|
|
Post by DADDY O on May 5, 2017 13:38:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sherri on May 6, 2017 1:44:12 GMT
Just reading part of that:
If I get sick in Australia and if I am admitted to a public hospital and I have private insurance, they will fight tooth and nail for me to claim it & will sometimes even agree just to take the fund refund amount and forego the rest of the bill. They get more that way than the govt contribution.
So a lot of people in public hospitals are actually being funded by their health care insurance fund. If you want elective surgery & to choose your doctor, you may well book into a public hospital to have it done if the doctor works there, but your health care cover will be charged and you will still be up for some excesses because private health insurance doesn't cover all a bill, only part of it.
This has been a bone of contention for a while as it means that if I go in on private cover, I will pay my initial excess up front (which may be up to $500) then be out a bit with doctor's fees etc. I will be covered for the room. But a public patient won't pay a cent.
But... if you came here and got ill, you are not a citizen & you would be charged every cent. Our medicare system is only for us, not anyone else.
I was surprised to read Trump had a friend who went into hospital in Scotland and was not charged. I can only assume the man was Scottish or else they run things differently.
Let me promise you this though-come to Australia & you better have travel insurance. Medical costs are expensive here and without travel insurance you would be risking losing thousands.
|
|
|
|
Post by sherri on May 6, 2017 1:55:49 GMT
This reminds me of a case I read about years ago.
These people came on radio & TV and complained the Aust govt was going to deport their mother who was an invalid and lived with them and was 97. How cruel, to deport this woman.
I was glad the health minister had the guts to come on and reply without pulling punches. She explained that the mother was here on a short term temporary visa (3 years) which was commonly used as a humanitarian clause where people would not be accepted as migrants to this country, but had children here who were migrants and who wanted to look after their elderly parents. The clause was that before the parents arrived, the children had to sign an agreement that they would pay all medical expenses associated with the parent and would provide all care eg housing etc. In return, the govt would agree to renew the visa every 3 years as needed, as long as the children re-signed the papers.
In this case, the children had refused to sign the papers and were trying to force the govt to accept the mother into a nursing home. The minister said they did not want to deport her, there was no need to deport her but the govt was not about to be blackmailed into giving expensive nursing home care free to someone who arrived here at the age of 94.
Sometimes I wonder why reporters don't do a bit of homework before they run with these stories.
I think this is why so many people here push to be citizens but I know of a couple (from Scotland) who said that to migrate, they had to sign agreement that all medical & any other expenses, they would pay for their first 2 years. No govt allowances of any kind till after that. Refugees are not the same, they have full access from day 1.
|
|
