Page 3489 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
in 1998 before the rebate was introduced. It makes no significant difference to the real cost of the policy. It is a public subsidy to the private health system. What public money should be doing is subsidising the public system that provides healthcare services for everyone. We know that the federal Treasury and a range of policy experts do not support the policy and that the independent economic advice is that the rebate is not a good policy and is not delivering any real improvement to the quality of health outcomes.
The internationally recognised social determinants of health framework has been created from research showing that the poorer a person’s economic standing is the poorer their health outcomes are likely to be. In February this year, our Greens senators proposed that there at least be a means test applied to the private health insurance rebate. This would have delivered an estimated $1.8 billion back to public hospitals over four years. Surely that makes sense. Surely that is reasonable—that millionaires and people who are incredibly well off do not get this rebate. In that way, we can ensure that we do have a decent society where everyone has access to health care.
I would like to quote some statistics from a speech Mr Hanson gave in February this year, when he delivered the Canberra Liberals’ discussion paper on health. It was a little light on solutions, but this is what it stated:
Currently, we have a figure 18 per cent above the national average of people who use the public hospital system here in the ACT when we have actually one of the highest take-ups of private health care. What that means is people who should otherwise be using the private health system are accessing our public system.
What is it that their private health insurance is doing for them? The main reason a person is likely to benefit from private health insurance is for some kind of chronic disease or injury, yet a great proportion of people who have a chronic condition are using our public health system. Surely it follows logically that we should be putting public money into a most necessary public good rather than subsidising private insurance companies. As I said, the economics do not make sense. The money contributed by the commonwealth adds to the cost of the policy. Perhaps it makes some small savings, but overall the community benefit must be greater if we are going to provide good facilities.
And on health care, I should just mention the “denticare” scheme put up by the Greens. The Greens are the only party with a comprehensive plan for dental care in Australia. It is utterly ridiculous that teeth are treated differently from every other part of your body. What sort of impact does it have on the family budget when you have to spend $400 or $500 to see a dentist? Comprehensive dental care should be available for all in the community as part of the public health system. The Liberal Party disagrees. Shame on you.
On non-government school fees and any pressure on schools and parents, the Greens’ policy is that, as a wealthy nation, we should be providing a high standard of education to everyone. Long-term prosperity lies with knowledge. The more innovative and creative we are, the more capacity we have to respond to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video