4 ms·

No. The US system is distinguished by healthcare insurance being tied to employment, and the absence of free options. Australia has not been moving towards tha

by cturner 13y ago

No. The US system is distinguished by healthcare insurance being tied to employment, and the absence of free options. Australia has not been moving towards that model. Private health care options have always been a significant part of the Australian healthcare system. In the current Australian settlement: (1) there is a catch-all system that's available to everyone; (2) if citizens want to chose a chosen private option, the government subsidises this. There's a similar dynamic in school funding. The result is that people can choose to funnel money towards the education and health system that's in addition to what they pay in their taxes. Their choice also reduces load on the free options. People spend money on health and education that would otherwise be spent on new cars or more ludicrous mortgages, and have done this through an exercise of freedom, rather than having had the government tell them what to do. Australia is one of only a handful of countries with both solid education and health systems, yet a contained federal government debt situation.

twelvechairs 13y ago
I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that Australia is exactly like the USA in this (yes, health care very sesnibly isn't provided by employers). But the 'dual' system you describe in both schooling and healthcare is definitely a step towards the american (privatised) way of doing things from a 'socialist' model (as exemplified in Australia by the Whitlam era approach). The simple test of the socialist model is if the poor don't get the same healthcare or educational opportunities as the rich. Australia has moved towards this and leans more in this direction than most other first-world countries. Whether this is a good thing or not is not my point (obviously you believe it is - I think there are arguments either way). Privatisation of infrastructure (and a general lack of building new national infrastructure) is also a key sign that the system is not very 'socialist'
- cturner 13y ago
  You appear determined to find a way to paint the recent history of Australian health reform as being somehow American. But it's not - it's its own thing. The US system is a tangle of health systems provided by every level of government and charities. It's different state by state. There's a major veterans scheme. Some states have systems a bit like Medicare. The majority of people get their care through a employment tied insurance. It doesn't serve as an example of freedom, privatisation, variations in levels of care. It's just a big complicated mess. I think it'd be more straightforward if you just stuck with 'less socialist' rather than trying overloading America as the standard for those qualities. Not sure that Australia has evolved that way though. There was a recent reform to introduce means-testing to medicare. And the new hospital in Adelaide - 1.7 billion dollars, 120 extra beds.
  - twelvechairs 13y ago
    OK. understand that you don't like my use of 'american' as the opposite to 'socialist' here. Simplifications like this can be difficult and probably will h healthcare we are less overtly 'like america: although still a ways from being strongly 'socialist' (in the Scandinavian sense)
    - lotsofmangos 13y ago
      That is probably because American isn't the opposite to socialist. The USA has many socialist aspects, it just doesn't like to think of them as socialist. Free education is socialist. Medicare for the elderly is socialist. The NFL has many aspects of socialism. The laws on state funded research being made available to the public are socialist. NASA is socialist.
      - twelvechairs 13y ago
        This is true but the USA is still, of all first world countries, the one which takes the least socialist approach on many issues and this is the sense in which I use it as an example.
        cturner 13y ago
        This risks being brutal, but you didn't have an email in your account details, and I left it a week so the forum would clear. I have tough but fond memories of being called out on things like this when I in my 20s. I think I'm well-intentioned. Something that ribs me about the political culture in Australia: the intelligentsia will never miss an opportunity to claim their identity as being distinct, yet they judge themselves from a very American world-view. In this sense, the Australian identity is like a rebellious teenager - desperate to be making a break from mum and dad, but unaware how its rebellion is defined entirely by mum and dad's world-view. You are welded to the (American) popular culture myth that American is an antonym for socialism. This is more important to you than the fact that it isn't. Even after we've discussed that there are better ways to express the idea, after you've gone through the pain of admitting you could have done this differently. You've then recanted, pulled back into your shell and defended your original expression. You won't grow if you do this. It's not just you. But you can fix it. Turn off the television, blank your mind, read, travel, think, build your ideas on this foundation.

by cturner 13y ago

twelvechairs 13y ago

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that Australia is exactly like the USA in this (yes, health care very sesnibly isn't provided by employers). But the 'dual' system you describe in both schooling and healthcare is definitely a step towards the american (privatised) way of doing things from a 'socialist' model (as exemplified in Australia by the Whitlam era approach). The simple test of the socialist model is if the poor don't get the same healthcare or educational opportunities as the rich. Australia has moved towards this and leans more in this direction than most other first-world countries. Whether this is a good thing or not is not my point (obviously you believe it is - I think there are arguments either way). Privatisation of infrastructure (and a general lack of building new national infrastructure) is also a key sign that the system is not very 'socialist'

cturner 13y ago
You appear determined to find a way to paint the recent history of Australian health reform as being somehow American. But it's not - it's its own thing. The US system is a tangle of health systems provided by every level of government and charities. It's different state by state. There's a major veterans scheme. Some states have systems a bit like Medicare. The majority of people get their care through a employment tied insurance. It doesn't serve as an example of freedom, privatisation, variations in levels of care. It's just a big complicated mess. I think it'd be more straightforward if you just stuck with 'less socialist' rather than trying overloading America as the standard for those qualities. Not sure that Australia has evolved that way though. There was a recent reform to introduce means-testing to medicare. And the new hospital in Adelaide - 1.7 billion dollars, 120 extra beds.
- twelvechairs 13y ago
  OK. understand that you don't like my use of 'american' as the opposite to 'socialist' here. Simplifications like this can be difficult and probably will h healthcare we are less overtly 'like america: although still a ways from being strongly 'socialist' (in the Scandinavian sense)
  - lotsofmangos 13y ago
    That is probably because American isn't the opposite to socialist. The USA has many socialist aspects, it just doesn't like to think of them as socialist. Free education is socialist. Medicare for the elderly is socialist. The NFL has many aspects of socialism. The laws on state funded research being made available to the public are socialist. NASA is socialist.
    - twelvechairs 13y ago
      This is true but the USA is still, of all first world countries, the one which takes the least socialist approach on many issues and this is the sense in which I use it as an example.
      - cturner 13y ago
        This risks being brutal, but you didn't have an email in your account details, and I left it a week so the forum would clear. I have tough but fond memories of being called out on things like this when I in my 20s. I think I'm well-intentioned. Something that ribs me about the political culture in Australia: the intelligentsia will never miss an opportunity to claim their identity as being distinct, yet they judge themselves from a very American world-view. In this sense, the Australian identity is like a rebellious teenager - desperate to be making a break from mum and dad, but unaware how its rebellion is defined entirely by mum and dad's world-view. You are welded to the (American) popular culture myth that American is an antonym for socialism. This is more important to you than the fact that it isn't. Even after we've discussed that there are better ways to express the idea, after you've gone through the pain of admitting you could have done this differently. You've then recanted, pulled back into your shell and defended your original expression. You won't grow if you do this. It's not just you. But you can fix it. Turn off the television, blank your mind, read, travel, think, build your ideas on this foundation.