Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Get-off-your-butt money!

By Jeremy Sammut - posted Friday, 21 September 2007

As the era of “sit-down money” for Aborigines ends, the Australian General Practice Network has proposed a new scheme to give “sit-up money” to the obese.

The AGPN wants over-weight patients referred by their doctor to an accredited weight-loss program to receive a $170 government-subsidy to cover 75 per cent of the cost.

The federal government and opposition have agreed to consider the proposal.


Little wonder. According to Melbourne University Associate Professor David Dunt, the cost of treating obesity-related chronic conditions, such as Type-2 diabetes, accounts for nearly 70 per cent of allocated Commonwealth health expenditure. When diabetes leads to end-stage kidney disease, patients require renal dialysis. In 2005-06, public hospitals admitted more patients for renal dialysis than for any other reason.

Because so many unhealthy Australians are requiring costly, complex, and recurring treatments, investing in preventative measures to address the obesity crisis seems like a good idea.

But can and should Medicare be paying for this?

Taxpayer-funded health systems like Medicare were designed to deliver relatively cheap and basic care to people who contracted an infectious disease, or who were injured in an accident. The idea was to share the risk of misfortune equitably between the rich and poor, and ensure the cost of ill health did not ruin the less wealthy.

But thanks to modern medicine, Medicare is increasingly saving people from themselves. Once, if you ate poorly all your life, you died of a heart attack in your 50s or early-60s. Now you can escape the consequences of your lifestyle because open-heart surgeons can unclog your arteries.

This means that today there is less reason than ever before to take care of your health, regardless of the enormous social cost, particularly when healthcare is largely “free”. While ever Medicare foots the bill and protects people from the consequences, this will not encourage people to modify their lifestyle.


However, social policy experts recognise that unless there are consequences, people will not change their behavior. They also recognise that the best way to promote positive social outcomes is to link entitlement to social welfare to good behavior. Hence, people are no longer paid unemployment benefits unless they fulfill mutual obligations and actively look for work or agree to work for the dole.

The same idea of encouraging personal responsibility is behind the federal government’s intervention in Northern Territory aboriginal settlements. Fifty per cent of welfare payments have been quarantined because the free flow of “sit down money” led to socially destructive behaviour - primarily alcohol abuse - in these communities.

But there is a reluctance to extend this approach to health. This is largely because we continue to think about healthcare in terms of protecting people from misfortune, even though Medicare clearly no longer functions this way.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

18 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jeremy Sammut is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies. Jeremy has a PhD in history. His current research for the CIS focuses on ageing, new technology, and the sustainability of Medicare. Future research for the health programme will examine the role of preventative care in the health system and the management of public hospitals. His paper, A Streak of Hypocrisy: Reactions to the Global Financial Crisis and Generational Debt (PDF 494KB), was released by the CIS in December 2008. He is author of the report Fatally Flawed: the child protection crisis in Australia (PDF 341KB) published by the CIS in June 2009.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jeremy Sammut

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 18 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy