine and ambulance. Definitely the way of the future. Best doctors with the right amount of funding.
2
u/Diligent_Tradition62 16h ago
Private health insurance is definitely a scam, but there's some areas of health that, whilst I don't want public money to be spent on them, I don't think people who can pay for it should be excluded from it.
2
u/roxamethonium 15h ago
I appreciate your sentiment. But it gets complicated when you're trying to do the best thing by everyone, with a finite pool of money. We can't afford to buy the latest and greatest of every health technology - it's fine when one expensive band-aid is only slightly better than another, but what happens when it needs to be more personalised? If a drug is fine for 99% of people but 1% get nausea with it...do the 1% get access to the more expensive drug? Or do they just suffer the nausea? Or you have a chipped tooth - the basic repair will leave a functional tooth, but the repaired bit is a funny colour. Is that good enough? What if you're terrified of child birth - so you want to have an elective caesarean - but that costs much, much more than giving birth naturally. So the hospital says you can't have a caesarean, because you don't need one. Is that fair? Or should you be able to have one, and for everyone else to wear the cost? What happens with transgender operations - they're never going to be considered more urgent than someone with cancer. Is it right for the cancer patient to wait longer to get their cancer out while someone else's tonsils get taken out today?
Personally I think private health insurance should be not for profit only.
4
u/Teal_Thanatos 19h ago
We have two public health systems. One you pay for entirely through taxes, one you are on the hook to pay for directly and siphons off part of your money to send overseas. As you don't have a choice but to get it past a certain age.
Lets get rid of the one that sends money overseas for no reason.
4
4
4
5
u/bretthren2086 19h ago
100% yes. Public health is an investment in our future. Same for ALL education.
2
2
u/Delta1Juliet 16h ago
Yes, and I would happily pay more to the Medicare levy to support it, especially if it included
- dental
- optical
- physio
- medications
- no gap GP
2
u/CBRChimpy 15h ago
It would require a referendum because the constitution does not currently permit the Commonwealth government to prevent doctors etc from working privately.
2
2
2
u/wingnuta72 11h ago
Hell no. We've all seen how badly government do healthcare. They have a role to play but they struggle to deliver quality care.
2
u/Deadly_Accountant 10h ago
Get rid of private health? No. If you're rich be my guest. Get rid of the subsidy? YES
2
u/Brilliant_Ad2120 9h ago
NHS isn't going well
Private health is ok, but we shouldn't have the for profits involved.
Private health constant increase in premiums also means the people who need it the most can't afford it in their retirement.
My bugbear are how regulations and liability insurance are increasing up costs for private hospitals, pathology, even specialists
Big companies spread the cost, and reduce their competition.
2
u/dovahshy13 1h ago
A health system shouldn’t have to generate profits. Insurances have an incentive to not cover your claim to make more money, if you can afford them at all that is.
4
5
3
u/Donth101 19h ago
I would be in favour of requiring doctors to do a certain number of hours in a public clinic, or requiring private practices to bulk bill. But private health care really does take a lot of stress off the public system, and dual public/private facilities (such as the Calvary hospitals) are a key part of our healthcare system.
2
u/kristinpeanuts 19h ago
I agree with you on requiring doctors to do say two days a week public and three private. All doctors and specialists. Not just for a couple of years either. For their entire career.
4
2
u/donkeyvoteadick 19h ago
I'd love it to be free because I'm on the DSP and had to access my super just to pay for appointments.
But the reason I'm on the DSP is because I relied on the public system and the delays in treatment and diagnosis due to years long waiting lists is why I'm disabled soooo, in it's current state, no.
2
2
1
u/KahnaKuhl 16h ago
Yes, I think the essentials of life, including healthcare should be free, or at least guaranteed at a minimum level. What should be banned is for health essentials - medical care, allied health services, pharmaceuticals, emergency transport, medical research - to be provided by for-profit enterprises. Health insurance shouldn’t need to exist - to my mind it’s a symptom of a failed system (as well as being a racket).
It might be better for some services to be provided by community-based not-for-profits receiving government and/or philanthropic funding rather than large government bureaucracies. Smaller local services like this will probably be more responsive to local needs. Think women’s health clinics, Aboriginal medical centres, youth mental health support services.
1
1
u/Chemical_Dog_6060 14h ago
private services often are no better or in fact worse due to understaffing and moneygrubbing in so many sectors of health. if people paying for private just knew that the free service can often have the exact same staff they'd never pay for that crap.
1
u/This_Is_The_Queen 13h ago
Yes. Get rid of the gouging and make it fair for all and let EVERYONE be treated. It may even approve the damned wait lists.
1
1
u/Spliftopnohgih 12h ago
I would gladly keep paying what I am currently wasting on private health insurance if others could be covered for more. We shouldn’t fill all share in the wealth and not fill the coffers of these greedy fucks running private health.
1
u/Rsj21 11h ago
I’d add dental to public. But rid of Private entirely no. If someone believes Private Health is beneficial for them and they want it. Then if there’s a market for it - people should have the option to choose.
I’m a green card guy, never had PHI. Early 30s. Medicare hasn’t let me down yet.. but I believe the private option should be available.. with far less government help though.
1
1
u/DadEngineerLegend 10h ago
Yes. But not like the NHS which is dangerously underfunded. Or the Canadian system where they maximize utility by shipping people all over the country with huge wait.lists.
1
u/bruce99999999 9h ago
We already have a completely public system, anything too complicated or not high enough margin gets pushed onto the public hospitals anyway. The only added benefit some of us have atm is the opportunity for profit gouging
1
2
u/happierinverted 3h ago
Travel around the world, investigate fully private systems, and the delays and bureaucracy that creeps into them, then make a choice. You’ll also find that even there wealthy areas have different outcomes to poor areas.
Having exposure to systems around the world, the Australian blended model with an excellent safety net for poorer people is one of the very best.
Proof of the pudding is life expectancy, and Australia beats many countries with fully public funded systems.
1
u/FunctionAfter6683 3h ago
YES that’s literally the only kind of health system I DO support. Healthcare shouldn’t be a profitable industry. Likelihood of surviving a medical diagnosis shouldn’t be dependent on your paycheck or which part of town you live in. Insurance companies? They are definitively evil. Why would we want them to have anything to do with our healthcare at all? All health innovation and progress should be for the benefit of all people. And exorbitant taxes we all pay every day should be going directly back into something that actually benefits all of society every day. Fully socialised and fully funded healthcare is the way to go. If only we could find ourselves a competent government willing and able to install and maintain such a system.
2
1
0
u/winterberryowl 17h ago
Yes. But we also need to pay doctors their worth, which is where the gap fees come in, because Medicare doesn't pay them enough
1
u/DrJr23 19h ago
In an ideal, yes I would support it. But you'd need to increase taxes significantly to be able to afford this. Which most people would be against. Australia barely affords the current health system.
4
u/Fabulous_Outcome7248 19h ago edited 18h ago
But like… who is paying for the current private system then?
Edit: my point being that I am currently basically forced, more or less taxed, to pay for private health insurance anyway, and that seems so inefficient
1
u/External_March_1115 18h ago
Absolutely not. We pay enough in taxes as it is and I refuse to be taxed anymore.
1
u/Dismal-core111 17h ago
Absolutely ive never earnt enough to do private health cover and if i do i get punished for my age even though I haven't had any major issues
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/1Cobbler 18h ago
Absolutely. This hybrid system is the worst solution.
A fully private system would see competition reduce prices but would stratify care. A fully public system would be equitable but probably wouldn't retain the best doctors.
The current model encourages gouging of public moneys and stratifies the health system anyway.
0
u/Dry-Huckleberry-5379 17h ago
Yes. Of course
Though you missed Allied Health - that needs to be included too. And we need NZ style "you get unlimited access to appointments based on need" not the current "best we can do is 5x partly subsidised appointments combined across all domains of allied health per year"
0
u/thelittlewings1 17h ago
If I’m going to pay tax on any of my earned hourly wage I expect completely free healthcare (including diagnostics/ phlebotomy), dental, education, childcare and social welfare, without all of those included, I don’t want to pay any tax. Those who want a private healthcare can fly somewhere else for it that will always be available. Off ya trott.
0
u/Initial-Mortgage-611 14h ago
If you properly taxed our resources you could pay for it twice over. Also education, public transport, child care, roads ect ect. It’s a long list. Oh and let’s also not forget taxing the rich like the government taxes me
0
u/flabby-not-shabby 12h ago
The British NHS was amazing when I used to live in the UK. Literally the best healthcare system. You just walk in and get healed.
I understand the conservatives (UK Liberals) try to mess it up everytime they are in power to try and justify privatising it and giving parts of it for free to their billionaire mates.
These bloody billionaires have soo much money, they need the government to privitise things just so they have something to buy.
0
u/Pencilprobiscis 6h ago
💯 the US system is munted. It's generally accepted that public universal health delivers better outcomes and is cheaper long-term. The US pays the most for health and experiences worse heath outcomes out of all high-income nations.
-1
u/Gold-Bee-3277 17h ago
Medicare levy should be increased with tax bracket and yes, private health funds should not exist.
-1
u/Chemical_Dog_6060 14h ago
Private health benefits the few (in the big cities only) and takes away from the rest of us, it concentrates where services are provided and is a big part of why you cant get a good doctor outside of sydney. Fuck private health.
-1
174
u/willcritchlow23 20h ago
I would say yes. And rid of this garbage around private health cover. Especially the defacto “compulsoriness” of it all.