Health Care

[TikindiDragon]

Taking companies out of the healthcare system altogether would seem to be a good plan for everyone. If companies are worrying about paying healthcare expenses, and thus laying people off or cutting their hours, then they would not need to do so if they didn't have to pay said healthcare expenses. It's quite a simple bit of logic.

 

I will also re-iterate my point from the politics thread that insurance is proven to drive costs up. If something is being paid for 'by insurance' then charges are usually much higher than they are if something is *not* being paid for by insurance.

 

I know many in the US will find the concept alien - but in the UK there are *no* excess charges for healthcare on the NHS. None. If the NHS treats me for something I don't pay a penny more than I pay normally in my National Insurance contributions. Unlike with an insurance company when there is always an excess to pay over and above regular payments. Cost of treatment to the NHS is much, much lower than the bills sent to health insurance companies. Why? Because the NHS is not there to make a profit, and it is responsible for so much of the health-care in the UK that (by and large) if a drugs company wishes their produce to be used in the UK they have to sell it for what the NHS is willing to pay for it.

 

My National Insurance contributions do not go up if my health is bad. I am not limited in the amount of treatment I can receive in any one calendar year. I do not have to pay more than I can afford, because National Insurance contributions are linked to income, and paid along with taxes. And those contribution, per year, are *still* lower than health-insurance premiums in the US.

 

There's a very, very good reason why those of us that live with Nationalised Healthcare cannot understand the position taken by those so vehmently against it in the US. How could we, when we look at our own systems and see healthcare provided for everyone at a lower cost to ourselves? For those of us with Nationalised Healthcare the concept of medical bankruptcy is actually horrific - and the concept of people defending that system is just baffling.

 

I'd urge everyone that flinches, and cries 'communism', at the mention of Nationalised Healthcare to spend a year or two living and working in a country that actually has it. You might find you change your opinion.

 

I admit the NHS isn't perfect, but from my side of the pond it looks like it's a hell of a lot better than what you have over there.

 

Side note: I actually find it quite funny that some people in the US seem to think that Nationalised Healthcare automatically = communism. Because if you stop and think about it I'm pretty sure that Canada, the UK, etc aren't countries you'd think of as communist. Yet, funnily enough, we (like most of the rest of the developed world) have Nationalised our Healthcare systems. We in the UK Nationalised ours in 1946, right zbout the time the cold war was getting underway.

[ShinyTomato]

Tiki: Thank you. Thank you so much for saying that.

 

Can I give you internet hugs?

[Fuzzbucket]

Tiki: Thank you. Thank you so much for saying that.

 

Can I give you internet hugs?

I wanna hug BOTH of you. (*pats free hearing aids, for which I get free batteries.*)

 

May one reiterate one's car story from the other thread ? When I had been in an accident and both the insurance company and my breakdown company were not offering to remove the car (I knew they'd have to pay up, but I needed to get it moved !) - in the end I called a garage myself and they towed me for their normal - for the customer - towing charge.

 

I happened to mention later that I'd got the breakdown people to reimburse me.

 

DAMN, he said, if I'd known it was an insurance job I'd have charged you three times as much.

 

QED. That is the HEALTH system you have in the US. No wonder it costs so much.

[~Kat~]

My company pays a lot for my health insurance, and I also have to pay part of it. I can say, they offer excellent health benefits, B/C/B/S.

 

We did not have to take it, it was the employees choice.

[KageSora]

Just sayin', not all doctors are against it. There is the thought that those doctors who are against it are the ones who will have their practices die out anyway because they refuse to change and adapt along with the times.

 

This is one (not the only, certainly) sentiment among some (not all, naturally) doctors. Doctors who run the spectrum from supporting Obamacare to being neutral to not being happy but knowing it won't put their practice belly up just change how some things work.

 

According to my dad, anyway, and he works for our state's constituent chapter of the American Academy of Family Physicians. So he's worked and talked with doctors who are shaking their heads at the moaning of those who don't like it and claiming it will ruin them.

 

 

So doctors have varying and sometimes conflicting views on it too, just throwin' that out there.

[Mommy_Kitty]

I know the country where i live is only a litle speck on the world map, but we allso have national health care, and i must say it is close to perfect if you look at what you guys in US have to pay for doctors and theyr services. We curently have 3 diferent insurance companies that provide us the services, but the amount of what we have to pay is determined by law, and most of people here pay 28€ a month no mather hov bad your health is or how rich you are, but there are some rules at wich ppl can pay less or dont have to pay at all, that is 336€ for whole year, and for that money i can wisit the doctor every single day if i wished to, have free dentist care, free hospital care, free surgeryes if they are needed to get my health back to normal. I know the amount we have to pay is extremly low, but still you guys in US pay that much when you visit doctor 2x a week and dont have insurance.

[~Kat~]

Next time I go to see my Dr I have been with for 15 yrs, I will ask him. I know when Obamacare came out, they did not like it then.

 

I do know, if I can not see my Dr that I have been with all these years, I will not be a happy camper. This man, has seen me through everything I have had health issues with, and sent me to specialists that have been the best ... and I will not exccept anything less. If this were to be the case, Obamacare can take a hike that is for sure.

 

I have worked all these years, payed for my health insurance and have excellent insurance, so Obamacare better be able to be as good as I have got now, or it is not worth the name OBAMA .... care.

 

I have yet to ask where I work, do I get to keep the insurance I have now, or do I have to take what Obama says. Can anyone answer this for me please?

 

 

[Duysterwald]

I have yet to ask where I work, do I get to keep the insurance I have now, or do I have to take what Obama says. Can anyone answer this for me please?

 

You will have the option to keep your current insurance as it is.

 

See this well-written summary of Obamacare, explained as if one would to a 5-year old (somewhat):

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/..._did_it/c530lfx

 

There, scroll down to the (user-submitted) claim "Obamacare won't let me keep the insurance I have!". The answer given there (by the writer of the summary) is as follows:

 

"The PPACA actually very specifically says you can keep the insurance you have if you want. (Citation: Page 74, sec. 1251)"

[KageSora]

Like I said, doctors will have conflicting views. There will be those who are likely in legit trouble with Obamacare in effect. There will be those who are just being big babies and would rather shut their practice down than watch it evolve. There will be those who will grumble but change things, and there will be those who are overall not horribly effected and who are neutral/happy with the whole thing.

 

 

I was mostly just pointing out that hating Obamacare is far from universal among doctors.

[kiffren]

We already have a healthcare thread (link) so I'm gonna close this as a duplicate.

[Duysterwald]

I came across this well-written summary of Obamacare a few days ago, explained as if one would to a 5-year old (so to speak):

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/..._did_it/c530lfx

 

I just wanted to share it, because it could be potentially useful for (future) discussions in this thread.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Duysterwald

[analogized]

I would like to make a comment on the US health care universal health care and in particular the current state of funding for organ transplantataion in the US.

 

l obtained my medical degree 33 hears ago, have been a lung transplant physician for 16 years and a full-time intensivist for 5 years prior to that. I have worked in the UK, the US and mainly in Australia.

 

I apologise for the spacing of this comment. CNN won't allow me to edit my post.

 

1.1 Australia has both universal and private healthcare. In Australia all organ transplants are performed in the public system. There is hard data from International Registries documenting that 1,3,5 and 10 year survival rates for lung and kidney transplants in Australia are superior to those in the US (in fact the best in the World). The 10 year survival for a kidney transplant recipient is 43% in the US as compared to 59% in Australia. I should mention that Canada also has very impressive outcomes. According to data from the International Society For Heart & Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) 2010 report, the 3 year survival rate for a double lung transplant recipient was 67.5% in the US and 77.6% in Australia. At 3 years the survival rate was 66.9% across the entire ISHLT registry.

 

Organ and in particular lung transplants are among the most costly interventions in medicine. The cost of the operation with a relatively uncomplicated recovery for a double-lung transplant $350,000 (double-lung). In the US a double-lung Tx costs approximately $550,000.

 

In Australia, this cost (and every aspect of their care till death) is borne by the state.

I should mention that patients pay a small nominal fee for non-transplant related drugs.

 

The New England of Journal Medicine (which is arguably the most respected journal of clinical medicine in the world) published an editorial this year detailing the problem of kidney transplant recipients in the States having their funding for their immune-suppression ceased after 3 years (by Medicare), potentially resulting in the inability to procure them. This would obviously endanger the graft and increase mortality.

 

The article concluded by stating:

 

"Perhaps a more compelling argument in favour of lifelong immunosuppressant drug coverage is that transplantable kidneys are lifesaving gifts made possible by living donors or by families of deceased persons and are of immeasurable benefit to society. Current U.S. policy devalues this gift, potentially jeopardising the U.S. organ-donation system by discouraging volunteers. Providing lifelong immunosuppressive drug coverage could help preserve this altruistic tradition.

 

There are similar instances of insurance companies ceasing or reducing funding for immune-suppression.

 

A 2010 report showed that 68% of US lung transplant centres reported "deaths and graft losses attributable to cost-related non adherence".

 

A 2001 study in the American Journal of Transplantation documented a direct relationship between loss of insurance coverage and allograft failure.

 

This is totally unacceptable and would never happen in Australia.

 

From a transplantation perspective, there is little point of giving someone new lungs/kidneys (or any other solid organ) if immunosuppression is going to be ceased because of lack of affordability.

 

Organs are a limited resource…they do not grow on trees.

 

1.2 The Department of Transplantation at California Pacific Medical Centre in San Francisco published an article related to this problem in 2010 (Bramsted A et al. Progress in Transplantation. 2010; 20: 178-185):

 

"More than a 25% of all transplant ethics consultations…involved the restriction of transplant-related interventions for reasons rooted in insurance or finance. We argue that the influence of these variables is most likely unique to the United States (among developed nations). As the United States lacks universal health insurance and cannot guarantee health care to all its citizens, individuals seeking an organ must rely on personal insurance policies, cash, or equity to proceed through the transplant process, and this inevitably favours the wealthy over the poor for getting on the waiting list. Because transplantation and immunosuppressive therapy are so costly, persons who are underinsured or completely uninsured are hindered in their access to this lifesaving technology."

 

In Australia the decision to list a patient for transplantation is never influenced by their financial or insurance status.

 

1.3 Regarding the implications of the ACA for organ transplant recipients:

 

"It is theoretically possible that the ACA’s insurance exchanges will include lifetime coverage for immunosuppressive drugs. It is not clear exactly what type coverage will be offered and whether such lifetime coverage will be offered…" (from the AMA website March 2012).

 

2.1 Outcomes for intensive care admissions are often better in Australia than the US (one of the reasons being that in the US there are far more 'open' units as opposed to 'closed' units, than in Australia. A 'closed' ICU is one in which patients are transferred to the care of a full-time, board certified, intensivist who is responsible for day-to-day management of the patients, including all admissions and discharges, orders, and clinical management. In an open ICU, the day-to-day management decisions are taken by the primary physicians, who are very commonely not certified critical care physicians. There is strong evidence that survival is improved in the 'closed' system model (with up-to a 40% reduction in ICU mortality). Most European intensive care units are also closed.

 

A 2004 report suggested that the implementation of a predominately intensivist led model of ICU management in the US could save over 50,000 lives annually.

 

In 2004 the lack of qualified intensivists and inadequate provision of closed units actually prompted critical care physicians from the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Thoracic Society, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine to publish and issue a white paper to the Federal Government (including the NIH, NIA and NHLBI) addressing this and several other issues regarding the deficiencies of optimal care in US ICUs (Chest 2004).

 

According to a 2010 report only 35% of ICUs in the US were operated using the closed high-intensity model. Only 20% of ICUs in Michigan were closed. In contrast, 95% of Australian intensive care units employ the closed high-intensity model and are run by intensive care specialists certified by the Joint Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine (JFICM).

 

3. I certainly think that services like Palliative Care (my wife is a Palliative Care specialist) should be funded as much as possible by the state. The limited studies that have analysed palliative care outcomes across countries strongly suggest that Australia has superior end-of-life care as compared to the US.

 

Having spent over 3 decades caring/treating for often very sick patents I feel that dealing with the dying/death of a loved one (who may be the sole bread-winner for the family and often under physically and psychologically painful circumstances) is traumatic enough without having to worry about how you're going to pay the bills.

 

4. I personally think that in the developed world, to not have universal health care is unethical and immoral. The private system does obviously however have it's benefits, both for the privately insured patient and for the system as a whole e.g reducing waiting times for investigations and elective surgery which in turn can reduce the burden on the public system and in turn, improves care quality of care for those solely dependent on government funded health care.

 

The entire health care system in the US would need to be completely overhauled to enable a quality universal health care model to be implemented in a cost effective manner.

 

The Australian Health System is FAR from perfect but then I doubt any system is or ever will be.

 

Thank you for reading this 'rather long' post.

 

Professor A W

MBChB, FCCP, FRCP, FRACP, FJFICM, FFICANZCA, PhD

I'm an Australian with a family member (my grandmother) who has recently had a kidney transplant, and this seems pretty accurate. Our family has been charged nothing for either the dialysis, or the transplant operation, or the immunosuppressant medication she's going to be on for the rest of her life.

 

We have private and public healthcare - the public is called Medicare. Medicare covers 'bulk billing' practices, where the government covers fees incurred from seeing a doctor (but not medication). When you go private, you pay $60 - 80 per 15 minutes with a doctor. If you go private, Medicare does a 'rebate', which is commonly between $30 - 50.

 

Medicare doesn't cover dentistry, cosmetic surgery, chiro, ambulance (run by St John of God Ambulance, a private company) or psychologist services. These things can be paid for out of pocket (expensive) or can be covered by private health insurance.

 

The government provides free immunisations for children and free dental for children (through schools). The government has the PBS, which subsidises (most) prescription medications. The government covers the costs of x-rays and blood tests necessary to diagnose/treat illnesses. The Australian government subsidises private health cover (30%, I think?).

 

We have public and private hospital beds, and the main difference is speed. You can go to the emergency room and be seen by a doctor (chosen by the hospital) and be admitted to a public bed, and bear absolutely no costs. You may have to wait to be admitted until the hospital has the capacity to take you. If you want to be seen quickly, you can be admitted as a private patient (covered by your insurance or out of pocket) and be given a private bed.

 

This is all funded by the Medicare levy, which is added onto your tax once you exceed a certain income bracket.

 

I wholeheartedly support our healthcare system. I also support our student loans system (HECS) which operates under the exact same principle.

 

The way that I look at it is this: we have compulsory voting. Our government keeps us healthy. It keeps us educated. We use these things to make the best choices possible for our country.

 

I don't really get the US healthcare debate - I personally can't see where the actual bad of universal healthcare is.

[Lilithiana]

OK, I'm from Germany and will try to tell you about our health care system.

Until you are 18 everything you need is free, even the birth control pill.

There are immunizations you get your whole life for free and standard check ups are free, too. A lot of stuff is age related. I don't remember when you can get what but you can get special tests for cancers and a full scale health check-up all so-and-so years when you reach a certain age.

 

If it's the dentist you can just go there twice a year and get checked. Once a year the calculus gets removed and once a year you can have an x-ray of your teeth. If you have holes in the teeth or something you might have to pay something if you want something "better". Like porcellain fillings, for example.

 

That's generally the case. You get the "basic" stuff for free but if you want something high class you have to pay extra.

A collegus of mine need hearing aids. She said the aids you get by insurance are crap so she bought her aids herself and those were quite expensive! She didn't get much money back from the insuance.

 

Generally you have to see your family doctor (dentist is an exception) and he/she writes you a transfer to a specialist. You have to pay some fees like if you get antibiotics and go to the pharmacy you have to pay 5 Euro. But it doesn't matter if the medicine would cost 100 Euro or only 20 Euro you always pay 5 Euro if you have a condition and the papers from xour family doctor. If the medication is a "free" one that means you could buy it without seeing a doctor and getting paperworks from him you have to pay more. But I never had to pay more than 8 Euro.

 

You can buy additional insurance which provides more comfort, like getting a two beds room in hospital instead of 4 or 6. You have to pay less for complex teeth surgery. In some hospitals you have to pay for phonecalls, covering this is part of insurance, too. Than getting sick when you are in another country is another extra. They take you back home and provide everything.

 

Additionally if you have a work related accident or get a work related sickness you get special care without having to pay extra. This insurance is half paid by yourself and the employer. It's automatically taken from your salary and it includes everything! One of my collegues has to use a wheelchair now. He is 26. They paid refitting his car, getting and refitting a flat and of course they pay operations and rehab and whatever he may need. And they don't just pay the "basic" stuff. You get EVERYTHING with a real chance to improve your condition. And they explain to your employer how he has to refit the company so you can keep working at the same company.

 

But there are problems, too. For example the doctors get a limit of how much medicine they can provide in a year. If they "release" more medicine than they are allowed to, they have to pay fees. This shall prohbit them to give the patients medicines they maybe don't need. A long time the answer to everything were antibiotics and theose were given to people like they were vitamins. I think this law has to be changed now because it's no longer the case and many people even refuse "normal" medication and want homeopathic stuff. It not great if you are really sick and the doctor can't give you a prescription because he has to pay a fee for that because he already reached the limit. Some doctors refuse to take chronically sick patients because of that.

And there was a scandal about organ transplants lately. It seems richer people got easier an transplant than "normal" ones. So the system for transplants is checked now and will be reformed in the near future.

 

You can choose which insurance company you take and there are annually tests which one is best. Many have special conditions with other companies like if you are costumer of that insurance you have to pay less for working out at a special fitness club or you have to pay less for back training courses.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Lilithiana

[Vhale]

A few other notes on the ACA that was passed in the US. The court ruled that states can choose to opt out of it entirely. So, many of the Republican ones are pledging to do so. So unfortunately, even if you voted for it, you may not get it. States like Texas that already have 24% of the population without health care, probably bigger since they've nearly forced all the women's clinics out of business, aren't taking it.

 

Source

[kiffren]

We already have a healthcare thread (link) so I'm gonna close this as a duplicate.

I merged these two threads, sorry about the delay guys.

[ShinyTomato]

Next time I go to see my Dr I have been with for 15 yrs, I will ask him. I know when Obamacare came out, they did not like it then.

 

How much does he receive as kickbacks for medications, and how much does he receive as kickbacks from the insurance company for how he treats you and other patients?

 

Sure, a lot of doctors aren't going to like it, because quite a few doctors got rich over how HMOs and the private insurance world works.

 

. If this were to be the case, Obamacare can take a hike that is for sure.

 

In other words, who cares what's the best for the majority of the people in my country, who cares about tens of thousands of excess deaths, as long as things are the way I want it? Is that what you're saying?

 

I have yet to ask where I work, do I get to keep the insurance I have now, or do I have to take what Obama says. Can anyone answer this for me please?

 

Let me put it this way.

 

If you drive a car you are legally required to have care insurance. It does not matter where you have you're car insurance, you just need to have it.

 

Under Obamacare, you are required to have health insurance. If you do not have health insurance, you can take the ederal plan. If you cannot afford it, you will be provvided it. If you have health insurance, you are happy with, you can keep it.

[Shato]

All I know is whatever current healthcare system we have is not helping where I live (US Arizona) the the economy/budget is still so bad that AHCCCS (because of the new Governor) will deny health insurance to childless adults. I was on AHCCCS but left to Indiana for 4 months, I come back and am now denied health insurance. I recently had a cardiac problem as my BP was up to 160 (average being 80-90) so I now have to pay off a $4000 bill and anything else that happens to me.

[Fuzzbucket]

How much does he receive as kickbacks for medications, and how much does he receive as kickbacks from the insurance company for how he treats you and other patients?

 

Sure, a lot of doctors aren't going to like it, because quite a few doctors got rich over how HMOs and the private insurance world works.

This is why many doctors are against it, to be blunt.

 

And before anyone blasts me for "guessing" here, I know many doctors in Canada - I used to work for one and made a lot of friends, who have American doctor friends and who are appalled by the attitude of some of them over this.

 

And before anyone says I am saying Canadian doctors are holier than thou, I also know some who moved to the US so that they COULD make more money this way. I am not impressed with them either.

[Kestra15]

We in the UK Nationalised ours in 1946, right zbout the time the cold war was getting underway.

It in fact has roots in WWII; because of the horrendous level of civilian casualties the Government made it a temporary measure to introduce a national health system in order to meet the demands of a wartime population. When the war ended, people had become so used to such a system and (more importantly) had felt the overwhelming beneficial effects of such a system that we decided to keep it on.

In other words, who cares what's the best for the majority of the people in my country, who cares about tens of thousands of excess deaths, as long as things are the way I want it? Is that what you're saying?

This is the basis for the NHS; we will provide the care everyone needs, and our decisions are always based on what will benefit the most people.

 

For example, there are always stories in the papers about how the "NHS refuse to introduce new wonderdrug that will save thousands of lives." This is what they don't tell you;

 

- The new wonderdrug is expensive, and we can't afford to give it to everyone who suffers from the condition it is for. It may increase your survival by, say, 5%, but we can only afford to give it to 20% of people. So who gets to decide what 80% are consigned to death?

 

- The new wonderdrug is new. We don't know how it works and what it will do to you because it's never been used on such a vast population before (drugs, when they hit the general market, have only been tested on at most a couple of thousand people). The old drug? We know how it works, why it works and most importantly, how to counteract it when it goes wrong.

 

- The new wonderdrug is untried. It may actually not work as well as trials suggested.

 

If and when we get the evidence that it works, and that it lowers to a more reasonable price, and we have the evidence to show that it actually makes a difference, then the NHS would consider introducing it across the board.

But until then? If you really, really want it, you can buy it yourself.

 

As I have mentioned before, I have worked with a number of American medical staff here in the UK system, and even after a few months over here they quickly become horrified at how third-world the US healthcare system is - and that's their words, not just mine.

I recently had a cardiac problem as my BP was up to 160 (average being 80-90) so I now have to pay off a $4000 bill and anything else that happens to me.

Systolic or diastolic? And are you over 18yrs?

Edited November 12, 2012 by Kestra15

[Shato]

Systolic or diastolic? And are you over 18yrs?

 

Systolic I think? and yeah I am 20. When I went to the hospital I was sick with a 24 hour flu that actually went away not long after I got there. My resting BP and heart rate stayed the same even though I was doing nothing, it was as if I just got done running a marathon. I didn't feel tired but I could feel my heart racing. I was the youngest person in the cardiac unit. They ran a bunch of tests and I had to stay there until everything returned to normal.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Shato

[Kestra15]

Systolic I think? and yeah I am 20. When I went to the hospital I was sick with a 24 hour flu that actually went away not long after I got there. My resting BP and heart rate stayed the same even though I was doing nothing, it was as if I just got done running a marathon. I didn't feel tired but I could feel my heart racing. I was the youngest person in the cardiac unit. They ran a bunch of tests and I had to stay there until everything returned to normal.

In which case the normal range for systolic blood pressure in an adult is 100 - 140 mmHg. Any adult with a systolic of 80 - 90 mmHg is hypotensive, and unless they have an underlying medical condition or an extremely small stature they would be rather unwell indeed. A systolic BP of 160 is indeed high (the 'textbook' BP is 120/80), but you only need to get it down by 40mmHg.

[Shato]

In which case the normal range for systolic blood pressure in an adult is 100 - 140 mmHg. Any adult with a systolic of 80 - 90 mmHg is hypotensive, and unless they have an underlying medical condition or an extremely small stature they would be rather unwell indeed. A systolic BP of 160 is indeed high (the 'textbook' BP is 120/80), but you only need to get it down by 40mmHg.

Yeah I believe they wrote it off as dehydration since for those 24 hours I couldn't drink anything and I was throwing up (not to be gross) they gave me 5 or 6 bags of liquid via IV and usually two at a time. (which I might add is unpleasant as the cold liquid makes you shake until they throw warm blankets over you) More to the point my BP and heart rate have always been on the higher side usually around 90-95

[StormWizard212]

I haven't read through this whole topic so I'm not sure if it's been said already or not, but one thing I find really appalling is the way the Australian government treats mental illness.

 

For any non-Aussies, we have a system here called Medicare, which basically means that you pay x amount of money to see a doctor, but Medicare gives you y amount back. It's a good system that I don't have a problem with except for its coverage of mental health.

 

For example, if you see a psychologist, Medicare will reimburse you for 6 appointments annually. Six. If you get a referral from a doctor, you may be eligible for a further four appointments. That's still only ten a year which isn't even once a month. For someone who genuinely needs to see a psychologist and is referred to one by their general practitioner, they still have to pay through the roof for it unless they only want to go ten times a year, which frankly, is nowhere near enough for someone with ongoing mental health issues that need addressing.

 

I believe that Medicare covers an unlimited amount of psychiatrist appointments (don't quote me on that though, I could be wrong) but not everyone needs a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist isn't better than a psychologist, they're different. If a GP believes that the knowledge and practical application of a psychologist would be better for a patient than a psychiatrist and they have referral from a doctor, all appointments should be claimable on Medicare.

 

I know that you don't need a referral to see a psychologist and a lot of people go to them for one off sessions (or just a few) when their doctor wouldn't have deemed them 'necessary', but in cases where referrals are given by doctors because the doctor believes that it's necessary for the patient's mental health to see a psychologist, Medicare should be covering all the appointments, not just a measly ten.

 

It really, really frustrates me. From where I'm sitting, it often looks like the government puts a lot more funding into physical health than it does mental health. I can get better health insurance for my dogs than I can for myself, half the time. If anything, I'd argue that mental health affects one's quality of life a lot more severely than poor dental hygiene does, but dentist appointments are refundable with Medicare.

 

Don't even get me started on the cost of medication for mental illnesses. I've had a few friends who have had to leave their medical conditions (such as bipolar) unmedicated for periods because they couldn't afford to buy their medication and eat. It just makes me so furious that the government doesn't take these issues more seriously. Just because you can't see depression, bipolar, etc. it doesn't mean that they don't exist and can just be swept under the rug.

 

There we go. I've said my rant. I feel better now.

Edited November 15, 2012 by StormWizard212

[Kestra15]

I haven't read through this whole topic so I'm not sure if it's been said already or not, but one thing I find really appalling is the way the Australian government treats mental illness.

Mental health is general considered to be 20 - 30 years behind 'physical' medicine world-wide, due to how long it has taken for mental health to actually be recognised.

[Fuzzbucket]

Mental health is general considered to be 20 - 30 years behind 'physical' medicine world-wide, due to how long it has taken for mental health to actually be recognised.

I think you mean for mental ILLNESS to be recognised...

 

But to be fair - one reason for that is that for years, people were locked up in asylums for NOT being mentally ill - as in epileptics, people with Downs syndrome, pregnant teens and the like. Add to that the demonisation of flagrantly but harmlessly batty people - like those who talk to themselves in the street shock horror - as being dangerous witches and the rest - and the result is that no-one dares ask for help, because they are afraid of being locked up for years, and also because it is seen as something to be ashamed of - so the help doesn't get set up. A little like routine prostate screening took way longer to be set up (where it even has been) than breast and cervical screening because men didn't go to the doctor to talk about their BITS, because it was unmanly or something.

 

I've done my time in a mental hospital, and I remember what it was like when I went back to work - pricelessly funny - and I worked in the NHS (it was, indeed, part of the reason I ended up in the bin !!! - I used to work deliberately, as I object to ANY stigmas around all this !) I went into the office and a few people asked how I was, and the very sweet 18 y/o secretary heard me mention the hospital I'd been in.

 

"But - but - people like you don't go in there..."

 

The rest of us did then ham it up a bit, with mock throat slitting and the rest... but in the end, I said to her "Yes, Sh---, they do. And most of them get better, like me."

 

I am forever proud of what happened next; she is now a resolute mental health campaigner. But because of those PERCEPTIONS, so much is delayed. The articulate middle classes tend to get what they need by fighting for it; others are too ashamed to ask, and the cycle perpetuates itself. I refuse to be ashamed; it is no more shameful than chicken pox, and if no-one speaks out and says people who are/have been mentally ill are just people, like you, nothing will ever change.

 

So I tell people. A lot. Hello people. Are you listening ??

Edited November 16, 2012 by fuzzbucket