Prev
Next

Are healthy people ripped off by health insurance?

Justine Davies

by Justine Davies

08 Apr 05:35am

Must Reads

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win - this is a caption

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

32

Schapelle has done her time - this is a caption

Schapelle has done her time

145

Do women need to know when to walk away? - this is a caption

Do women need to know when to walk away?

70

Filed under: Economics, Finance, Health, Health Insurance, Insurance, Money

119 comments

On April 1, health insurance premiums rose across the board by an average of 5.56 per cent. The increase happens every year, while the percentage that premiums increase by differs. This year’s increase, according to research by iSelect, equates to around five million baskets of groceries or eight million tanks of petrol. It would also be enough to buy groceries for 100,000 families for a year. In individual dollar terms it works out to an average annual increase in premiums of $190 per family.

Ripped. Off. Pic: Supplied

So last week I did a number of radio interviews, talking about the increase and suggesting ways that consumers can try to reduce their personal cost while making sure that they have appropriate cover. And one question that I was asked (fortunately off-air, because it took me aback a little) was whether I thought it was fair that everyone – regardless of size or health – paid the same premium.

It’s a version of a question that I’ve been asked a number of times: Should health insurance should be medically underwritten. In other words, should the overweight, underweight, smokers and otherwise-unhealthy among us be paying more for their health insurance? The crux of the reasoning, of course, being that the healthy consumers in the population are paying more than their fair share of premiums. And that’s not fair, right?

So – given that premiums have just risen I thought it might be timely to mention how health insurance premiums are calculated and how – if you’re a fit and healthy person – you can partially avoid paying more than your biologically fair share.

First up, medical underwriting is not something that health funds in Australia are currently allowed to do. Under the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, a health insurance fund cannot refuse you health insurance or charge you more for it based on your health or how often you’re likely to claim.

With the exception of the Lifetime Healthcover bonus, health insurance is “community rated”, whereby the health of the community overall is calculated and the resulting average is applied to everyone. What that means is that a non-drinking, non-smoking, fit and healthy 30 year-old will pay the same premium for the same product as a morbidly obese, chain smoking 30 year-old.

This is in direct contrast to most life, total and permanent disability, income protection and trauma insurance covers (except for the industry ones taken out through super funds). For most other personal insurances, applicants are medically assessed and premiums are set (or denied) accordingly.

So when it comes to health insurance, is it fair on the healthy person to be paying a higher premium than their personal situation warrants? Probably not. But is it fair on the unhealthy person to be otherwise barred from having private health cover, or charged an unaffordable premium? Probably not.     

Taking fairness out of it (seeing as it’s a lose/lose situation) it comes down to economics, marketing and consumer choice – and the key to making sure that you’re not paying more than you need to for health insurance is exercising your consumer choice.

The thing is, there are 39 health fund providers in the market. And there are more than 20,000 different products. In the absence of medical underwriting, health funds have created multitudes of different health insurance products, designed to appeal to demographically different groups of people.

Each of these products is priced differently, depending on how much income is being received (in the form of premium payments) compared to how much the fund reckons it’s going to cost them to pay the health bills of the members. So – a product that’s targeted at a young, fit demographic (for example, some products rebate gym memberships) is probably going to be better value if – well – if you’re fit.

You can see a detailed explanation of how premiums are calculated here.

According to research released by iSelect, 80 per cent of us want a better deal on our health insurance – but only 43 per cent of us know what we’re covered for in the first place. Yet there is so much choice out there!

You can exclude certain conditions from your hospital cover, can choose the level of excess you want to pay and can decide what extras you do and don’t want to insure for.  It really is a situation where a little bit of research and shopping around could save you some dollars.   

Most commented

414Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
309Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
255Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
230South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
224The most laughable, err, spoof since Einfeld

119 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • PJ says:

      04:53am | 08/04/11

      You will see the fat, the smokers, the stoners, the junkies, the alcoholics, the slobs yell here all day that it is their right to their said affliction and how dare anyone suggest there is something wrong with that or that they should be responsible for their actions.  Everyone else should be responsible for the burden of their welfare.

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      08:13am | 08/04/11

      Actually a fat slob smoker will die in their 50’s or 60’s as opposed to a hypochondriac health nut who will rack up an extra 40 or 50 years of healthcare expenditure.  Anyone who dies young - for self inflicted reasons or otherwise - is a much smaller drain on society than someone blessed with longevity.  Though you wouldn’t want to let facts get in the way of your sense of moral superiority.

    • PJ says:

      08:54am | 08/04/11

      Aww Super D,

      Did I nail too many categories that you fall into?

      So if the ‘health nut’ lives for 50 more years, it would be their GOOD health that would be the reason why, no?  Also, fifty more years of paying premiums, for services they don’t need (and would be spent on the seven lung transplants in the vain attempt to keep your ungrateful soul alive).

      Thought you wouldn’t want to let common sense get in the way of all the other excuses you use.

    • Bennymac says:

      08:57am | 08/04/11

      I agree with you 100% Super D, Someone with a unhealthy lifestyle is more likely to be paying taxes up untill the time they pass.
      Someone with a healthy lifestyle on the other hand is more likely to make it to retirement at 65, get govt subsidised everything, need those hips and knees replaced from all that treadmill work over the years, run out of super at 75 and start collecting the pension on top of other benifits like the pbs for other age related conditions, and then do that for another 20 years before they pass, perhaps of the same affliction that got the younger person with the unhealthy lifestyle, at the same cost to the healthfund.
      If anything people with a healthy lifestyle should pay more for the burden they will place on society and the system in years to come.

    • Elphaba says:

      09:02am | 08/04/11

      PJ, the fat stoner junkie alcoholic slob pays taxes too.  Therefore, they’re entitled to healthcare regardless of their afflictions.

    • meh says:

      09:12am | 08/04/11

      My family genetics do not have any major diseases, so I get to have burgers n chips with a six pack on Friday nights while watching the footy.

    • Aussie Born and Bred says:

      09:56am | 08/04/11

      @ Elphaba - The topic is health insurance premiums (ie: PRIVATE health cover) and has nothing to do with general health care provided to taxpayers.

    • ben says:

      09:59am | 08/04/11

      As if the fat, alcoholic, stoner, junkie slobs wastes their money on private health insurance!

    • PJ says:

      09:59am | 08/04/11

      Not seen too many of them work Elphaba, thus they don’t pay taxes.

      They are already on welfare, I know it’s not their fault, they have (insert excuse here) which causes their condition.

    • JR says:

      10:08am | 08/04/11

      My father in law has lived a healthy lifestyle. Lives off his super and savings, is still very fit for his age and by no way a drain on welfare or medicare.  He is now 78, only goes to the Dr for a six monthly check up and still has his private health insurance.  Stop trying to justify your unhealthy lifestyle by assuming that those making healthy choices will be just as much a burden as you currently are.

    • PJ says:

      10:10am | 08/04/11

      Let me spell it out for you Ben

      (gets the red crayon)

      We pay inflated health insurance to pay for health costs for the people who DON’T have health insurance.

      Do you want me to draw a picture?

    • Elphaba says:

      10:15am | 08/04/11

      PJ, you don’t see fat smokers going to work?  I do.  Nice stereotyping there.  Whatever fits your world view.

      @Aussie Born and Bred, I was responding to PJ’s assertion about how people pick up the ‘burden’ of fat alcoholic smokers.  Nice butting in there, asshole.

    • Mahhrat says:

      10:17am | 08/04/11

      @PJ, and the “super fit” that are in requiring knee recos, need regular physio or remedial massage, use acupuncture, have ABIs from falling off a pushy, etc, etc, etc.

      What you say is intellectually true:  in a “fair” world, everyone would pay only for what they use.  Ayn Rand came up with this model of life in the 1950s, it’s called “Objectivism”.

      The problem with it is that nobody is that perfect, not even you.  We support each other, because that’s what a society does and should do.  Is it fair?  Probably not.  Is it the right thing to do?  Yes.

      Let me give you an example.  I started riding a bike in the last couple weeks to lose weight because I’ve led a bad lifestyle and I’m morbidly obese.  That’s my fault, got no problem with that.

      So while I’m an “selfish, overindulging pig” like I was so charmingly labelled on the plane post yesterday, I’d like to be healthier, largely for my daughter’s sake as well as my own.  Good for me that I’m doing something!

      But what happens if I get hit by a car this afternoon while I’m riding and break my leg?  Do I get cover for that?  I should, because I’m being healthy, but I shouldn’t, because I’m fat?

      How does that complexity work when you multiply it by twenty-odd million?

    • Elphaba says:

      10:29am | 08/04/11

      @Mahrat “We support each other, because that’s what a society does and should do.  Is it fair?  Probably not.  Is it the right thing to do?  Yes.”

      Well said.

    • PJ says:

      11:04am | 08/04/11

      Elphaba,

      You initially said:

      ‘PJ, the fat stoner junkie alcoholic slob pays taxes too’

      Then you said:

      ‘PJ, you don’t see fat smokers going to work?  I do.  Nice stereotyping there.  Whatever fits your world view.’

      So you completely changed the context of the conversation in a vain attempt to have justifiable position.

      Pathetic.

      You can start calling me names too.

    • PJ says:

      11:08am | 08/04/11

      Mahhrat,

      Where did I say you weren’t entitled to health insurance?

      Good for you, for doing something about your health.  Never give up, you will feel better for it in six months - six months to turn your life completely around - it will be a brand new you, something you will never regret.

    • Elphaba says:

      11:20am | 08/04/11

      PJ, you said that you don’t see many fat smoker stoner whatevers going to work.  I disagreed.  I see a few fat smokers at my work.  Our Christmas parties are evident of an endemic drinking culture.  When I was much younger I dated a stoner who held a full time job.  How did I change the context of the conversation?

    • Mahhrat says:

      11:48am | 08/04/11

      @PJ said:

      “Where did I say you weren’t entitled to health insurance?”

      In not so many words, here:

      “Everyone else should be responsible for the burden of their welfare.”

      Unless you’re about to do a Gillard with a double Howard in the Hawke position, your argument is that you (as a “fit” person) should not be asked to make up the “extra” costs associated with providing health insurance/services to people with “unhealthy lifestyles”.

      Your argument must then surely be that I, being unhealthy, should pay more for my health cover.  That way, it’s “fair”, right?

      I think I covered off on “fair” quite well.  It doesn’t work that way, because the cost of individual medical assessments, just to figure out what you should be charged, would drive the price up even further.  Either way, you’re going to pay for it, so why not be less discriminatory?

      Thank you for the support though.  I’ll need it, since I’ve not managed my weight too well to date!

    • Kevin says:

      12:44pm | 08/04/11

      @PJ - let all the hate flow out.  You feel better now?

    • PJ says:

      01:06pm | 08/04/11

      LMAO at Elphaba…so one eyed blind

      Refusing to accept that you changed the entire context.

      LMAO, great work!

    • PJ says:

      01:13pm | 08/04/11

      Mahhrat,

      Do the ‘fat, the smokers, the stoners, the junkies, the alcoholics, the slobs’ normally have health insurance or do we pay for their health treatment through our inflated premiums.

      That is not saying you aren’t entitled to health insurance.

      The more unhealthy you are the more cover you should have.  I would be happy to have my Doctor give me a once over to provide my insurer with evidence why I should pay less.  It’s happening with car registration, sooner someone does it with health insurance - there will be a stampede.

      Eating and drinking is a habit, a hobby which most Australians indulge in too excess.  The first three months of reducing your intake is the worst.  If you can stick to it and your exercise…well your daughter will thank you.

    • PJ says:

      01:15pm | 08/04/11

      Sorry if you can’t quite cope with an intellectual discussion Kevin.  Did you make it off the couch or did you drag the computer table closer?

    • Mahhrat says:

      01:59pm | 08/04/11

      @PJ you can’t escape what you said by quoting something else you said.

      You talk of that “quick checkup” as if it’s a simple thing.  Multiply that by 22 or so million, probably twice a year, plus the administrative costs of sending that off etc, that’s millions upon millions of labour hours just to give a statement of health to a private company so they can make more money by charging the “unfit” for their “poor lifestyle choices”.

      But it won’t work.  By the same logic, I should be entitled to pay less because I don’t drive when I’m sleepy, and I don’t tend to be out late at night.  I drink very little alcohol, but I know very fit people who drink a LOT more than me.  I should pay less than a person that rides a motorcycle, because they’re more dangerous.

      Take that even further - should people who don’t drive or ride at all get a discount?  Should the Commando pay less than you because he’s fitter than you are?

      It’s a circular argument.  I am fat so I might have a coronary.  You drive at night so you might be victim to a sleepy or drunk driver.  The possibilities are nearly limitless, and largely pointless.

      It’s right to help people, because it just is.  It’s never going to be equitable, and we need to get away from this erroneous concept of “fair” that we’re all stuck with.

    • VJO says:

      02:06pm | 08/04/11

      Health insurance covers treatment for accidents which are just as likely to hit the so called healthy person as anyone else.  Fall off your bike and break a limb, skiers hitting trees or joggers doing in their knees.  Think about it without your mind so closed.

    • Michael says:

      02:14pm | 08/04/11

      PJ you remind me of some really old people i know, you don’t realise that the contribution you make while your working, if you worked during your life was never going to cover the cost of your longevity.

      The system works because it’s a big Ponzi, the people that come along after you or i, will subsidise our shortfall and the people after them will do likewise.

      Now if some person dies young and healthy, say riding a bike to work or jogging etc well their contributed dollars will go into the kitty to be spent on well, not them.

      So superD is correct, from his point of view.

    • PJ says:

      04:29pm | 08/04/11

      Mahhrat:

      You are failing to understand my point.  I have not said people are not entitled to health insurance ever.  In fact the more people on it, should mean more sharing of the burden.  It goes back to my original point.

      VJO, who’s more likely to cost the health system more and if you think it’s the fit and healthy, then I won’t ever make you see common sense.

      Michael, you remind me of people who have no idea.

    • Brad Coward says:

      01:12pm | 09/04/11

      Well let’s get real here.  No longer can you discriminate against a person based upon their racial origins, religious beliefs or gender.  Isn’t it great that some people have the overweight/ underweight smokers to pick on.

      Just make sure that the overweight/underweight smoker isn’t a black, female muslim when you take aim.  That’s nasty !  Looking forward to the day when simply being narrow minded gets you into trouble with society.  A few commenting on this subject had better start shaking in their boots.  You’re next !

    • MrEd says:

      06:00am | 08/04/11

      No healthy people are not being ripped off, rather they are being conned in to buying a product they dont need.

      Reply

    • PJ says:

      07:48am | 08/04/11

      Conned or forced into it by the Federal Government in lieu of paying more tax?

    • Pete #205 says:

      09:24am | 08/04/11

      Agree with PJ… in my current situation, it’s cheaper for me to be buying health insurance than it is to pay the medicare levy surcharge.  Plus, I get something back for dental.

    • Budz says:

      10:13am | 08/04/11

      I’m 27 and I like to think I’m fit and healthy and I’ve easily got my moneys worth from my health fund. Playing touch footy I did my ACL in my knee and the cost of the hospital room, theatre and artificial ligament was covered by the health fund which added to more than $7,000!

      So that covered about 5-6 years worth of premiums. To be honest I think I use it more often because I am more active, and get injured all the time due to these activities!

    • Shifter says:

      01:07pm | 08/04/11

      @Pete - I’m in the same boat, however I tend to find the private health cover comes in handy for covering doctors and physio when I’ve been a little bit too ambitious in my sporting pursuits.

      There can be a case made that ‘fit’ people use different types of health cover than others. Rather than a double bypass, they could be like Budz and need a knee or shoulder reconstruction caused by an accident on the field.

    • bec says:

      06:23am | 08/04/11

      You know what actually rips me off as a consumer of private health insurance? Having my fund cover absolute bogus horseshit like acupuncture, reflexology and naturopathy. That’s a real rip-off right there.

      Reply

    • Pete says:

      07:39am | 08/04/11

      agree 100%  also exercise shoes etc why should we pay for crap that we dont use

    • Cloud Strife says:

      08:09am | 08/04/11

      Acupuncture is actually proven effective. The others, I agree with!

    • JS says:

      09:19am | 08/04/11

      That’s the whole point though Bec - that’s there’s thousands of different products you can choose from. If you don’t want a product that covers acupuncture, naturopathy etc, then choose one that doesn’t. Simple!

    • TChong says:

      09:45am | 08/04/11

      Cloud Strife- I think any “proof”  creditted to acupuncture is still open to some debate.
      It appears to “work"in pain management etc because it distracts the individual.
      Energy lines etc that acupuncture is said to work on, arent physical- ie, there is no flesh / blood reality to them.
      If the distraction of having needles poked into you works to take your mind off the pain , all well and good.
      But I wouldnt rely on acupuncture to treat any condition too life threatening.

    • Bolz says:

      12:52pm | 08/04/11

      Being rather health conscious, I don’t really get much use out of my health insurance except maybe the bi-yearly visit to the dentist. One of the ways that I do utilise it is via accupunture and massage. Probably not life saving but an enjoyable hour of relaxation none the less. If they’re going to offer it I might as well use it!

    • Julia says:

      06:26am | 08/04/11

      Healthy is such a subjective term; don’t you think? Should we charge more for those with congenital diseases? What about those born with disabilities? Shouldn’t we just genetically test everyone at birth? What if your healthy lifestyle causes arthritis? Of course those disgusting fatties and smokers should pay more; and what about those who choose to lead dangerous lifestyles? People who live in the city should pay more simply for inhaling all that filthy air! Those who choose not to have children should pay less just for the reduced stress on the mind and body. Seeing as low income earners and those with less education are more likely to be worse off health wise, I’m not altogether sure why we don’t just cull them, frankly. What lovely people we are evolving into. He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother.

      Reply

    • Sha-Shin says:

      09:17am | 08/04/11

      It would be great if all factors (except for genetic factors which only describe a predisposition which is not a certainty) could be taken into account.

      We are failing to limit moral hazard. Nothing stops the fatties or the smokers from costing the rest of us. It would be good if they were charged higher premiums to represent their extra burden to the health system.

    • Slick says:

      03:17pm | 08/04/11

      Sha-Shin,
      I know some healthy fat people (one is a gym instructor) and I know for incredibly fit smokers.
      I personally was told at 20, even though I was young fit and healthy, that I “apparently” have arthritis. Not genertic, no one else in my known family lines has it. But I still go to the gym 3-4 times a week, walk the dog, have kids and work full time.  Are you saying that because I was told by a specialist that I have a cronic disese, that doesn’t effect me and I’m wondering if it is even true, I should be paying more? Or should I fork out the cost of the plane trip and another doctors visit to get a referal, and another specialist charge to get a second opinion so I don’t get a hefty charge added to my premiums?(there is only the one specialist in my city)
      Health insurance is like power bills, price of bananas and the cost of fuel, I don’t like the cost, but I pay it because I want/need to use/have it sometimes.

    • Super D says:

      07:07am | 08/04/11

      The true rort of health insurance isn’t the healthy subsidising the unhealthy, its the young subsidising the old.

      Reply

    • PJ says:

      07:52am | 08/04/11

      Super D,

      Not planning on getting old at all?  Thought about the years of premimiums paid by those ‘old’ people in preparation for their old age?  Thought at all?

    • grumpy old man says:

      07:55am | 08/04/11

      Hmm, thats why at 59 years of age, I am paying nearly $300 a month for health insurance to cover 2 people, neither who have made a claim for 5 years. I would suggest that you are probably 180 degrees wrong, young families would make far more claims than us oldies. Also, I have been paying into the fund for nearly 2 decades, so if you add up what I have contributed vs what I have claimed, and then do a comparison against a young person who has probably been in the fund for less than a decade, I think you’ll find that I’ve subsidized a few young úns!
      You really didn’t apply to much thought to your comment did you?

    • Phil says:

      08:13am | 08/04/11

      Yes because the young never get old and have health issues do they.
      Good that that!

    • TChong says:

      09:50am | 08/04/11

      You’re on a hiding to nothing on this particular thread Super D.
      But in the spirit of our special Eckka day, I’ll go into bat with you, and say you have every right to your opinion.  wink

    • ian says:

      11:31am | 08/04/11

      Thats a ridiculous statement, obviously done without much thought…the private health system in Australia has been subsidising itself for years and will go on doing that until nobody can afford it or it kills itself off.  If the young are subsidising the old I would like to see the benefits…and I will not see those because there are none…the private health system in Australia is greedy and profiteering and always has been.

    • Super D says:

      03:02pm | 08/04/11

      Perhaps I was a little compacent in simply making a point rather than providing the context of it.

      The young do subsidise the old.  Not only that they are now forced too.

      Looking at private health insurance historically there was a tendency for some (not all) people to only take it out when they were starting a family -and hence likely to be net beneficiaries.  They would then give up their health insurance once their children were old enough to have made it through childhood without serious affliction only to then take it up again once they neared retirement.

      This drew a policy response in terms of the lifetime healthcover loading - the impact of which is that healthy people in their 30’s and 40’s who would likely have no claim on private health funds being coerced into staying members - rather than dropping out and rejoining as had been their option previously.

      The second government policy to favour the old over the young is the health insurance rebate which is 30% for people below 65 yet increases to 40% for those over 75.  This basically is designed to shift oldies off public health funded by all taxpayers into private health subsidised by a minority of taxpayers.

      So the people who are now getting a discount in their old age went through an era when they could go into and out of the system on a whim and now get a discount if they did so.

      Perhaps it was clumsy of me to say its the young subsidising the old, rather its that Generation X and subsequent generations are subsidising baby boomers earlier generations who enjoyed freedoms that their children have been denied… not unlike free university education and affordable housing.

    • I am my own fund says:

      07:40am | 08/04/11

      If you have “Health Insurance” you probably need “Health Insurance, Insurance” to help you with the legal costs of trying to make a claim.  I gave up and decided to put the equivalent premiums in a savings account and now it has grown to quite a large amount.  I often go ailment window shopping and work out what conditions I could afford to have with the knowledge the money is there without the criminal cost gaps.

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      02:11pm | 08/04/11

      Absolutely. I had a claim rejected by my ex fund because Medicare finally decided to chip in. I still had a gap so I tried to claim it. Rejected. A day later - it was paid. A few weeks later = they wrote to me saying they overpaid it and I need to pay it back. Few more weeks = I finally pay it. Few more weeks = they send me a receipt confirming they received my payment. Few more weeks = they wrote saying the payment was rejected and I need to pay it again.

      Needless to say they are my EX health fund and wouldn’t insure with them again. My husband and I had only ever claimed maybe once or twice before for our glasses. Then something happened and I needed to see a specialist. They then only too willingly paid my gap. Then a little while later Medicare paid some towards it when a certain claim went through from my GP for medicare paid help,  and from that point my ex fund didn’t want anything to do with it anymore, even though I still had a substantial gap. Why the heck do you pay health insurance for anyway?

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      02:41pm | 08/04/11

      “Why the heck do you pay health insurance for anyway? “

      To avoid the medicare surcharge of course…what else is it good for?  I’ve used mine once since I’ve had it (years…) for a pair of glasses I probably didn’t need, but, they match my sunglasses.

    • Kika says:

      03:04pm | 08/04/11

      Yeah but the amount i pay annually for my health insurance is comparable to paying the surcharge!!

    • Audra Blue says:

      03:30pm | 08/04/11

      I’m with you.  I spoke to an accountant I used to work with and complained about the cost of private health insurance.  He agreed with me that it was a scam.  I am a very healthy person and rarely go to the doctor (once for a cholesterol check and once to get the contraceptive pill) I was happy to pay for the visit and claim it back on Medicare.

      I decided a few years ago to invest my money where I can get to it quickly.  That way if I need to have anything health related attended to, I have the cash to cover it, I don’t have to fight with insurance companies and my money is working FOR me instead of being in a fund that I may never access.

      Putting your money somewhere it does nothing isn’t responsible financial management in my book.

    • Audra Blue says:

      03:33pm | 08/04/11

      Another thing, as for the Medicare levy:  I tithe money every year to my favourite charity which is more than the cost of the levy, so I get it all back and then some.

    • Kevin says:

      07:50am | 08/04/11

      The answer is simple.  If you are confident of remaining healthy don’t get private health insurance.

      Reply

    • Scotchy says:

      07:57am | 08/04/11

      Frankly the strong support the weak! In essence those that are Obese,smokers,heavy drinkers will have far more health problems than those that eat well, stay fit and avoid smoking and other excesses. Hence the healthy will always subsidize the un-healthy. I have no problem with supporting those that need the support on a genuine basis , but those that abuse themselves should be made to pay a premium for health care. Folks just go over to the Royal Brisbne hospital at Herston and observe patients sitting out front in their jammies and some with mobile drips puffing away on cigarettes, bloody crazy!

      Reply

    • Pete says:

      08:50am | 08/04/11

      You are quiet wrong. All of you, the old, the young and the ill support the health insurance companies

    • PTom says:

      10:44am | 08/04/11

      What BS.

      So young fit sport freaks don’t get injured, have accident, need dental work, glass or any type of surgey at all.

    • PJ says:

      01:20pm | 08/04/11

      No PTom,

      Scotchy said ‘In essence those that are Obese,smokers,heavy drinkers will have far more health problems than those that eat well, stay fit and avoid smoking and other excesses.’

      ‘far more health problems’...tell me this isn’t true?

    • PTom says:

      03:53pm | 08/04/11

      PJ,

      I could possibly prove either way by spend time search medical record, however can you prove that unfit people are a burden on Private Health Insurance and not what you think.

      However in this country the poor don’t need private health so are unlike to have and the super rich don’t have either.
      That leaves the rich and middle-class who have.

      As there are clear links between wealth and health.
      http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/publichealth/chorep/ses/ses_intro.asp

      This would mean that the mostl unfit of a society would be less of a burden on Private Health Insurance then the fit.

    • PJ says:

      04:22pm | 08/04/11

      PTom,

      Not exactly sure what you are trying to say.

      The health system may be free for the poor, but it’s not ‘free’.

      For the record I never argued wealth.

    • PTom says:

      05:33pm | 08/04/11

      No PJ you are not even taking about Private Health Insurance, you are banging on about the whole health system.

      Well the elderly are more of a burden on the health system then fit, unfit or young, so by your logic they should pay the most?

    • PJ says:

      06:28pm | 08/04/11

      PTom,

      Why do you think private health insurance exists? 
      Why do you think the government OWNS one of private health companies? 
      Do you not think that private health insurance props up the free hospital system?
      Why then, are you taxed extra if you don’t have private health insurance?

    • Health Stealth says:

      07:57am | 08/04/11

      Super D, don’t you intend getting old?  The true rort are the people running all these healthfunds.

      Reply

    • Justin says:

      09:08am | 08/04/11

      Short answer no. I don’t. That’s why I drink, smoke, eat too much, ride a motorcycle in a manner that leaves it questionable whether I’m going to reach my destination each morning, and don’t have private health insurance. There is nothing pleasant about living on this god forsaken rock.

    • Keen Observer says:

      09:31am | 08/04/11

      Justin, if you dont want to be on the rock, tie yourself to an anchor and jump overboard way out at sea or something, if you smear yourself over a road some poor bugger has to scrape you up.

    • KH says:

      07:57am | 08/04/11

      First, I would like to see all those ‘alternative therapies’ taken off - they are not medical treatments, and largely don’t really work on any real illness.  Second, I would like to know that private health insurance will actually cover the cost of treatment, and not leave me a massive bill for the ‘gap’ that is unknown prior to treatment.  That really annoys me - I would rather have an excess. 
      Last of all, there should be a basic health questionnaire, and the insurer should be able to place loadings and exclusions on the policy based on your lifestyle choices - you smoke? You pay a loading, and so on.  This way people who will make more claims pay more - people who look after themselves and are far less likely to be ill pay less.  No gap means no added pressure on the public health system - I know people who have kept their mouth shut about private health insurance after a serious problem - if you are ill and need an operation or something, the last thing you want on top of your regular bills (which will keep on coming in) is a massive hospital bill to cover the ‘gap’ which can be thousands of dollars.  There should be an excess only, with premiums sliding up and down depending on how much excess you are willing to pay.  As it is, a lot of health insurance products have a lot of useless features, at the expense of features you might want to use.

      Reply

    • PTom says:

      10:54am | 08/04/11

      So while I am not the healthist person around I have only used my health insurance for glass and dental. Unlike the sports nut at work who have used it for glass, dental, and knee and shoulder surgey.

      Who is paying for who?

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      11:37am | 08/04/11

      KH, your gap that you refer to should most certainly not be unknown to you before treatment. If you are going to a hospital that has an agreement with your fund, all the hospital bills should be covered.

      The gap comes from doctors who charge exorbitant amounts above the Medicare Schedule Fee. Private health insurers are legally allowed to only pay up to the fee that Medicare sets for the particular service you are receiving. However, private doctors are free to charge what they feel is appropriate for the service they provide.

      Doctors are obliged to provide you with what is known as “Informed Financial Consent” forms prior to your treatment. This is so that you are aware of the gap that they are proposing to charge and can ensure that it is appropriate to your financial situation. If you have been surprised with a gap payment you didn’t know about, I would suggest speaking to your doctor.

    • Rosie says:

      05:21pm | 10/04/11

      KH - You do not have to have cover that includes the alternative therapies they are an extra- choose not to have it.  I am with a health fund where the only gap i have have with hospital treatment is for the aneathatist and for any medication i get from the pharmacy on leaving hospital.  You get what you pay for.  I have no excess either.  I believe most health funds have a preffered list of practitioners that you can use without a gap.  I personally would not be without my health insurance I have had it for 23 years now and have claimed once for an op and for glasses every 3 to 4 years. I think alot of assumptions have been made in this artical.  I would love to see some true stats on who claims the most.  I think we might all be very surprised.

    • Bris Jack says:

      07:59am | 08/04/11

      My question is, what % of the overweight, underweight, smokers and otherwise-unhealthy among us are paying health insurance?

      What’s the difference between paying for acupuncture or physiotherapy.
      I have had more success with 3 visits to the acupuncturist than 12   physiotherapy treatments.

      The key word is Insurance and for me to have treatment when I need it and not be on a 2 yr waiting list to get on the 5 yr waiting list is worth every dollar I pay.

      Reply

    • Daniel says:

      08:05am | 08/04/11

      Well, to answer the question of the title: no. The whole idea of insurance is that you are covered *in case* you get sick. You take it out hoping not to get sick. If insurance companies only charged you when you became sick, they wouldn’t exist - you know - market society and all that.

      Reply

    • Cloud Strife says:

      08:12am | 08/04/11

      ‘Healthy’ is so subjective. I don’t have any physical problems, but I am not mentally healthy. It’s not like you can go to the hospital and have an operation to get the dodgy parts of the brain working like they’re supposed to.

      Reply

    • Kate says:

      08:46pm | 08/04/11

      Me too Cloud. I don’t have private health insurance, but even if I did, I doubt it would get me much cheaper access to the health services I need (psychology and psychiatry).
      I’m still covered by my parents’ insurance, which helps with dental and the cost of my glasses, but does fuck all for mental health.

    • Nigel says:

      08:13am | 08/04/11

      At the age of 42, fit healthy non-smoking me ex-football legend (in my own mind!) who played up to 7 hours of competition volleyball per week was diagnosed with a brain tumour. Multiple MRIs, blood tests, specialists appointments, a surgigal procedure that took 13 hours and involved two surgical teams, the best part of a week in intensive care, extensive physio and speech therapy followed. I was insured and I reckon that young, fit healthy people, like I was, should just suck it up and pay their premiums.  Your family will thank you for it and you just don’t know when it may happen to you.

      Reply

    • Jason Stackhouse says:

      08:23am | 08/04/11

      Why can’t we use the same logic that claims women are safer drivers therefor can get cheaper insurance?

      Healthy people are less at risk of making a claim so should pay less.

      Is this not exactly the same argument?  How far can we take this?  Studies prove brunettes are safer drivers = cheaper insurance for brunettes?  Studies prove men are better drivers in 2015 - men get cheaper insurance (haha - women would never let that happen)

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      08:26am | 08/04/11

      At last some sensible thoughtful comments are being made.  The public hospital system is an excellent system if you are HEALTHY or if you are DYING.  Anything in-between is covered by your private health (insurance).  Please also note that until Medibank Private was turned by this government into a for-profit fund, 70 percent of health funds in this country were not-for-profit and therefore gave those profits back to their members.

      Reply

    • Tony Bee says:

      08:36am | 08/04/11

      Private health cover is a complete con job. I don’t have it, I pay when I need medical help, I pay the extra tax and I still come out in front.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      08:44am | 08/04/11

      Will my insurer pay for tough stickers as this looks to be a must have for the healthy body .

      Reply

    • S.L says:

      08:45am | 08/04/11

      I pay for my non smoking, non drinking ex $300 per month in private health insurance as part of our agreement for child maintenance. She recently had substantial dental work done and had a $1000 claim knocked back because she had other major dental work done 3 years ago.
      When I protest about the cost and service provided by this major insurer she just tells me “if you don’t pay it I will” and as she’s a low income earner I don’t want my kids to suffer. I’ve paid over $40,000 over the years and have only claimed $3,000 back.
      Is it a rip off? YES!!!!!!!!!!

      Reply

    • AliceC says:

      08:58am | 08/04/11

      I love how people want to get ‘value for money’ from their health insurance. You want value, go get hit by a car!

      Reply

    • JS says:

      09:23am | 08/04/11

      It’s not about wanting to use it, it’s about not wanting to pay more for it each month than you have to.

    • KT says:

      09:04am | 08/04/11

      I don’t understand why my car insurance is so much less.. I smashed my car a few years back and they paid for $20k damages, while I only pay $500 per year.  With health insurance I pay $300 per month with and feel I get nothing ... and if I do go to the dentist I am still out of pocket!

      Reply

    • AliceC says:

      10:54am | 08/04/11

      Because if you go to a private hosptial, the costs could reach 6 figures.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:07am | 08/04/11

      The issue is that we as a society want people to take out private health insurance. We need to encourage it as we want the costs to be shifted from the system and on to an individual’s insurer. Just imagine the hospitals and services and research that could be done if less tax payer dollars were used to fund alcohol related injury and other lifestyle related matters? I am certainly not in support of an American system. I think it a basic right to be afforded emergency treatment if you need it, but I think you should take out private insurance if you are in a position to do so.

      My second issue is that people seem to treat Insurance of any kind as a tangible product. It is not. It is not something that should be thought of as a product that must be used. No. You are paying for the peace of mind that if something happens to you (be it your own or someone else’s “fault” - you will not be ruined). There is an advantage to the current system. Even if you claim the clean and scale on your general dental twice a year - you can’t have your premium jacked up due to your claims history.

      I do not believe that Private Health should be underwritten on individual risk factors. As with CTP on motor vehicles (the cover that responds when you cause physical injury to another individual and you expose yourself to civil risk) people need to have it. If it was not a part of” the rules”, people would not have it (just look what voluntary student unionism did) and the roads would be a extermely dangerous place. CTP is heavily restricted. Insurers can not undercut each other in prices and it is a set figure that is the same for me as a regular driver, to a P Plater to a multi accident 85 year old man. This has to be the case, otherwise the P Plater and the old man just wouldn’t be able to afford to buy it. They are the people that you actually WANT to have it.

      Though the price restrictions are not quite as rigid, I look at private health in a similar light. We need to think of the bigger picture and shoulder some of the risk for the unhealthy among us. If it was dirt cheap for the young and healthy but rediculously out of reach for the old, the ill and the trainwrecks - they would just not get it. We want to give them every incentive to get it because they are the ones who need it.

      I am happy to pay an extra few hundred dollars a year in my private health cover if it means that I save hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical costs that my tax dollars would otherwise pay.

      Man, The Punch is ganging up on the fatties this week!

      Reply

    • PTom says:

      11:20am | 08/04/11

      This whole argument is wrong we should not be debating whether we pay more for fit or unfit it should be about why we are forced to pay so much for so little.

      I have paid for private health insurance for years, I have not used beyond dental and optical. But when my wife need gall bland surgey we still paid out of pocket . Why?

      Simplely the lack of true medical comptetion. We need to look at why health is costing so much in this country not just health insurance.

      P.S. We where overseas when it played up if we had the surgey in Thailand it would have cost us less then what we paid here with private health insurance.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      09:22am | 08/04/11

      I have Private Cover but I don’t like the providers!
      Every year, sometime 2 or 3 times, they put up their rates. They then tell you of the “Added Benëfits”  they are oh-so-generously going to give you as a result of their cash-grab. Why can’t they simply ask us exactly what cover we want when it comes to “Extras”?
      As a male, & I imagine this applies to women too, my “Extras” include services I will never, ever use: Maternity, Gynaecological & all those other “Women Only” benefits. The list includes other services which I would also never use: Chiropractic, Orthodontics,Naturopathy.Psychology etc.
      Why can’t we opt-out of those services & have the benefits for other serviices increased? My insurer pays higher benfits for Chiropractic. Why? If I would never use a Chiro why can’t I opt-out & have a massively increased benfit for Physiotherapy & apply increases to other benfits when we opt-out of other services? On my Health Cover I am covered to the tune of $3425 for services I will never, ever use. Yet I am paying for those services.I don’t mind paying the top rate for “Extras” but I should be able to apply those $3425 unused benefits to other services I do, or might, use. A good start would be 100% Cover for my $495 Annual Gym membership, a service I use three times a week. A membership which keeps me healthy & reduces the number of claims I make on my Health Fund!

      Reply

    • Sahara says:

      09:32am | 08/04/11

      Well I’m 52 and I’ve been paying health fund premiums since I was 17 and Medicare since it first came in and hardly claimed anything in that time until last year when I needed a very minor op and spent a night in hospital and cost my health fund about three years premiums.

      However when I talk to my so called “healthy” friends they will tell you all about there many stays in hospitals. Do you know what they were the result of?

      Sporting injuries.

      Talk to any long term sports player and there’s a fair chance that they have has at least one operation if not more. The older they get the more issues they have and guess who pays for it.

      So if we are to make the fatties and smokers pay more than what about people who participate in sports?

      Oh have we covered people who drink more than one or two a day yet?

      Reply

    • The Original Oz says:

      09:48am | 08/04/11

      The real con in Health Insurance is the Rebate that is being paid through the tax system - if you want health insurance then you pay for it. The money is being funnelled into the rebate would be able to turn our health system and hospiatals around dramatically iif it were directed to where it should be spent. Subsidising health insurance through the Rebate is just encouraging the health funds to act like greedy bastards. And as for those who say that the Rebate assists hospitals what utter crap. Health Funds are companies whose goal is to make a profit and distribute it to the shareholders through dividends. Which also explains why the Insurers will never pay a full claim - there is nearly always a (substantial) excess that has to come out of your own pocket. Insurance is all about risk - they take your money on the gamble that you will not get sick and they get to keep it. When you do get sick they will not cover your full cost but instead you still have to pay more. Where is the risk for them. If the Industry is truly competitive then why is there NO INSURER out there offering an Excess free policy? They are all reading from the same playbook - including the annual premiums increase gouge.

      Another elephant in the room for Health Insurance is the Ageist discrimination whereas a fifty year old applying for Health Insurance has to pay significantly more on a monthly basis than some drug-addled, binge drinking, hoon driving Gen Y kamikaze who is on a one way ticket to hell.

      Reply

    • Debbie says:

      02:20pm | 08/04/11

      I think you’ll find that all people on the same product pay the same permium, except for any loading required because they did not take out insurance before they turned 31 or before the lifetime health cover loading legislation came in. This is not the health fund’s fault.

      Also, health insurers are limited on the amount that they can pay for some services. If you choose a provider which charges above this, you will have an out of pocket. You should always shop around and get quotes for treatment where possible. Also try and go to a doctor which has a contract with your health fund.

      Maybe you should consider a not for profit health fund? There are many of them around. It is worth noting that the Fund owned by the govt (ie medibank) is no longer not for profit.

      No returns to shareholders generally means better benefits.

    • Seano says:

      09:52am | 08/04/11

      Of course the same intellectuals who are cheerleading Erick no doubt saw Team America: World Police as a blue print for American foreign policy.

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      09:57am | 08/04/11

      An individuals right to be a chain smoking, piss ( as in alcohol,) swilling, maccas eating , couch potatoes have the right idea.
      If you are gunna die, as we must, who would want to die healthy.?
      You might as well do all those things, and enjoy it.
      The end result is the same for party animals, or tea totalling, god bothering, vegan wowsers.

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      10:08am | 08/04/11

      Your first mistake is calling it “Insurance” its not insurance at all, they don’t pay for anything unless you have been admitted to hospital.
      Not only that, when it comes to claiming they make you do all the work, you have to split up and claim from all relevant places to try in vain to get even a small percentage of your money back.
      We have comprehensive cover and my wife had a cancer episode, at the end of it, regardless of the so-called “insurance” we were still 20grand out of pocket.
      Please don’t ever call it “insurance” it is much closer to “scam” than “insurance”.

      Reply

    • Aussie Born and Bred says:

      10:11am | 08/04/11

      We’re happy to categorise road users and charge them different vehicle insurance premiums based on this, so why not for health insurance?

      It’s a person’s God-given right to choose a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle.  Those who choose a lifestyle that will, invariably, require higher medical expenses should be prepared to back that up with their wallet and pay a higher premium.  If they choose to not pay those higher premiums, they can always use the public health system. 

      It’s their choice.

      Reply

    • Sarah says:

      04:07pm | 08/04/11

      While I’m not enthusiastically jumping on the bandwagon of “charge unhealthy people more for health insurance” idea, the car analogy is worth considering - when you insure your car, information about you as the driver (young/old, male/female, city/country, claims/no claims etc) is all factored into the calculations, as is the type of car and so on. Young drivers pay more as they are less experienced and statistically more likely to be in a crash. City drivers pay more than country owners as their cars are more likely to be broken into or stolen (but country drivers are more likely to hit a ‘roo at some point - not a risk you have in the inner city!)

      So why don’t we do the same with health insurance? It would make sense.

      But after reading page of vitriolic diatribe of various people ranting, I’m kind of reluctant to be too enthusiastic about the idea of punishing people for being unhealthy. A more positive system would be better - instead of charging more for health insurance if you’re unhealthy, have a set figure and offer discounts for healthy lifestyle choices (e.g. some funds allow you to claim a gym membership)

      I think we need to be able to be more selective about what extras are covered too. I’m more than happy with my coverage as my back is rooted and I get a lot of physio and massage therapy - it’s great to be able to claim that back. But I’ve never been admitted to hospital (touch wood) - the worst I’ve ever done to myself is a twisted ankle after I stacked it down the stairs. So really I’m paying insurance premiums to cover hospital admittance I’ve never had to use before, some extras stuff I never use (e.g. obstetrician etc) and some extras stuff I claim on all the time. At the moment it’s proving useful, but if Medibank increase their premiums AGAIN within the next few months I am going to reconsider if it’d just be cheaper to put $35 a fortnight into a savings account to be my own medical fund instead!

    • hellena says:

      10:39am | 08/04/11

      I don’t mind paying for extras, but I object to being forced to pay for hospital cover…which is extremely expensive. Also, my private health insurance includes things like obstetrics. I’m 50, I don’t need obstetrics!!!
      I also think everyone should be able to access health cover, but that people who make the effort to keep themselves fit should either pay less, or perhaps be able to get some money back (say, if having made no hospital claim in 2 years, then get some back). And if pseudo-scientific rubbish like chiropractics and naturopathy can be claimed, why can’t I claim botox or a boob job? They’ll make me feel better, LOL.

      Reply

    • ben86 says:

      10:57am | 08/04/11

      There is a strong argument for encouraging people to save and pay for their own health costs where possible. However why the federal government thought that subsidising private health insurance companies was a good idea beggars belief, unless of course the purpose was industry assistance. what would be much more effective would be providing incentives for individuals to pay for themselves directly. private health insurance would also have to be one of if not the only product where people get rewarded for having it and penalised for actually using it.

      Reply

    • GB says:

      11:41am | 08/04/11

      My premium has gone up by about $6 a month. I still get the same amount of benefits, and most healthcare providers are charging more than last year, meaning your benefits are eaten up a bit quicker. If they want to put premiums up they should also increase the benefits.

      I have insurance mostly to go towards extras. It would be great if you could tailor your extras more to suit yourself. I am thinking of switching just to extras cover but I keep thinking “what if”? re: hospital cover.

      Reply

    • Stuart says:

      12:17pm | 08/04/11

      Usually it is the same people that are fat,or smoke,or are a junkie or maybe anorexic etc. that have two or more of these bad problems so why should we be subsidising their health premiums for something that they are doing to themselves.Why should single males be paying for maternity cover and older people pay for running shoes that they don’t need,why must we pay for idiots sporting injuries,why must we pay for many things that we will never use or don’t want like naturopathy etc. I just wan’t hospital,medical,dental and optomitcal cover and not all the other rubbish.

      Reply

    • DJ says:

      12:41pm | 08/04/11

      Did anyone mention that the smokers are helping to keep hospitals running for the rest of society by paying high excise duties on each packet of cigs?
      What happens when everyone stops smoking? Less money for hospitals and higher premiums on health cover. grin

      Reply

    • michael says:

      02:43pm | 08/04/11

      About 7 billion a year smoking adds to the health coffers, thats why smoking stays.

      Means dirty smokers are subsidising everybody else too though.

    • Kika says:

      02:06pm | 08/04/11

      I am this close in throwing in the towel with health insurance. I keep telling myself that I pay it to avoid the medicare surcharge - but the premium I pay is more than my husband and I’s surcharge so I am coming close to calling it quits.

      The premiums keep going up because they encourage us to claim. Claim for this, claim for that, so we do. Their costs go up - they charge more premium. It’s such a double edged sword.

      And I totally agree. Every other insurance is based on risk. Although I do pay a higher premium because my husband is older than me, however he is super fit, doesn’t smoke or drink and hardly ever gets sick (touch wood).
      The same for me. I don’t see it fair to whack the same premium across the board for others to benefit at the financial burden of the other.

      In fact I reckon next increase I’m dropping my extras (which I never use) for just plain hospital cover - that’s the cover that means the most.

      Reply

    • Jane says:

      03:16pm | 08/04/11

      As a healthy active person about to under go an ankle reconstruction because I keep active and knowing a lot of people needing knee surgery as a result of sport, I believe that being healthy and active actually increases your chances of needing to use your health insurance.

      If you sit on a couch and do nothing what are your chances of needing of injurying yourself?

      As for premiums being too high, mine is still under what my medicare levy surcharge would be so in my books its spot on.

      Reply

    • wayne says:

      03:17pm | 08/04/11

      don’t forget the elderly if you want to be perfectly balanced, just have a good look around any hospital. also athletes are a bigger burden on the system with avoidable injuries and rebuilds.

      Reply

    • Nick says:

      03:56pm | 08/04/11

      Everyone seems to be broadening the spectrum and mentioning the elderly and genetic conditions. I see the solution quite simply; you get a doctor check up, if your doctor admonishes that you smoke, drink heavily or are overweight you should have to pay more for insurance.

      Whatever excuses you use, such as “being fat is a disease man” the simple fact is all of these lifestyle factors are a choice, including obesity. I lost 15kg’s through changing my diet and exercise habits. Every overweight or obese person has the ability to choose the same. If you don’t have the willpower to give up these things, then perhaps lower insurance costs will be an added perk into having a healthier lifestyle.

      Reply

    • BT says:

      04:13pm | 08/04/11

      I’m underweight and there isn’t anything that I can do about it. I’ve tried diet changes and excercise to beef up, to no avail.  So with that said, why should I be paying higher premiums because somebody deems me “unhealthy” based on the fact I’m underweight? Who gets to say who is and isn’t “underweight”? Nope, not having a bar of it.

      What would happen if your mother/father was an overweight smoker and couldn’t afford private health insurance (and therefore decent medical treatment) just so you could save a few pennies as a “healthy” person? Shame, shame, shame on you.

      Here is an interesting thought, just leave it be.  What goes around comes around.

      Reply

    • Rohan von Hoyer-Davies says:

      05:05pm | 08/04/11

      I always believed insurance was for “just in case”. There is no VALUE to be gained other than peace of mind. Do you all whinge when you don’t crash your car and get your CTP premiums back?
      At least PMI’s will pay you for injury and diseases you are covered for, unlike Home and Contents Insurers. Last time I checked nobody was arguing about the definition of a knee reco or a heart attack.

      Reply

    • The Liberal Loafer says:

      06:43pm | 08/04/11

      ONly Liberal Party voters can afford private health insurance.

      Reply

    • Rosie says:

      05:36pm | 10/04/11

      I am def not a liberal supporter but I have health insurance because I want choices.  I do not want to have to go on a waiting list for something that needs treatment now.  I know of a lady that had been on a waiting list for 2 years to have her gall bladder out and was in considerable pain. I waited only 6 weeks to get relief and it was worth every cent of my premiums.

    • David Jones says:

      09:07pm | 08/04/11

      As a former private health insurance spin doctor who spent 16 years explaining private health insurance to the media, I can tell you that Justine Davies understands better than most that private health insurance is priced based on ‘community rating’ principles where people pay the same premium for an equivalent level of cover irrespecfive of their health status or health experience. But Justine needs to go further back than 2007. Try 1953, when community rating was introduced to make private health insurance both affordable and fair. There was no Medicare then and therefore no ‘free’ fallback for people less likely to need health care, notably the young. The end result was around 80% of the population was privately covered. Healthy people aren’t being ripped off by private health insurance—with a ‘free’ taxpayer funded alternative, there is just less incentive for the young and healthy to be privately insutred so up go the premiums for an older, sicker privately insured community. We want Medicare and that’s fair enough—it’s part of the Australian landscape now—but we also want cheap private health insurance premiums. Sorry folks, we can’t have both but I for one wouldn’t want to give up the choice that private health insurance delivers when it is needed most.

      Reply

    • Gerry Carton says:

      10:15am | 09/04/11

      A fasc inating collation of self serving interests. 
      Only the healthy should be insured.  Of course the definition of who is healthy would need to be decided by a ‘death panel’ of composed of the type of self righteous wowsers having their two bobs worth above. 
      And lets not forget the poor healthy people who never get to claim; you can just imaging the same tears each year as they regret the failure of their house to self combust, or their inability to have a car accident.
      The real problem is that government regulation, and a lack of creative management, has strangled all initiave from health insurers; I’ll match your one month’s free cover and raise you two!
      Whingers aside their is enough free market research in the foregoing commentary to develop several product concepts.

      Reply

    • Kevin says:

      12:22pm | 09/04/11

      This ‘commentary’ is what is commonly known as a ‘troll’... placed here to incite argument and fighting while offering no thoughtful suggestions or valued opinion from anyone involved.  Shame on the ‘author’ for this drivel and the CM for allowing it.  A big SEIG HEIL to the author for inciting hatred and hatred towards their fellow humans.

      Reply

    • DarylS says:

      10:03pm | 09/04/11

      The chief reason for rising health premiums is the greed exhibited by medical specialists. In the past couple of years several family members have been referred to specialists for a number of reasons. Most charged about $250 for a 10 minute consultation. Half of those consultations proved to be useless, supplying wrong advice or simply telling us what we already knew with no added value. I’ve got no complaint about the average GP who has a lousy life listening to a new complaint every 10 minutes for a reasonable fee, but the specialists need to be more accountable. They really don’t appreciate having their wrong diagnosis pointed out by a mere mortal either.

      Reply

    • Chris Cox says:

      06:28am | 10/04/11

      I think it’s a good idea, but it shouldn’t be based purely on weight. The BMI is flawed. People who are fit and thus have muscle are “overweight” on that scale.

      But I think the time for a medical assessment to determine your health insurance premium is long overdue.

      Reply

    • seduxen says:

      01:26pm | 10/04/11

      Following your reasoning then the one which would be needed healthcare the most could be left dying because would not have the financial means for treatment… Many of you people are so hopelessly naive even discussing this subject: the whole agenda is manipulated, to find out the public support to be screwed by the health insurance companies like in the USA. What is happening with those People who paid all of their life into their private insurance, never used it and now when living more sedentary life or because genetic predisposition increasing their bodyweight. Now when they needing that support they can be denied or their benefit can be reduced??? What do anyone think: why did the Howard government made it under financial penalties compulsory to start to pay private insurance even at the time when their young and has very little chance to actually needing it???
      It is just foolish and people falling for this whole crud agenda!!!

    • Garry says:

      05:48pm | 10/04/11

      Welfare Nanny States reward bad behaviour and punish good bahaviour which is why their societies are doomed tpo decay and economies their economies fail.
      If your one of the best and brightest the best response is to move yourself, your talents and your money to another country where you’re appreciated and leave the freeloading mess behind.

      Reply

    • Sjoerd says:

      05:40am | 11/04/11

      you all miss the boat with your he said they said he did they did. you pay the price you pay because market research has dictated thats what you’re dum enough to pay because nobody, well I should say hardly anybody wants to pay their own way .It got absolutely nothing to do with health.

      Reply

    • Arlyn Tombleson says:

      08:13am | 11/04/11

      Society is not fair and never has been fair, this is but one example.  The myth of the “Fair Go’ is simply a fictitious fairy tale.  What about taxpayer funds given to funds the private and religious schools?  What about the corporate welfare subsidies by the Australian taxpayer to fund the dirty dirty aluminium smelter , coal and oil industries and the killing of the natural alternative industries?  Unfortunately Australia is developing each year into a Fascist state AKA ‘nanny state’.  What about genuine wholistic health prevention instead of drugs and cut?  It will never happen because of the ‘medical mafia’ and the big Pharma foreign drug corporations propping up a third rate health system by the Australian taxpayer.  The selection of proper health choices leads to less ‘health risks’.

    • craig Z says:

      08:46am | 11/04/11

      LOL ..... if the health premiums go up and accurately reflect the health standing of that particular person, there is a very good chance that, that person will cease paying health cover and expect the public health system to pick up their health issues. The public health system is already over burdened. The government knows this and will not push for a ‘fair’ distribution of contributions for health cover.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 11:30PM

RT @gregprichard: The Victorian Sports Minister has just sent the New Zealand Prime Minister a commiserative email. #stateoforigin

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 11:27PM

@VanillathunderV fair comeback. But seriously, if that was a try then I'll book my skiing in Queensland this year

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 10:06PM

@BrettS69 the loveliest thing about post-origin is the sledges from gloating qlders #ratherbeagoodloserthanapoorwinner

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 09:55PM

That is the video referee howler to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers #stateoforigin

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

by Helen Marston

0

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

Lying on a cold table in an unfamiliar place and undergoing a core biopsy was probably one of the most…

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

by Kate Southam

0

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

Red alert, ladies. Making jokes about your ability at work is not funny particularly at board level.…

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

by Tory Shepherd

0

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

Punishing the baddies is only fun in the movies. In real life it’s messy, expensive, and fraught…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

242 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed