Thread: Jumping Ship

It will continue until some politician has a wobbly and can't get treatment as fast as they want.

Happens all the time in Sydney with Sydney Hospital - Pollies get together & figure they can either sell the site to one of their mates on the cheap to build a luxury hotel/units, or gut the heritage building & build some essential accomodation for the members like a pool, gym & bar. Then one of them has a heart attack, or falls down the stairs after a 'smart lunch' & needs immediate attention, where upon they get a budget increase for a while until everyone forgets......

Originally Posted by Chesand

All of the above is the reason why I keep private health insurance

Not sure that really helps. Means they are only funded for a set amount of treatment and that's it. When I was having the baby some years ago now even the hospital people would recommend you went public, cos there wasn't an anesthetist on site so you would have to wait for him to be woken up if something went wrong in the middle of the night. And if the baby needed intensive care they were only funded for a finite amount when you then had to go somewhere else. I guess it would be good if you wanted elective surgery.

My wife is a palliative care RN working in both public and private sectors here in South Australia. Her pay and work conditions are far better in her public sector job than in the private facility she works in. As an example....she is paid as a level 3 RN in her public sector position and the nurse to patient ratios are reasonable. In her private sector job she is only paid as a Level 2 RN (doing exactly the same job) and nurse to patient ratios are getting so bad alot of staff are leaving from the facility she works in. Last night she came home from a late shift hungry.......workload had been so bad she hadn't been able to take time off to have dinner.

If you're a clinician thinking about leaving the public sector take a long hard look at the pay and conditions being offered in the private sector before making the jump.

Originally Posted by tea lady

My dad recently had a heart attack and the ambos said he was lucky cos Boxhill is on bypass so he got to go to the Austin and had a hear by pass operation almost straight away. Sister (who is a nurse ) said that if he had ended up in Box Hill Hospital without health insurance they would have found excuses to not do the by pass for months till they didn't have to do it anymore. Some accountant manager is finding a great way to cut costs there.

Originally Posted by tea lady

Not sure that really helps. Means they are only funded for a set amount of treatment and that's it. When I was having the baby some years ago now even the hospital people would recommend you went public, cos there wasn't an anesthetist on site so you would have to wait for him to be woken up if something went wrong in the middle of the night. And if the baby needed intensive care they were only funded for a finite amount when you then had to go somewhere else. I guess it would be good if you wanted elective surgery.

Somewhat contradictory there TL.

I agree with Chesand, we have kept our private health insurance up and when a few years ago I had some heart plumbing issues I was in the Epworth Hospital quick smart and had 3 stents fitted. Out of pocket expenses were zero and the level of care from all levels, including the cardiologists, was superb.

Didn't have to worry about fainting in foyers, ringing my MP, hospital by-pass rules, waiting lists and which hospital I should try and get in to through various means.

My daughter is an RN and has worked in both the public and private sector, currently working in the public sector, she agrees with Kiwigeo's report above, conditions and pay are far better in the public sector. Which perhaps explains to a certain extent why the public health system is under a certain amount of financial pressure.

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Out of pocket expenses were zero and the level of care from all levels, including the cardiologists, was superb.

Fred

I agreed with all your comments but my personal experience of expenses is that if you have private insurance is costs you at least twice: The first time when you pay premiums to the insurance provider and the second time when you get hit for the out of pocket expenses (such as medications) and the over the schedule fees (the anesthetists are the worst culprits there).

There are only two advantages that I have heard for private medical insurance. The first is that with elective surgery you can pretty much walk in and have the procedure completed with a very short time after diagnosis. This is as opposed to being on a waiting list for two years or more and having to endure discomfort at best and unacceptable pain at worst.

The second is that you get to choose your specialist. However, in the country areas you get a choice of what is there and that is a frequently a single surgeon so that benefit goes out the window. The exception to that is if it is pre-planned and you are prepared and able to travel to a major city.

I am saying this as someone who has had private medical insurance for over thirty years.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Fred

I agreed with all your comments but my personal experience of expenses is that if you have private insurance is costs you at least twice: The first time when you pay premiums to the insurance provider and the second time when you get hit for the out of pocket expenses (such as medications) and the over the schedule fees (the anesthetists are the worst culprits there).

There are only two advantages that I have heard for private medical insurance. The first is that with elective surgery you can pretty much walk in and have the procedure completed with a very short time after diagnosis. This is as opposed to being on a waiting list for two years or more and having to endure discomfort at best and unacceptable pain at worst.

The second is that you get to choose your specialist. However, in the country areas you get a choice of what is there and that is a frequently a single surgeon so that benefit goes out the window. The exception to that is if it is pre-planned and you are prepared and able to travel to a major city.

I am saying this as someone who has had private medical insurance for over thirty years.

Regards
Paul

Paul, you are correct that anesthetists seem to have an over inflated sense of their worth. In the case of my stents I had zero out of pocket expenses, but my wife had a minor operation here in our country town, the surgeon charged the recommended Medicare fee (highly unusual in my experience) but the anesthetist charged about $100 above the Medicare fee, only part of which would be covered by my private health insurance. So I fowarded him the private health insurance cheque and told him that there would be no further monies forthcoming from me, if he wasn't happy with that he could take me to court, but he would have to be prepared to justify his charges there. Never heard from him about the matter.

I have never had to pay extra for prescription drugs.

My reasons for staying in private health insurance are mainly that I want to be in charge of my own health, not be dependent on bureaucracy to decide when and where it will be convenient to do what is required.

I see it as just another cost, I insure my house, my contents, my car etc, why not insure my health?

Edit:

As an additonal thought, most (if not all) the insurance policies mentioned above have an excess of some sort. If I claim on my car insurance for instance the first $400 come out of my pocket. Not that different from private health insurance?

Like Fred, I had heart surgery a few years ago and there were no additional costs over and above the hospital excess which was $250.

I figure that anaesthetists are worth their money as if they do not bring you round, the surgery has been a waste of time. In other words you can win the battle but lose the war.

It is not just health but all of government services that are being either ran down or if they make a profit then basically stolen from the people who own them. I was sort of intending getting in another couple of years before retirement but as the place is being sold out from under us then I am sort of expecting the size 9 boot. They wont even come clean about that and give us a date. Just as well I got a shed for stress relief.
Regards
John

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Edit:

As an additonal thought, most (if not all) the insurance policies mentioned above have an excess of some sort. If I claim on my car insurance for instance the first $400 come out of my pocket. Not that different from private health insurance?

An interesting analogy. However with motor insurance, for example you are normally able to choose your level of excess (and naturally pay for that privilege), but with medical this is out of your control.

Also the intention with an excess is to keep you "honest." If you have to pay a small contribution you are less likely to claim. However, with health, once you get to the stage of surgery (we'll discount cosmetic procedures) few of us do it to get our money's worth. There is no longer a requirement to keep us honest, just a requirement to keep us healthy: Alive even!

I have been lucky in that I have enjoyed good health. I went for almost ten years without a day off sick from work up until about four years ago when I had both hips replaced. I was out of pocket close to $4000 despite having the top level of private medical cover.

It is no wonder that people become incensed by the system.

Regards
Paul

Scott i agree that Health and political reform should be everyones top priority. As long as the states have the feds to blame and vice versa then there will be no change to public health.

My concern for staff in the private sector is how can you be sure that the corporates who cherry pick top dollar surgical procedures and midwifery cases to make profits for the shareholders over long term medical inpatient costs wont stiff the staff in the long run?

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

An interesting analogy. However with motor insurance, for example you are normally able to choose your level of excess (and naturally pay for that privilege), but with medical this is out of your control.

For about 15 years I had a comprehensive car insurance policy with a Nil excess (I had no claims during this period), 2 years ago I was informed that this insurance company no longer offered a Nil excess and it would go to $500, without any reduction in premium!
I shopped around and found that no other insurance company offered a Nil excess either.

I have been lucky in that I have enjoyed good health. I went for almost ten years without a day off sick from work up until about four years ago when I had both hips replaced. I was out of pocket close to $4000 despite having the top level of private medical cover.

That certainly seems excessive, but again one has a choice in this case. These days we are informed before the procedure by everyone involved what the cost is going to be and what we get back from our private health insurance.
On learning that you were going to be $4000 out of pocket you had the option to have the procedure done in the public system at no out of pocket cost, just because you have private health insurance doesn't preclude you from using the public system. After all we all pay our Medicare levy and are entitled to "free" health care in the public system. Some public hospitals will even admit you as private patient and charge your private health insurance whatever their benefit is.
In fact a lot of public hospitals are quite keen on this "hybrid" system as they get more out of you this way than they would as a public patient.

As a "health services consumer" one needs to inform oneself of what options are available when "purchasing" these services just as in purchasing any other service.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

An interesting analogy. However with motor insurance, for example you are normally able to choose your level of excess (and naturally pay for that privilege), but with medical this is out of your control.

Regards
Paul

I agree that you cannot choose an excess level for medical but you can for hospital cover.
I have an excess of $250 for top hospital cover which is payable only once in any year. As it is 14 years since I have been in hospital, I figure that I am in front with the saving in premium payments.

Originally Posted by Pac man

Scott i agree that Health and political reform should be everyones top priority. As long as the states have the feds to blame and vice versa then there will be no change to public health.

Couldn't agree more, also applies to education and a range of other areas.

One could then ask, why then have state governments?

Scott, good luck with the move. Committed staff in the public sector can only keep a leaky boat afloat for so long before there's a toll on their own health.

It comprehensively p's me off that in Vic the govt can find 50 million for a car race annually but cut much more than that from hospital budgets or education spending. Surveys show that these are priorities for the public.

What's the procedure for getting heart and mind in sync?