Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Originally posted by Dry Rot
All I do know is that our current health system isn't working.
Originally posted by nicko18
you can blame smokers for that.
In 1998, more than 142,500 Australians were hospitalised due to smoking-related illness.
More than 940,000 hospital patient days each year are occupied by people with diseases caused by smoking.
Smoking causes one quarter of cases of low birth-weight infants, placing a heavy burden on neonatal services.
The social costs of smoking were conservatively estimated to be as high as $12.7bn a year, as long ago as 1992. And who pays?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
Did your highly publicised source also show the comparison of these highly believable figures to smokes tax / levy revenue?
Originally posted by Aslan
The Medicare rebate (currently 25.05 for a std cons item 23) will rise $3 for pensioners/HCC holders, which is the "incentive" for GPs to bulk bill. Everyone else will be charged a co-payment or alternatively an upfront fee (current AMA rate is $43 for item 23) which people can claim most of back through Medicare. My stepdad who is a GP was saying that it effectively means he's going to have to charge his non-concession patients a co-payment now of probably $5- to bulk bill pensioners etc and get more from them than non-pensioners (ie those who can more likely afford it) doesn't add up. He thinks most people will be ok to pay the $5 on top of the bulk-bill rate, because $5 is not much money for *most* people, but to charge them an upfront fee of $43 or whatever and then make them go off to Medicare to claim it back will turn them off coming to the doctor, plus it's a lot of money for more people than $5 is. From the Health Insurance Commission end it's going to be an administrative nightmare, because at the moment there's no way to tell from the HIC who has pensions or HCCs, these will all have to be cross-referenced so they know who has to pay what, if anything...
Originally posted by Frodo
The $40,000 figure surprises me though. I think $60,000 would be more apropriate. What concerns me is that families on say $42,000 will find the extra cost of a visit uncomfortable and decide not to make the visit to the doctor.