Page 3882 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 15 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: Flog it off. Who will benefit from that? We are going to have a hospital for profit, with no community service obligations.
Mrs Carnell: That is absolute rubbish.
MR BERRY: We heard Mrs Carnell talking about revolving doors a little while ago in the media. She did not support the free market system then. She wanted a special leg-up for somebody. Members opposite say that they support the free market system, but now they are not prepared to let the private health system survive in the free market. That is what it is about.
Pressures have come about as a result of people walking away from private health insurance. Of course, much more money is provided for hospital services and health services generally than is collected by way of the levy throughout Australia, as people opposite would know. That is particularly so in the ACT. Mr Humphries got it wrong when he talked about percentages of money going to health care. I think he confused the total budget that goes to health care with that which goes to hospitals. Other types of health care also soak up funds from the health budget. Hospitals soak up a proportion of it, pharmacists soak up a proportion of it and so does the medical profession.
Some things could turn this around. If some of the health professionals would bulkbill, that would help. That would make more money available for hospital services. But I do not hear the Liberals saying to people in the medical profession, "You should bulkbill". No, what they say to them is, "You should take advantage of the free market". That is what you say.
Mrs Carnell: That does not make sense.
MR BERRY: My word it does, because more money in the hands of the community would be available for hospital services. If people had more money to spend as a result of bulkbilling, they might be able to afford the Liberals' private hospital insurance. So, Madam Speaker, we have this conflict amongst the Liberals.
The issue for us to consider is whether or not we can provide quality public hospital services for all of the people in the ACT. If members opposite are prepared to sit back quietly and listen as I speak on this matter, they will get a little bit more information. Under the current Medicare arrangements, individuals with private health insurance have a choice to use or not to use private health insurance on admission to a public hospital. There is much anecdotal evidence around to suggest that those with private health insurance often elect for public patient status when admitted to public hospitals. The draft principles for the new Medicare agreement make it very clear that patients can continue to choose public or private status at the time of admission or as soon as practicable after admission.
The principles also provide that access to public hospital services should be on the basis of clinical need. The patients charter which is to be established jointly between the Territory and the Commonwealth under the terms of the new Medicare agreement will set in place a mechanism for patients to make more informed choices about public or private status. Private health insurance is available to those who want it and are able to pay for it. Private health insurance does not, however, substitute for free high-quality health services; it just cannot do it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .