How to Get a GP Doctor to Bulk Bill You?

LStephanie360 on 02/05/2018 - 07:15
Last edited 02/05/2018 - 11:42 by 1 other user

Doctors in Australia are so expensive when it should be free. In Europe healthcare is free - we just walk into a specialist doctors clinic and will be seen or get an appointment, no need for referral from a GP. No need to pay.

Here doctors get money from government and still ask you to pay. I have to pay $70 to just see a GP. How do you get your GP doctor to bulk bill you? I have tried the following which have worked:

  • tell them how long you waited and it would not be fair to charge
  • say “just a quick one” and tell them what you need like a script or certificate.
  • usually they won’t charge just for a script, so say you just want a script then talk about what you need to see them for

However without trying the above and I just ask them if they will bulk bill me up they will say no. It is stupid here. So ridiculous.

Healthcare should be free. Share your strategies on how to be bulk billed. I am still trying to get specialists to bulk bulk. We need to help each other.

Health & Beauty

Comments

        • nikey2k27 on 04/04/2019 - 09:09

          Can ask do you have health insurance? i do.

      • twang on 06/05/2018 - 20:15

        Water, electricity and internet is not free.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 07:36
    +53

    Another new member troll post

  • chumlee on 02/05/2018 - 07:36
    +43

    Go to Europe.

    Ask for a brain scan too while it's free

    • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2018 - 18:47
      +1

      I believe that would be an echo scan.

  • try2bhelpful on 02/05/2018 - 07:43
    +16

    Not how to build a good relationship with your GP. You might start finding it hard to make an appointment with your preferred GP as he/she is suddenly booked out all the time. My experience is that GPs, and specialists, are good value for money. The referral service is to stop them being clogged with people who shouldn’t be there in the first place. My GP charges but he also provides exceptional service, I would love to see you try any of your strategies on him, you would still pay and you would be removed from access to the practice. GPs are businesses, not charities.

    There are bulk billing places, I suggest you use them.

    • Stephanie360 on 02/05/2018 - 08:44
      -5

      Does he charge you for results and scripts and certificates also?

      • try2bhelpful on 02/05/2018 - 10:22
        +5

        Results can generally be got from the counter staff unless he wants to see you about something as there is an issue. If he wants to see you it is a chargeable visit. I always had appointments for my scripts as he would do checks to see if there are any contraindications for continuing with the current medications/dosages. If they are just handing out scripts then they aren’t checking the effectiveness and if things have changed. You can get short or long consultations to cover the various needs and at different prices.

        I am particularly keen on this GP as he visually identified a melanoma when the tests had come back inconclusive. I shudder to think where I would be if my original GP had decided to wait and see.

  • theHMASfriendship on 02/05/2018 - 08:11
    +15

    After rebate they're like $30-35, and usually bulk billing is reserved for those who need it like those on the pension.

    Allows them to run their practice and retain good doctors and the same doctors… and I'm ok with that.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 17:51
      +10

      Yeah, not much more out of pocket than some people pay for a Men's Haircut. Guess who trained longer?

      The Medicare rebate was frozen by the government for years, GPs who bulk-billed kept getting what was effectively a pay cut every year as their staff and other expenses kept increasing but the amount they received did not.

      Be genuinely in need of the saving and be nice and you'll find yourself bulk billed without asking. Though it's amazing how many bulk-billed healthcare card holders are themselves driving the latest high-end Mercedes…

      In Europe healthcare is free because the government pays for it. Our government wants people who can afford it to make a reasonable co-payment (or occasionally this government wants you to pay most of it / all of it).

    • UNO on 02/05/2018 - 21:44
      +1

      The problem is the rebate amount is frozen so the gap gets bigger every year as GPs wages rise.

    • Pacify on 03/05/2018 - 22:00

      What, bulk billing is for anyone with a medicare card - provided the GP bulk bills, which most do these days.

    • Mrs W on 03/05/2018 - 23:25

      I think maybe that depends on area. In southwest Sydney it’s really easy to find a bulkbilling GP.

  • bdl on 02/05/2018 - 08:20
    +4

    Bikie billing

  • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 08:25
    +14

    Everything should be free!

    Me me me me me!

    • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 09:34

      VIC TAFE courses will soon be exactly that.

    • D6C1 on 02/05/2018 - 11:27
      -4

      Everything should be free!

      Me me me me me!

      You sound sarcastic. Why you here

      • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 12:13
        +5

        You sound confused. Why you here

      • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 08:52

        How much do they get paid?

        • RedHab on 02/05/2018 - 08:57
          -3

          How much do they get paid?

          From the ATO - top earning professions 2015 data:

          1. Neurosurgeon $577,674
          2. Ophthalmologist $552,947
          3. Cardiologist $453,253
          4. Plastic and reconstructive surgeon $448,530
          5. Gynaecologist; obstetrician $446,507
          6. Otorhinolaryngologist $445,939
          7. Orthopedic surgeon $439,629
          8. Urologist $433,792
          9. Vascular surgeon $417,524
          10. Gastroenterologist $415,192
          11. Diagnostic and interventional radiologist $386,003
          12. Dermatologist $383,880
          13. Judge — law $381,323
          14. Anaesthetist $370,492
          15. Cardiothoracic surgeon $358,043
          16. Surgeon — general $357,996
          17. Specialist physicians — other $344,860
          18. Radiation oncologist $336,994
          19. Medical oncologist $322,178
          20. Securities and finance dealer $320,452
        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 09:00
          +7

          @RedHab:
          Is that what the government pays them or their reported average income combined from bulk billing and private?

          Does that figure include income from outside their profession and ATO reports the total income from all investments and wages by self described profession that the taxee fills?

        • boomramada on 02/05/2018 - 09:22
          +13

          @RedHab:

          That's not that much, top level train drivers get paid nearly $200k? after few years of uni and reputation? :)
          http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/queensland-train…

          I like how people go nuts about pay for top level medical staff, become a Neurosurgeon is walk in the park right?

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 09:29
          -4

          @boomramada:
          It is a walk in the park for some.

          For others, there is knowledge far beyond their grasp to even acknowledge the existence of.

        • Blue Suby on 02/05/2018 - 09:41
          +10

          @RedHab:
          …and out of that they have to pay their staff, rent or mortgage on rooms and have to always be aware they don't cross Medicare guidelines. They have to pay for ongoing training if they want to keep their registration + Medical indemnity insurance (def not cheap on the last one for Specialists) and they need to have a reasonable standard of living.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 10:02
          +2

          @tshow: Those figures are shielded by great accountants who hide taxable income for the rich. Believe me or don’t believe me, it’s up to you, but Specialist doctors on that list, who are experienced and working in private practice, earn a lot more than those figures would have you believe. 7 figure incomes are common amongst specialist doctors and surgeons. Some
          surgeons in private practice will earn multiples of that.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 10:27
          +1

          @Burnertoasty:
          I know that. I've seen that.

          High income earners earn much more than declared. It isn't limited to specialist or medical professionals. In fact, far from it. My accountant takes every oppurtunity to remind me that doctors are terrible with money and are clueless about taxation and investment when compared to their intellectual peers.

          If anything, what you brought up biases the income argument against doctors.

        • doodlebug on 02/05/2018 - 10:27
          +1

          @Blue Suby: Well said. Add to this, they have to pay their own super, get no annual leave or sick leave. They are the only government employee to get absolutely no benefits and are treated differently to all other government employees. How dare they! they have no right to complain or charge more, they get treated awesome.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 10:41

          @tshow: Their intellectual peers?

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 12:15

          @Burnertoasty:
          Yes. Intellectual peers.

          The capability of a specialist, actuarist, chartered accountants, barristers… They may earn more in wages but they are also far more likely to be able to exercise refrain when spending, make better financial decisions, have more investment opportunities through social connections.

          Among the intellectual 1%, doctors have the poorest grasp of money management.

          Surely this isn't news.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 12:47

          @tshow: No, it’s made up.

        • lainey13 on 02/05/2018 - 14:34

          @Blue Suby: that list is just reported income. The other stuff you mentioned is an expense surely and claimed separately from personal income (which could include other sources not just personal wage).

        • BartholemewH on 02/05/2018 - 15:42
          +1

          @Blue Suby:

          The above figures would be taxable income, net of expenses such as staff and room fees.

        • lou knee on 02/05/2018 - 18:07
          +6

          I work in a bulk billing clinic and after tax, I get about $800 - $900 a week. Out of that, I have to pay for registration to AHPRA, membership to RACGP, indemnity insurance, continued education…

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 18:26
          +2

          @lou knee:
          I got out of bulk billing early on. Best career decision.

          I now deal with educated patients and in turn, the expectation is much higher. I end up spending my increased income on better facilities, gear and education.

          Maybe physicians don't have as many fun toys and a PP may look like a BB but PP vs BB for surgical is night and day.

        • buckster on 02/05/2018 - 19:12
          +2

          @RedHab: so where were gps on that list?

        • Dsquall on 03/05/2018 - 07:30

          @Burnertoasty:

          The most common method is to chuck half of your earnings into a family trust and use that to invest in other things i.e. property / business and get the returns paid back to the trust. It's difficult to get money out of these funds but hey, no tax.

          So essentially take those numbers on the list and double - triple it and you have a rough idea of averages.

        • dmcneice on 03/05/2018 - 11:21
          +2

          @Dsquall:

          Not that simple mate. In fact one of the reasons medical professionals top the list is because we can't reduce our taxable income as effectively as other professions. GP's especially can't use family trusts unless the income they receive is mainly not from them. For your average GP contractor, you have PSI rules, can't put that into a trust to split income at all

        • SlickMick on 03/05/2018 - 12:03

          @RedHab:
          WHy didn't I find a list like that when I left school :(

        • [Deactivated] on 03/05/2018 - 18:02
          +1

          @RedHab:

          Theres roughly 324 neurosurgeons and 250 cardiothoracic surgeons in Australia. Source Royal Australian College of Surgeons

        • Frugal on 03/05/2018 - 23:43

          @lou knee:

          Geez that’s not much …

        • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2018 - 04:03

          @RedHab:

          Please see my post at the end which lists number of Individuals

        • Danta on 04/05/2018 - 19:25
          +6

          @RedHab:

          I am a doctor.

          I can tell you all those specialists massively deserve all that they earn. The hours and study they have done to achieve their role is amazing. Let alone the actual hours per week they work!

          You’ll notice GPs aren’t on that list. Seeing $200 an hour quoted above sounds like a lot. However you need to consider their outgoing costs in rent, nurses, admin staff and practice materials. Their actual take home isn’t close to that.

        • captainandg on 04/05/2018 - 19:53

          @lou knee: are you working full time? I’m a resident at a tertiary hospital and take home ~$1350/week after tax for 40 hrs (this includes professional development pay).

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/05/2018 - 17:28

          @tshow:

          TS: Is that what the government pays them or their reported average income combined from bulk billing and private?

          99: Thats their declared income to the ATO. Are you really going to pretend they are struggling to make a profit after "expenses" ?

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/05/2018 - 17:30
          -1

          @Danta:

          Danta: You’ll notice GPs aren’t on that list.

          99: According to the ATO gps, average about $140k ~ last time i looked. GPs are doing just fine, dont cry poor.

          D: However you need to consider their outgoing costs in rent, nurses, admin staff and practice materials. Their actual take home isn’t close to that

          99: Really ? Are tyou going to pretend that you earn nothing ?

          What car do you drive ? What car do most doctors drive ?

        • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2018 - 18:10

          @ninetyNineCents:
          The argument was that government pays enough. The reference used was a combined income (private fees, bulk billing, gaps payable, weekend jobs nannying..). The question I posed was to highlight the discrepancy between the reference and the intended implication. No one is pretending anything… Well, comprehension maybe…

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/05/2018 - 22:41
          -1

          @tshow:

          TS: The reference used was a combined income (private fees, bulk billing, gaps payable, weekend jobs nannying..)

          99: Are you really going to pretend that from a 500k "income" a specialist goes home with 1/10th ?

          TS: Well, comprehension maybe…

          99: What car do you drive ? What car do most doctors drive ?

          Ill ask again…

        • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2018 - 23:39

          @ninetyNineCents:
          Commbined income. Income from multiple sources. Nothing to do with take home.

          How I choose to spend my money is irrelevant.

        • ninetyNineCents on 06/05/2018 - 15:39

          @tshow:

          Amazing four times i ask what car you drive and you refuse to answer. Theres no harm in telling everyone here, privacy didnt stop you from crying poor about BB.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2018 - 18:23

          @ninetyNineCents:
          See below. I answered your irrelevant question. See below, I asked where I cried poor.

          Also, glad you realised your ridiculous inference of what combined income means. Or at least I hope you have. If not, don't worry, I'm not holding any expectation.

      • YellowDieselGolf on 02/05/2018 - 11:05
        +37

        If I had to:
        Study for at least 6 years.
        Incur hundreds of thousands of dollars of student debt.
        Constantly study and keep up to date with new drugs and treatments.
        Make life and death decisions.
        Be the target of lawsuits for any mistakes.
        Work excessive hours.
        Deal with awful illnesses and gross conditions and be a risk of catching them.
        Tell people they have a terminal illness.

        Then I’d expect a 2018 Ferrari.

        • Blitzfx on 02/05/2018 - 11:46
          -4

          It's more than 6 years, including the time to get a license.
          Also, you don't incur hundreds of thousands of student debt.
          You don't even need to keep up to date. Only good / responsible doctors will do this.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 12:59
          +4

          @Blitzfx:
          You have to fulfil a minimum CPD points. These cost a fair bit.

          It's true, attending seminars is entirely different to learning.

        • recentlyjoinedozb on 02/05/2018 - 13:06
          +15

          Study for at least 6 years.

          Common misconception. The average doctor studies 11 years of formal education on average (think books, classes, exams), 4 years of non-formal education (junior years before post grad education) and a life long career of ongoing education (think conferences, seminars, annual updates).

          The 6 years are merely the undergrad years - you don't even get full medical license by the end of that, let alone license to practice independently, or even dream to become a neurosurgeon (that's average 15-18 years).

        • MessyG on 02/05/2018 - 20:07
          +4

          This. My eye is twitching slightly reading this thread. Thankyou for writing this.

          Although the study is more like 10-11 years. Undergrad med is 6 years. The training programmes are years on top of that, and General Practice is a specialty now like the rest so lots of exams to sit and standards to meet.

        • khomeini on 03/05/2018 - 10:02
          +1

          And all you got was this lousy yellow diesel golf?
          Gad nammit!

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/05/2018 - 17:34
          -1

          YDG: Make life and death decisions.

          99: Most GP work is fairly basic, prescriptions for colds, etc, then send real problems to specialists. They arent doing open heart surgery ever.

          YDG: Deal with awful illnesses and gross conditions and be a risk of catching them.

          99: So do the nurses…

          YDG: Work excessive hours.

          99: Once outside residency GPs get paid for their hours… They arent doing it for free.

          YDG: Tell people they have a terminal illness.

          99: Gps dont do that, thats the job of specialists. YOu obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be confusing what a GP actually does and what a specialist does.

      • Georgevic on 02/05/2018 - 16:23
        -2

        That's not how it works. A doctor either bulk bills or charges private fees, they only get paid by the government if they bulk bill.

      • May4th on 02/05/2018 - 19:21
        +7

        GPs don't get paid by the govt. they charge you a fee, you get 37 er consult from govt. some GPs bulk bill ie. take only what government gives you. GPs dom't get paid a salary, no sick leave, no annual leave.

        if you feel your health isn't worth more than what you pay for half a hair treatment or two drinks at a bar by all means go to a naturopath who will happily charge you 500 to set your aura straight

        • Georgevic on 03/05/2018 - 22:55

          The 37 per consult goes to the Doctor/the doctor's practice, so yes they are literally paid by the government for consulting with you.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 08:50
      +16

      The great scam? I don't think you know what scam even means.

      Great scams are what the banks and financial institutes are doing. You're forced to have a super and they don't deliver, yet charge fees. That's a scam.

      A student having to get good grades to compete for a spot that's open to everyone on an equal oppurtunity basis, and then competing again for a residency spot, then setting up their practice having to take financials risks… Scam!

      Scam scam scam!

        • Slippery Fish on 02/05/2018 - 09:22
          +7

          They train the amount they do to keep the level of training high.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 09:23

          So what is our supply to demand ratio now?

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 09:27
          +4

          @Slippery Fish:
          And because a medicine graduate needs an internship position to complete their training. Hospitals are already over capacity with interns.

        • dave999 on 02/05/2018 - 11:12
          -3

          @tshow: I firmly believe those issues are easily solvable. Training more doctors would not reduce the level of training and am I sure the problem with too many interns could be easily dealt with. Ultimately doctors have little interest in there being more doctors trained because it is not in their personal interest, but is in the publics interest.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 11:19
          +6

          @dave999:
          Easily solved. How?

          Interns need to shadow a more experienced doctor and take every oppurtunity to participate. Having two interns instead of one shadowing means half the opportunity to participate.

          It's easy to say "there are easy solutions". It is another thing to actually have solutions.

          Besides, what's the supply to demand ratio and what's the rate we are training doctors at? You can't have solutions when you don't even know the scenario.

        • dave999 on 02/05/2018 - 11:24

          @tshow: Well for one it is a chicken and the egg scenario, if there were more doctors you could have more interns. Also if there were more doctors they would be less busy and could spend more time training the interns so you can have even more interns.

          I still maintain the barriers to training more doctors are artificial and deliberate and the public would be better off financially and have better medical outcomes if more doctors were trained.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 12:01
          +5

          @dave999:
          You can maintained your opinion.

          I would differ as I actually know the number of interns, graduates awaiting interns, number of intern positions available, number of local graduates, number of import doctors via AMC… Doctors to patient ratios by locality…

          These numbers are publicly available and I would gesture knowing the full scenario before projecting an opinion.

        • dave999 on 02/05/2018 - 12:17
          -1

          @tshow: Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make their points valid. It seems you are saying their is absolutely no problems so let it just be business as usual. There are actual problems such as massive spiralling cost of medical assistance and long waits for medical assistance while at the same time medical wages are:

          From the ATO - top earning professions 2015 data:
          Neurosurgeon $577,674
          Ophthalmologist $552,947
          Cardiologist $453,253
          Plastic and reconstructive surgeon $448,530
          Gynaecologist; obstetrician $446,507
          Otorhinolaryngologist $445,939
          Orthopedic surgeon $439,629
          Urologist $433,792
          Vascular surgeon $417,524
          Gastroenterologist $415,192
          Diagnostic and interventional radiologist $386,003
          Dermatologist $383,880
          Judge — law $381,323
          Anaesthetist $370,492
          Cardiothoracic surgeon $358,043
          Surgeon — general $357,996
          Specialist physicians — other $344,860
          Radiation oncologist $336,994
          Medical oncologist $322,178
          Securities and finance dealer $320,452

          Perhaps you should educate us with your perfect opinion what is the cause/some of the causes of spiralling cost and at the same time long wait times? It seems you can only think of the small picture and are blind to the big picture? The situation reeks of supply/demand problems of medical professionals caused by restriction of training of doctors. Perhaps you should look up that publicly available information before "before projecting an opinion"

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 12:25
          +13

          @dave999:
          Your opinion isn't valid or invalid. It's just poorly backed. You make presumptions but haven't been able to address any.

          1. Limiting number of doctors. What is that limit? What is the actual supply of doctors in proportion to patients? Which country are we using as a benchmark for sufficient supply of doctors.

          2. Easily solvable. You provided a solution of "training more doctors". You don't seem to understand the cost and requirements of training doctors. Again, how many more doctors are you suggesting we train and how is the hospital capacity going to cope?

          3. Artificial barriers to training doctors? Elaborate?

          4. Massive spiraling cost? How much is that and what are we comparing to?

          If the big picture is better healthcare, no one is disagreeing. I am for better quality of care but simply stating easy solution, more doctors, reduced cost… Isn't really saying anything. It's just baseless opinion.

          Besides, your little reference of income doesn't state if the income is government paid, private fees, external income… It doesn't say much except specialist have the highest disclosed consolidated income. Data without understanding is still worthless.

          Ps. Did you notice that GPs (the actual topic of discussion) isn't even on that list. So again, how much do they earn?

        • SydStrand on 02/05/2018 - 13:47
          +3

          deliberately limiting the number of doctors (by limiting the number of new doctors each year) to keep the supply low and the demand high

          They limit the number of doctors to retain the quality of education. Also, medical school isn't the limiting factor, teaching hospitals are. There are graduates stuck in limbo after leaving school because there aren't enough rotations. Yeah, let's double the intake, our healthcare system will cope.

        • SydStrand on 02/05/2018 - 14:24
          +3

          @dave999:

          if there were more doctors you could have more interns. Also if there were more doctors they would be less busy and could spend more time training the interns so you can have even more interns.

          Multi-Level Medicine & Pyramid Schemes 101

          I still maintain the barriers to training more doctors are artificial and deliberate

          They are deliberate to maintain quality in teaching experience, because of the limited opportunities to get clinical rotations, not everything is a conspiracy to rip you off.

          So the solution is just 'more doctors!' So simple, so brilliant. I guess it just took some random guy on the internet to point out the obvious. Why didn't all those doctors, politicians, accountants, and administrators not think of this earlier?

        • dave999 on 02/05/2018 - 14:48
          -7

          @tshow:

          1. I'd say it's the same problem in most/all other countries.

          2. The cost of training doctors is recovered very quickly by the extra tax paid by the doctors when they begin working and the cost of the degree in the first place. Are you really asking how a hospital would cope if it had more access to doctors?

          3. There is a limit on the number of places available to begin a medical degree. The main argument seems to be you need doctors to be in the top 2% of year 12 marks to be capable of being a good doctor?

          4. See health care costs as percentage of GDP here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea… . What would you compare it to? Maybe give some answers instead of questions.

          It is actually you giving no data or answers, everything of yours is a question, for example, "Artificial barriers to training doctors?Elaborate?" but you give no idea why there are not more doctors when their wages are extremely high. Something is stopping highly educated people becoming doctors and ending up in lower paid jobs.

          As for "highest disclosed consolidated income", it seems you are implying somehow doctors pay tax where other professionals don't, and therefore they are not actually in the highest paid jobs - that is simply not true.

          More doctors being trained is not the only solution, but it is a part of any solution going forward.

        • dave999 on 02/05/2018 - 15:00
          -1

          @Strand0410: Thanks for your personal attacks.

          It's not a pyramid scheme, that is just a nonsensical comment.

          I never said it is a conspiracy to rip you off, it is one of the causes of high wages and high costs.

          I also never said it is a magical solution, it is one part of a solution.

          "Why didn't all those doctors, politicians, accountants, and administrators not think of this earlier?" They have and it is politically hard to change the status quo.

          My question to you, if they trained 20% more doctors each year would it have a positive or negative effect on doctors wages? That is the crux of it. I guess you are saying definitively it would cause doctors wages to increase - I'd love to know why you are so sure of this and the logic behind it?

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 15:51
          +2

          @dave999:

          1. You have no answer.

          2. The cost of training a doctor is higher than what he can pay back in taxes if your proposing doctors get paid less. And again, you have no clue how much it cost and how doctors are trained, yet you claim you have a solution. I didn't claim to have a solution.

          3. There is a limit on places because there are a physical limit to number of doctors that can be in a hospital. You can't just cram more interns to follow one resident. The 2% is because the spaces are limited so schools can cherry pick doctors. Besides, if all the top 2% of students became doctors, there would he tens of thousands of doctors.

          4. I am not the one making presumptions so I'll ask questions to point out your presumptions. Besides, your link shows our healthcare spending is actually quite efficient in comparison to other first world countries.

          Again, I'm not making presumptions so of course I don't give answers. What part about not making presumptions don't you understand?

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 18:00
          +2

          @Strand0410: The Howard Government froze the number of places to save money on training costs. They did eventually fix it when we had an absolute crisis in terms of supply and had to import a huge % of our GPs from poorer countries. It's only just now producing enough graduates to start meeting demand.

          The limits never had anything to do with the quality of the education. Raising them hasn't had any negative impact either. As always it's about money, the government has to pay to train people, and it's cheaper to steal them from other countries. It took a few major scandals before that attitude changed (yes only a small minority of overseas trained doctors were involved, but the sheer desperation for staff was the cause for the lack of quality).

        • Protato on 02/05/2018 - 19:11
          +3

          @dave999:

          You keep linking the salaries of doctors that train for 10-25 years to get to that level of income. You do realize this right ?

        • Dsquall on 03/05/2018 - 07:47
          +1

          @dave999:

          The spiraling costs of healthcare are more closely tied with an ageing population and the cost of pharmaceuticals. One of the biggest expenditures by public healthcare is monoclonal antibodies that are used to treat a myriad of things cost 10 - 60k per dose and a lot of people are on these things for years. The drug itself costs a few dollars to make but because of IP laws, the healthcare sector bears the burden.

          Yeah, salaries are high but on average, a sub-specialist surgeon has done 5-7 years of med school, 2 years of residency, 3-10 years of unaccredited training, 5-7 years of accredited training, 1 - 2 years of fellowship (and after all that you might not have a job, cause there are not enough spots in public hospitals). Also, they make up such a small fraction of medical practitioners that if you were looking for some sort of a rank equivalence that might be a bit more understandable, you should equate them to partners or senior management of commercial accounting / law firms. If a CEO/COO/CFO of a large multinational in Australia made 500k a year, you'd probably think they were underpaid.

        • [Deactivated] on 03/05/2018 - 23:37
          +1

          @dave999:

          You could use the same argument for any occupation that is on the Australian goverment skilled occupation list for Visas. The fact is its expensive and time consuming to train skilled workers and there are no short cuts

        • Danta on 04/05/2018 - 19:36

          @tshow:

          I was in the top 22% and I’m still a doctor. It’s not all about 2% at high school.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2018 - 19:57

          @Danta:
          I wasn't a model student either. Maybe not 22% but I certainly could have tried a lot harder.

          I'd like to think I've moved past requisite learning and closer to pioneering.

        • esosite on 15/05/2018 - 20:47

          @tshow: He also leaves out the fact that each one of those specialists are finished fellowship.

          6-8 years university, then 1 year internship, then 1+ years residency getting on a program, then 5+ years of college training then you can think about getting on that list. So roughly 15 years of intensive training and long hours with long hours of study.

          Even if you offered that to more people in the general population how many would stick it out and make it to the end.

          Dave999 you've lost the plot, stop quoting some ATO figures. The reason they are all on their is because it is one of the most specialised and qualified professions. But if you like we could make every 3rd child go directly to med school and be your neurosurgeon when they are removing a tumour right near your brainstem. That would be cheaper for you eh?

    • djsweet on 02/05/2018 - 08:57
      +12

      I have a GP in my family, and she drives a 13 year old Camry. If a GP can afford a Ferrari its got nothing to do with them being a GP.

      • try2bhelpful on 02/05/2018 - 10:25
        +1

        I agree, I think the tax office needs to talk to the Ferrari driving doctor. I wonder what they are prescribing and to whom.

        • ankor on 03/05/2018 - 07:00

          There's the GP who works in a practice, and then there's the GP who owns two or three practices. That would be the difference between the Camry and the Ferrari.

        • scheps on 04/05/2018 - 00:32

          @ankor:
          or the ferrari gp is still renting?

      • ninetyNineCents on 05/05/2018 - 17:36

        DJS: I have a GP in my family, and she drives a 13 year old Camry. If a GP can afford a Ferrari its got nothing to do with them being a GP.

        99: Are we really gping to pretend that GPs all drive 13 year old camrys ?

        We all know that alarge minority of GPs drive nice cars, and thats great i drive a nice car too, but i dont go around tell people im underpaid.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2018 - 18:25

          What's considered a nice car and what's the percentage of GPs that drive a nice car?

          Is that percentage significantly higher than the general population?

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/05/2018 - 22:43

          @tshow:

          Why dont you tell us what you drive instead of avoiding the question ?

          I personally dont care if you drive a nice car, good on you, just be honest about it.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2018 - 23:41

          @ninetyNineCents:
          I drive a 06' Corolla, manual, base trim. Modified base unit for Bluetooth.

          So what about the "stats" you alluded to.

        • ninetyNineCents on 06/05/2018 - 15:43

          @tshow:

          So what about the "stats" you alluded to.

          https://ama.com.au/sa/mercedes-benz

          I wonder how many professional organisations have mercedes sections ?

          Nurses union doesnt, but we already knew that few if any nurses drive mercs, same goes for plumbers, teachers, school teachers etc.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2018 - 18:25

          @ninetyNineCents:
          So they have negotiated a coroporate deal. What mental acrobatics have you done to create whatever meaning you seek to imply?

          Rhetoric. Don't really care to know.

          Just want to know where you got your stats. Apparently you don't have any. As usual.

        • ninetyNineCents on 07/05/2018 - 18:06

          @tshow:

          TS:
          Rhetoric. Don't really care to know.

          99: Either you were clearly making an uninformed comment, or you are a blind and havent noticed the mercs that doctors drive, which makes you blind or you knew i was right but rather than be honest about it, you still tried to paint an untruth…

          So which is it ?

          Blind or dishonest ?

          Theres nothing wrong with not knowing but to lie is pathetic.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2018 - 19:15

          @ninetyNineCents:
          And some tradies drive mercs. Some people on commission housing drive mercs (http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/meet…)

          Heck, there's a Merc for tradies (https://www.mercedes-benz.com.au/passengercars/mercedes-benz…)

          So… No stats to back your claim as per usual?

    • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 17:56
      +6

      I do not know of any GPs with Ferrari's. Specialists rake it in. GPs not so much, they're expected to be experts at anything and get sued the moment anyone that has ever treated a patient misses something. And after you take out their expenses (which are about 40-50% of the fee they're charging) there's not much left compared with other jobs that require much less training. I wouldn't want to be a GP :\ .

      The good ones that don't bulk bill people that can afford the modest co-payment are often the ones doing free extra care for the patients that really need it and actually saving/improving lives. I'd wager those who only bulk bill can't afford to do anything 'extra' free, and you'll be back there costing the taxpayer for another appointment just for something another doctor would have called you about.

      • ninetyNineCents on 05/05/2018 - 17:38

        B: GPs not so much, they're expected to be experts at anything and get sued the moment anyone that has ever treated a patient misses something.

        99: THey arent experts in everything thats an absurd statement to make. GPs always send patients to specialists for expert care, for starters GPs dont have the equipment to do what specialists do. DO i really need to explain that a GP cant do any operations because they dont have any equipment and so on ?

        • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2018 - 18:29

          Any operations?

          Punch biopsies, excisions, debride and suture, drains, implants…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join