Should We Continue Paying for The Healthcare of Non-Citizens from First World Countries (Reciprocal Health Care Agreements) ?

This came up as I was chatting with my sister-in-law who is a pharmacist in one of the big pharmacy chains. She has a new patient from the UK who flies to Australia after the lockdown ended to get his regular anti-cancer meds, which apparently cost the Australian government (and taxpayers) tens of thousands every few months. This bloke isn't a dual Australian citizen or has ties to Australia, but apparently can get subsidised cancer meds for next to nothing despite not paying any taxes in Australia in his life. He says the reason is he makes these round trips down under a few times a year is because those anti-cancer meds are neither cheap nor funded under the NHS, which is the UK's version of Medicare (hence saving himself "quite a few quids" in his own words).

Now my sister-in-law doesn't mind her UK patient because she get's paid by Medicare regardless for dispensing those meds and he's a pleasant chatty chap to deal with who doesn't complain about the long wait times to order in his cancer meds, but it does struck me how we are essentially paying for non-citizens healthcare even though the UK is a developed country in its own right with its own free healthcare.

Apparently the British chap said the Australian healthcare system is much better funded than the NHS, which is also is why hundreds of UK doctors and nurses are migrating en masse to Australia for better pay and work-life balance every year (needs to be fact checked though). Not being from the UK myself I looked it up and we have Reciprocal Health Care Agreements for 11 countries, all of which are first world countries (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, The Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Norway, Slovenia, Malta and Italy).

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/reciprocal-health-care-…

This doesn't sound too bad but then I read the news now with rising inflation and costs of livings, everyday Australians are not being able to afford even a $30-40 routine GP visit these days. I wonder if we should stop paying for healthcare of non-Australian citizens/residents and spend those saved on Aussies instead? Or at least restrict it to cheap generics medications instead of specialised drugs costing thousands of dollars, as these non-Aussies doesn't have any ties to Australia or pay taxes here.
I can't find any data on how much Australia spends on the healthcare of non-citizens through such Reciprocal Health Care Agreements , but I suspect we are not getting too much back in the way of fellow Aussies utilising their poorer-funded foreign Medicare counterparts (I think Norway is perhaps the only country with an equally well-funded healthcare system like Australia.)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-21/medicare-rebates-not-…

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-21/tas-gp-bulk-billing-d…

Yay or nay to continue spending millions (or perhaps hundreds of millions?) on non-taxpaying foreigners' healthcare while some Australians potentially miss out on essential healthcare/GP appointments? Thoughtful comments are always welcome.

Poll Options expired

  • 232
    Yeah (We should aid other first world countries, and cross-subsidise their healthcare expenditure)
  • 424
    Nah (We should put us Aussies first, or at least limit costs spent on foreign citizens under RHCAs)

Comments

  • +68

    If it's to save someones life or help them in anyway medically, I do not mind this practice.

    • +34

      Hey mate, in the ideal world I would say yes too! But our Medicare budget is limited, and already everyday Aussies are finding it a challenge to pay for their GP visits (much cheaper compared to special cancer meds) unless ABC News are being all doom and gloom in their reporting.

        • +27

          Lots of people get ill in the world. Australia can't help them all.
          How much more are you willing to pay to help all these people personally?

          • +13

            @garddn: Australia is not helping them all.
            They are helping some.

            I am happy to use my tax payer money on helping the sick and ill people of the world…

            It beats spending it on rubbish that never actually gets used or done.

            • +7

              @iNeed2Pee: given we've been in deficiet since 2008 your using your kids or grandkids taxs not yours

            • +1

              @iNeed2Pee: You're only spending it on people who can afford to get here to take advantage of it.

            • @iNeed2Pee: Helping some is not fair to those that you do not help.
              How do you choose which ones to help?
              I'm not willing to help anymore. If you feel like helping them there are many charities you can donate to.

          • +5

            @garddn: I'm happy to reroute some money from retired politicians.

          • +3

            @garddn: People neg comments like yours because they are ignorant and whilst you are attempting to be pious because you are "nice", niceness is not a virtue and can lead to unintended consequences.

            We live in a society that has a budget that is designed to "help" people in our country. If that budget is depleted on people who are not from this country then that either means:

            • Less money available to "help" people in future. E.g. More people get sick, experience pain and die. Thats not very "nice".
            • The country prints more money to help less people get sick, experience pain and die, this causes inflation which increases the price of goods and services which means the people at the bottom of our society end up with less to eat and potentially the inability for them to keep a roof over their head. Therefore an increase in people who get sick, experience pain and die. Thats not very "nice".
        • +25

          I think its fine to have a reciprocal arrangement but it needs to cover only what is covered overseas.

          I.e we should only cover the UK people for what is covered for Australians in the UK. In this case, it sounds like this particular cancer med is not, hence open for exploitation.

          • +2

            @cadwalader: Now that will be a logistical nightmare because different countries will cover different options. You want doctors, in an emergency situation, scrolling through screens to see if that person will be covered for that item?

            • +9

              @try2bhelpful:

              You want doctors, in an emergency situation, scrolling through screens to see if that person will be covered for that item?

              Nope. I want travelers to buy their own supplementary travel insurance (which all travelers should buy anyway) for emergency purposes and I want the hospital software to tell hospital accounting how much to charge the traveler's insurance company for whatever care they receive.

              What you described is a completely different scenario from a traveler exploiting a loophole for a costly non-emergency medication in a pre-meditated way.

              • @cadwalader: Honestly not all travellers should get travel insurance when going to the UK. You know why? We don't need one because of the reciprocal health agreement.

                Why on earth would we want to privatise this to insurance companies of all people

                • @whiskeyjack89:

                  Honestly not all travellers should get travel insurance when going to the UK. You know why? We don't need one because of the reciprocal health agreement.

                  Travel insurance doesn't only cover healthcare, its incredibly risky not taking travel insurance whenever you travel. You already need insurance to cover you for what is different between the UK and AU healthcare system. This has nothing to do with "wanting" more privatization (I pay the medicare surcharge even though its much cheaper for me to get some random private insurance), its about making the reciprocal health agreement more reciprocal.

                  Its quite wishful thinking to hope that you can minimize sovereign risk as a foreigner and blinding trust other governments to fulfil their end of whatever written obligation. You already know that your coverage in the UK is different from your coverage in Australia, do you think its not likely that it could get more "different"? I don't know how you can go on defending a reciprocal health agreement that leaves rooms for gaps. Doesn't sound very reciprocal to me.

                  I'm actually providing an incentive for you to receive a government medical care closer to what you receive in Australia rather than the "optional" agreement we have now. If the UK wants better coverage for its PR/Citizens in Australia, it should better cover Australia's PR/Citizens in the UK.

                  This is a win-win scenario if this happens because either the UK choses to cover more for AU travelers (then AU travelers get a true equivalent of AU healthcare) or the UK choses for things to remain the same (then AU travelers get the same healthcare in UK they did yesterday - no change from what we have now, and Australia saves money for winding back the provision of AU level healthcare to UK travelers).

        • +3

          It's negged not because of your intention (which is exactly where we want to be) but because it fails to see the bigger picture - it's idealistic!

      • +1

        I dont think this is why our medicare budget is low. our government just bout $200b in missiles. I dont remember us being in a war, but you know.

        • +2

          If you want peace prepare for war. Also given the missiles haven't been delivered months after the announcement, it is probably better to order them before we are in a war

      • +12

        There will always be outliers like your example where it's easy to lead someone to agree with your opinion. It's been the favoured tactic of Murdoch media for decades.

        The reality is different. Reciprocal agreements have very little effect on each nation's health costs. For everyone using the arrangement as you highlighted, there are tens of thousands using it only when needed. This kind of activity is an insignificant factor in costs.

        • +1

          it also depends on the amount of travelers I a few years ago they worked out NZ was getting about twice as much healthcare here as Aussies were over there

      • +5

        the medicare budget is not limited, it is demand driven and doesn't dry up. the previous governement wanted you to think this.

        • +2

          Lol yes we can just print more money to fund it, gotta love modern economics. It will all come home to roost at some point (maybe soon with our huge debt and growing interest bill).

      • Aussies get to go to a GP for free if they wait for a bulk billing spot.

        This particular example is ok in my eyes. Glad we can help him out.

      • +11

        Objection - 'leading the witness'
        dofdaus - Whilst I'd normally agree with your sentiments, I think your post / poll is a little bit misleading as you are asking people "should we aid other first world countries, and cross-subsidise their healthcare expenditure". I would probably answer no to that if I didn't better understand the topic. Whereas I do think we should have Reciprocal Health Care Agreements (RHCA)… but we aren't aiding first world countries by subsidising their healthcare by doing so…. That's not what RHCAs are for.

        They are usually only with countries with good similarly funded health care to us so that Australians get similar benefits abroad as people do when visiting us. Don't forget, it is reciprocal meaning both sides receive mutual benefit - and as Australians love holidaying overseas, we may actually be benefiting more out of this than it costs us. It is monitored and the net impact would be negligible and if it got too far out of whack would be reconciled / renegotiated by the respective countries. We don't have them with non-"first world" countries (as you call them) as we'd not get an equivalent benefit.

        It also provides tourism benefits and fosters good relations when negotiating trade agreements etc.

        Old mate you spoke of flying over to buy meds was a rare exception that was abusing the system - and should probably be called out for it. That's not what it is intended for and would be rare due to inconvenience and cost of travelling, especially when sick.

        Reciprocal Health Care Agreements are normally for very limited subsidised health services for medically necessary treatments whilst visiting Australia. They are supposed to be only for immediate medical treatment only, for a condition which arose after arrival, or which was acutely exacerbated after arrival. Routine monitoring of chronic / pre-existing conditions are not supposed to be included and free treatment should be limited to that which is urgent in that it cannot wait until the patient can reasonably return home. It is not supposed to include circumstances where a person has travelled to the other country for the purpose of obtaining healthcare.

        The poll is invalid as it doesn't ask the right question based on the facts. It has asked a leading question and got the expected result.

        We are not aiding first world countries health costs. We are cooperating on a mutually beneficial basis for our own interests.

        OP simply encountered one person who hasn't (yet) been caught out breaking the intent of the rules.

        • +2

          If only you had replied earlier, then your reply could have properly steered this entire discussion in the right direction.

          • +3

            @Blitzfx: Furthermore, from a quick check, I also don't think The OP's sister should not be selling pharmaceuticals to the UK resident (if he is not a dual citizen) at subsidised rates - she was supposed to check his medicare card to check he is entitled to PBS discounts:
            "To collect PBS medicines you need to show your Medicare card when filling your prescription."
            https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/how-to-get-pbs-medicine…

            And…

            "Under the reciprocal healthcare arrangements, UK residents are entitled to limited subsidised health services from Medicare for medically necessary treatment while visiting Australia. These provisions do not apply to non-visitors, for example those who are studying in Australia. Other exclusions under the reciprocal agreement include pharmaceuticals when not a hospital in-patient, use of ambulance services and medical evacuations, which are very expensive"

            https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/australia/health#:~….

            So this whole thread may be a bit off track ?

            • @MrFrugalSpend: Also, I believed that if the Medicare card is not valid, the pbs claim the pharmacist tried to put through will not be paid by the government. This is a online claim made directly by the pharmacist when they dispense the script. So it is likely that the patient would have a valid Medicare card.

      • Why's that matter? You'll pay the same amount of tax no matter who uses medicare. I understand where you're coming from, but I doubt there would be more than a few thousand people doing this every year, which is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else we spend taxpayer money on.

        Stopping overseas visitors using medicare isn't going to make it cheaper for everyday aussies to afford the doctor. Taxing corporations and the billionaire's properly will. If Clive, Gerry and Gina pay their fair share we'll be right to shout a few UK'ers some pills.

    • +11

      But with our finite Medicare funding from taxpayers, should that someone be a lifelong taxpayer/resident in Australia, or someone who has never lived in Australia eg Finland?
      The rules definitely need to be reviewed and tightened up, especially if the reciprocity is not fair at all!

      • +6

        I do not think the government would be blindsided by this "loophole".
        If they thought it were a problem, they could have paused/stopped/ceased this reciprocal agreement and blocked those overseas travellers, such as OPs British citizen.

      • +1

        If you read up on Finland, other than very cold winters their standards of living is better than ours.

        In that list I'd only worry about the British coming. You know when they deported the criminals here, only the bad criminals came. Good criminals don't get caught.

        • Maybe (I'll take your word on it) but a few years ago I was working with some guys from ABB Finland and they were blown away by our lifestyle. I had them over to my place for dinner and they loved our place, which is semi-rural, the wildlife, drinking wine and G&Ts at sunset, the food. These were professional guys, not poor, switched on. They loved Australia. We beat them in pretty much every financial and economic metric too.

          • @R4:

            ABB Finland and they were blown away by our lifestyle. I had them over to my place for dinner and they loved our place, which is semi-rural, the wildlife, drinking wine and G&Ts at sunset, the food.

            It is nice when you put on a dinner and invite guests over. Tell them to sleep rough and in one of our glorified winter tent of a house.

            Economist Intelligence Unit had Melbourne ranked top global place to live for almost a decade. Until you read who they surveyed which is all the expats on expat packages with company subsidised housing, health care, car and education plus relocation expenses.

            We beat them in pretty much every financial and economic metric too

            They are not that far behind if you don't die as a woman giving birth or a child during infancy or obese in Australia for that matter. The main difference is when you are part of the EU you can go to work and live in other countries. You can bag Finland as a country but all they educated people can go and work in Germany then Australia is probably behind in every metric. If we take financial and economics as be it and end all then yeah great.

            Having worked in banking in London (right in the thick of it) having the ability to just fly to Spain every weekend in the winter cheaply (probably $200 including flights and accommodation) or heading to the snow in a different country every weekend cheaply too. Yeah London was pretty dirty and we can compare like for like but the lifestyle is different depending on how you want to live.

            • +3

              @netjock: Note far behind, but still behind. In pretty much every fiscal and economic measure Australia is ahead - HDI (the best indicator available), per capita GDP, disposable income, life expectancy etc. The only countries in Europe generally ahead of Australia are Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg.

              That EIU ranking has always been garbage and can safely be ignored.

              Those death in childbirth stats that you linked to are nonsense - it's extremely rare in all Western countries.

              I also lived in the UK for 10 years and loved the cheap travel - New York being my favourite place to go for a short break - GBP200 return often. Ultimately though, it's a shit place to live (especially London), but if it's so great, why aren't you there?

              Those ABB guys loved Australia full stop, not just going to dinner at our homes. I'm still in contact with one of them and he's been back on holiday a few times. He'd like to move here but his personal circumstances are complicated.

              Ultimately, Australia is a great place to live. Sure, it's got issues, some of them major but no place is perfect. We can bitch and moan about it but we have an enviable lifestyle, are safe and secure and we can see a definite future. Works for me.

              • @R4:

                Note far behind, but still behind. In pretty much every fiscal and economic measure Australia is ahead

                Economic output is not a good measure. Everyone is moving to GINI index. It says Australia is worse for inequality vs Finland

                Those death in childbirth stats that you linked to are nonsense - it's extremely rare in all Western countries.

                It isn't non sense. But I guess dead people can't give their opinion.

                I also lived in the UK for 10 years and loved the cheap travel - New York being my favourite place to go for a short break - GBP200 return often. Ultimately though, it's a shit place to live (especially London), but if it's so great, why aren't you there?

                Why aren't you there? I didn't say it was "great" please find it in my comment, you just think what you want to think and read what you want to read. Also as per EIU. I get an employer subsidy to be here so you know getting some extra dipping is sure helpful.

                Those ABB guys loved Australia full stop

                Small enough sample size, but hey that makes it true. Figure why Australia's main industries are mining, agriculture and construction. All the high tech and professional stuff is overseas.

                I would dare suggest you might be making far above average salaries and just blind to everything else going on. You're free to comment but I am taken back by how out of touch you are.

        • +3

          Not sure if you read the ABC News articles I linked on Aussies not being able to afford essential GP visits.

          Also the Australian government has nearly A$834 billion of debt and counting, but pointless arguing with the wittingly ignorant in the age of Google I guess….

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_government_debt

        • +5

          Checked our national debt lately?

          • +10

            @brendanm: Heck yeah I have. It's abysmal.

            But my original comment still stands, so maybe I'll rephrase - the amount of people gaming the system from overseas would be miniscule. It would be prudent for Australian's to rescind this agreement with other countries because then Australians would lose out when they travelled to the aforementioned countries with agreements.

            • +3

              @ThithLord: “Wouldn’t be prudent”?

            • +1

              @ThithLord: You could say this about a whole heap of things. If you add up all the little things that "only a few people are rorting", it would be a lot.

    • +7

      Surely the better question is why we should pay to save this person's life when their own people/fellow citizens (via their government) refuse to do so?

    • -1

      Fully agree. Saving lives is a noble thing especially when we do it without seeing who it is for.

      • +4

        You want to save everyone in the world?
        How do you pick which ones get saved?
        Should not be upto Australia to fix every other counties health care problems.
        How much are more are you willing to pay for your noble idea?

    • -2

      Need to stop thinking of UK/American/Indian/Chinese or whatever the F you believe in, but more as a human being in need of help. There are no such thing as Australians/British/Indian/Chinese people, there are ONLY people, humans. Everything else is make-belief. If your wife/husband/mom/dad/brother/sister went to a foreign country and had an emergency, how would you feel about it? Stop being a F'ing D***. Act with compassion.

      • +4

        Have you liquidated all your assets to help all the people of the world that are suffering? That would be compasionate, taking out a loan through the governement that will not likley be repaid this generation is not compassionate, your making the future pay to fix today's problems. If the UK won't pay for the healthcare why should the next generation of Australians?

        Also if you don't believe in "Australia" and "Australian's" don't ask the Australian goverment to pay for things.

        • +2

          Jeez, this is such a straw man argument.

          For every O/S visitor that visits Australia to get cheap meds or care under RHCS, there is likely an Australian doing the same thing elsewhere.

          No, I’m am not OK with liquidating my assets to help the world, but I am OK with paying the Medicare levy/surcharge even if I’m not using it: Because I probably will someday later in life; be it in this country or another one.

          • @Thundaja: My main point is it is not compassoinate for me to say everyone else should help someone, it may be moral but it is not compassionate/charitable. If you migrate permenantly to another country their system will cover you this is about covering people on holidays/short-term visas. My point about liquidating assets was that if as the original poster says we are all human and we need to stop thinking about nations they, should put be giving away their money before borrowing against the next generation (I don't htink anyone who supports these agreements should do this.)

        • +1

          LOL, funny how people say stuff like this, but are completely silent when the government gives billions in aid to companies where CEO's already get paid millions per year, which also comes from your taxes by the way. How come you don't go march and protest because few individuals shouldn't have the right to decide how to spend money of millions of people?

          To answer your question, yes if I had billions, or even millions in assets, I would help those in need anyway I can. I would strive for a better society, where no suffering exists. As hard as it may be, I don't think it's impossible.

          • @anonymous01: I don't think I have to list my stance on every part of governement spending to be able to comment on this issue. The individuals are a reflection of the people that voted for them, I dislike most of their decisions too. It is impossible suffering is the default position and our societies are an attempt to limit the suffering, countries like Australia represent the best attemp so far (so we should be cautious about drastic changes.) The basic question of economics is how to satisfy inlimited wants with limited means so it is impossible the whole meme of a first world problem shows that once the wants we have are satisfied we find new ones. My point was that compassion/charity isn't done with others money, and your "if I had…" comment could be framed as if I was able to give away to help the needy without giving up what I have now, I would.

    • Bear in mind that many Australians are left to die if they can't personally afford life saving medication, which can run into many tens of thousands of dollars for cancer patients and the like. So we are already choosing, in many cases, who lives and who dies. The question really is, do you want to prioritise the lives of Australians over others?

    • Absolutely. Of all the things our tax dollars are spent on, this has to be one of the better ones. Especially when you consider the cost of limos, jets, flowers, etc. accrued by politicians.

      I think the worst part is the fact that life saving drugs can cost so much in the first place. The cost of R&D is huge, but it's still kind of gross. I'm reading an article that suggests pharma companies see a median return of $14.50 (USD) for every dollar spent on R&D. I understand that profit drives innovation, but it's so hard to justify when the lives and livelihood of the people you are selling to are on the line.

  • +7

    Is this the real story or…

    My impression is that PBS funded medicine require a Medicare card, which this guy wouldn't have if your description adds up.
    He'd have to have a dual citizenship or PR to benefit.

    *correction just found we have a reciprocol relationship. So it goes both ways, including if you lived overseas in the selected countries.

    The Scheme is available to all Australian residents who hold a current Medicare card.
    Overseas visitors from countries with which Australia has a Reciprocal Health Care Agreement (RHCA) are also eligible to access the Scheme. Australia currently has RHCAs with the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Belgium and Slovenia.
    Residents of these countries must show their passports when lodging a prescription to prove their eligibility or they can contact Services Australia and get a Reciprocal Health Care Agreement Card to prove their eligibility. Some overseas visitors may not be eligible for this card.
    Only those eligible for the PBS will receive subsidised medication and every time you present your script to the pharmacist, you will need to provide your Medicare card.
    Eligible veterans may need to present their DVA card in addition to their Medicare card.
    With your consent, the pharmacist may (at their discretion) keep a record of your Medicare number so that you do not have to show the actual card every time you lodge a script

    • +1

      Yeah mate I did look up the Services Australia website before posting, if I understood correctly they need to enrol in Medicare, but anyone from the UK is then automatically eligible. Looks pretty straightforward to me.

      https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/reciprocal-health-care-…
      "Who can get it
      To be eligible, you must have been living in the United Kingdom (UK) before arriving in Australia.
      You’ll need to enrol in Medicare to get services and payments.
      If you’re here on a student visa you’re eligible."

    • +10

      The last time I had to go to A&E in London, I just showed my Medicare card and VIC licence, signed the form saying I indeed lived at 1 xyz street melb australia. No charge, cheaper than a visit to my regular GP.

    • +7

      I think there's a big difference though, I support the reciprocal arrangement, and I've benefited from it. But I don't think the reciprocal arrangement should extend to non-urgent treatment of tourists chronic conditions. Yes for tourists with acute issues, yes for foreigners on long visas (6+ month), but not for the case described by OP.

      • +4

        Exactly this.
        Whilst I, as a taxpaying Australian, disagree with what UK mate is doing, if I was in the same position I'd probably do the same thing!
        And similarly, I've had to have a hospital visit (<1 day) in the UK. Being able to walk in, sign an A4 sheet, get the procedure and walk out was fantastic. But this was done as "I'm visiting and happen to need help" rather than "I'm visiting just to get help"

    • +2

      I know it's a bit weird.

      My dad is an Australian citizen living overseas. He has lived outside of Australia for long enough, his medicare card has expired and they haven't issued him with a new one because he's not a resident here anymore.
      The last time he went to medicare to renew his card while visiting here, he was asked to show proof of permanently moving to Australia. The examples they've given were proof of selling property overseas, a long-term lease for an apartment in Aus, etc. which obviously he does not have as he only visits us like for a month each year.

      True he has travel insurance. However, that gets expensive as he gets older, and most companies do not cover pre-existing conditions with travel insurance.

      I find it bizarre if someone on a tourist visa can get included, and a citizen visiting can get excluded.

      • +1

        If he doesn't want to contribute any tax or make any economic contribution by living here then he shouldn't expect any taxpayer funded healthcare?

        • I mean, don't get me wrong. I do somewhat agree with what you're saying.

          But why I find the system bizarre is that it's not really about who pays tax in Australia either.

          There are so many ex-pats out there who have been working in AU for a long time paying taxes here who are not eligible for Medicare and are being told to pay more money to prop up and give profits to private insurance companies just because they don't have the right passport - true they get a refund for their medicare levy, but they can't choose to pay it the government instead.

          My father is excluded because though he has the right passport, he doesn't pay tax.

          And in the case mentioned by the OP, they have been getting benefits by the virtue of having the right passport. I don't think Medicare verifies how much money they have paid to NHS in their life.

          Having said that, I'm all for universal healthcare, and no one deserves to die because they had the wrong passport, lived in the wrong country, didn't choose to work in their life, did not have their stars in the right alignment, etc.

  • +50

    Why wouldn't we, we would get the same treatment in the countries that we have this agreement with?

      • +40

        Any statistics to back this up or just a thought bubble?

        There's also the question as to whether dropping the RHCAs would have an impact on tourism.

      • +36

        You seem big on assumptions and very lacking on data besides one anecdotal story that seems to have gotten you pretty worked up.

        Ever thought about becoming a journalist for the Murdoch press? You hit all the right qualifications, foreigners stealing our healthcare dollars based on next to no actual evidence is right up their alley.

      • +15

        Lol, you think we have one of the best health systems because someone from the UK is coming here for treatment?

        You have an opinion, the facts do not agree with you though and Australia is well down the list, not near the bottom but also not near the top.

        Your opinion is also based on one case, an outlier until there is a statistically significant number of cases that support your hypothesis.

        There are many Australians living in the UK equally using the UKs tax payers money and my society first side says that it is a good thing that we can travel to certain countries and be cared for if we fall ill.

      • +5

        I do think we in Australia have one of the world's best healthcare system in the world

        lol, been to a specialist lately? Not even your insurance will help pay that bill.

        In the UK this is free. In NZ your insurance will pay. In Australia Medicare chips in an absolute pittance and you pay the rest - several hundred minimum, per visit.

    • +2

      If the treatment were actually 'the same' then presumably the guy wouldn't be flying here and still saving himself 'quite a few quids' (although I would have though 'quid' was more likely as it is already plural).

      • Quid$

      • Except for "I wouldn't be dead for quids"

  • -5

    Completely agree that this is a really important issue, and I think it would be really worthwhile contacting the relevant federal ministers, as I reckon it isn't in their radar. Failing that, news outlets, abc's 7:30 etc

  • +25

    hundreds of UK doctors and nurses are migrating en masse to Australia for better pay and work-life balance every year (needs to be fact checked though)

    lol needs to be fact checked for sure. There's plenty of Australian nurses and doctors that head the other way.

    Not sure why you think Australian health care is so much better than the UK, I'd say they were comparable with the UK slightly better off with a cheaper (out-of-pocket) service, not including your one anecdotal story.

    • +8

      I can confirm that plenty of UK doctors are poached and brought over to Australia due to better pay rates. I find that most new registrars in medical centres are from the UK and COVID really made it difficult for a lot of them to come here. It's played a big role in doctor shortages.

    • +1

      I'm no nursing salary expert, but my quick Google-fu shows Aussie nurses as some of the most well-paid in the world, while UK doesn't even make it to the top 10.

      https://nurse.org/articles/highest-paying-countries-for-nurs…

      https://www.medshop.com.au/pages/nursing-salary-guide

      • +9

        Highest paying doesn't necessarily means much if the cost of living is the highest too.

    • +1

      My niece was being headhunted by the UK health with sweet offers before covid hit and travel stoped for almost 2 years; but yes, they do have nice incentives and AU does the same too but I think its mostly a $1 postcard with a picture of queensland sunrise and beach with an offer of an prepaid airfare to come 'visit'

      • There are plenty of medical centres here that'll give UK GPs cash incentives if they come onboard. Always a 5 figure amount from the ones I've seen.

    • Anecdotally, but based on years of working in healthcare…

      It definitely goes both ways. Where I work we have many staff from the UK - and many that are from other countries but worked for years for the NHS first.

      At the same time we are about to lose a few experienced staff who got jobs in the UK and want to live abroad for a few years.

      Australian and British medicos often move back to their country of origin, depending on family situations.

      The much bigger migration is nurses coming into Australia from the Phillipines, which isn't reciprocated with migration but does help them send money home and provide essential staff for our system.

  • +9

    It seems odd that a "reciprocal" agreement would have that imbalance (Aust system covers treatment X, UK system does not) but I guess health systems aren't set up to match foreign systems, it's what they can bear to treat internally (e.g. Aust population, taxes and quality of life currently furnishes these cancer meds for Australia).

    As OzBargainers know, any system that gets mass exploited (UK 'entrepreneurs' start organising cancer med charter tours and funnel hundreds of paying UK customers into our system) would then be sealed off so I'd say it's not a problem worth worrying about.

      • +3

        I'm thoroughly aware of government corruption and the various cash splurges, but your examples are about a government department not being transparent in its dealings and jobs for the boys style waste - that's not what we're talking about here.

        I'm saying if we start consistently getting dozens of Pommy visitors jamming our med centres and it becomes commonplace public knowledge ("Why is it taking so long to get treatment so-and-so?" "Because [charter tour cancer poms]"), that's when they change the systems (because it becomes a Today Tonight/Daily Telegraph style public outrage).

      • NBN (vs 5G)

        There are many issues with the shift away from FTTP to MTM but, seriously? That's a terrible comparison. Ignoring that it didn't even exist for the majority of NBN planning and rollout, 5G is not a good long term solution for home internet. It's all the problems of HFC, just in wireless form: shared medium so congestion is an issue, bandwidth allocation heavily asymetrical with very limited upstream.

    • +10

      Also pretty sure the NHS in UK would fund dental for Australians where as medicare here does not. So it does cut both ways.

      • +3

        If true that sounds like a potential deal post.

        • +2

          Have you seen the teeth on the average POM :).

          • +1

            @try2bhelpful: Have you looked beyond the stereotype?
            https://www.beckersdental.com/news-and-analysis/33391-top-10…

            See where Australia is in that top 10?

            • +3

              @banana365: Then I do not understand. Whenever I see British people in TV shows (reality shows) they have terrible teeth even some actors.

              • @Yola: Cosmetically "unattractive" teeth (misaligned etc.) aren't a sign of poor dental health. Perfectly aligned smiles are more a sign that someone has the money to spend to attain conformity with an unrepresentative ideal.

                • @banana365: Yes, you are correct. Maybe because they do have free dental people do not take out health insurance and cannot afford cosmetic procedures.

                  • +2

                    @Yola: The UK has free dental, but it's very much like bulk billing doctors here - they're rare (and getting rarer) and many closed their books to new clients years ago.

            • @banana365: It sounds like some people can’t take a joke.

            • @banana365: Can't get past the login - care to copy&paste the top 10 list. Thanks.

              • @MITM: There is no login. Search for DMFT index

Login or Join to leave a comment