Four readers question ads, health bills, myths, and sport

Gambling ad absurdityAxe the tax! The tax I’m talking about is the money (mostly poorer) Australians pay transferring their funds to the gambling industry. We have a productivity problem in this country and here is a perfect chance for our politicians to do something about it by eliminating advertising of a completely unproductive enterprise. As James Massola puts it (“⁣PM taking a big punt on gambling ads”⁣, 3/7), anything less than a total advertising ban looks absurd. As for problem gamblers – they should be

condemned to a severe sentence of mathematics.Allan Dowsett, Preston Not so fairWould Australia accommodate a firebug lobby? No. So why kowtow to the gambling industry lobby? Are we addicted to winning the world’s highest rate of per capita gambling losses, despite the damage this unleashes on individuals, families and society? For some, that would equate to the harm of bushfire devastation.Experts regard Labor’s tabled gambling advertising restrictions as inadequate to protect children and the vulnerable Australians from the misinformation that’s proffered by the gambling industry,

or to counteract the possibility of individual addiction. Online opt-out options are prolix and will fail to mitigate loss and damage. Labor once championed fairness. For whom? The gambling industry and those profiting from its advertising, or the Australian people? It is the latter as family, friends and taxpayers who will be burdened by the costs of ameliorating the damage gambling addiction, or unsustainable losses cause.How is this fair? A responsible government would revise its legislation and take away the gambling industry’s matches.Anita Horvath, Ballarat

North Medical moneyYour correspondent, a specialist anaesthetist, seems to suggest that health insurers’ profit margins are the sole or main reason for large out-of-pocket costs for medical procedures (Letters, 3/7).He further suggests that reducing these margins by paying larger amounts to doctors would reduce these costs to patients. Unfortunately, long experience suggests that a more likely outcome would be a short-term reduction in out-of-pocket costs followed by the gradual erosion of these savings as doctors and medical specialists gobble up the extra payments to boost

their already handsome incomes. (ATO data shows that for over a decade, surgeons, anaesthetists and other medical specialists have been among the highest paid occupations in the country.)Perhaps the Adeney example – with a hospital half-owned by doctors and a health insurer – illustrates that when the medical profession exercises some income restraint then patients can have both great medical care and better financial outcomes.David Francis, Ivanhoe East Family GP no mythRe Rosie Beaumont’s opinion piece (“⁣I uncovered a medical myth: the dedicated family doctor”⁣,

2/7). Am I a lucky one with the same doctor for more than 20 years? Dedicated, efficient and humorous, he’d rather work than take a holiday. The skeleton in his room is not bare, but comically dressed according to season. No intimidation there. Two receptionists have worked at the same practice for many years and recognise me with smiles, dissipating immediately any pain I feel. In my case, the family doctor is definitely not a myth.Avril Bradley, Frankston Enough shenanigansAs a dedicated recipient of the

The Age seven days per week, could I please negotiate a refund whenever “colourful characters”⁣ Serena Williams, Nick Kyrgios or Thanasi Kokkinakis manage to again be featured?Russell Harrison, Sandringham

gambling ads, Labor restrictions, problem gambling, health insurers, out-of-pocket costs, family doctor, medical myth, The Age letters