This week in Parliament will be an important test of the Opposition’s commitment to both health reform and economic responsibility.

Cartoonist Sean Leahy's take / File artwork

Right now we’re looking at making some of the biggest reforms to our health care system since the introduction of Medicare. 

We can’t do that unless we make the hard decisions. 

Decisions about our priorities and where we can best direct our finite resources.

One of the most important health savings measures will come before the Parliament this week – the proposed means testing of the Private Health Insurance rebate. 

Currently many taxpayers subsidise the health insurance of others who are wealthier than they are.  This means receptionists are subsidising the private health insurance of Chief Executives, and baristas are subsidising the barristers collecting their daily coffee.

This situation is not fair, and is economically unsustainable when our budget has taken a $200 billion hit from the global financial crisis.

The changes we are proposing will seek to make our system fairer and more sustainable for the future.

A few facts:

  • There is no change for singles earning less than $75,000 a year or couples on less than $150,000 a year;
  • Singles who earn less than $120,000 per year, or couples on less than $240,000 will still receive some subsidy;
  • The carrot and stick approach underpinning Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare Levy Surcharge will continue, meaning the vast majority of people will retain their private hospital cover – 99.7% of people according to Treasury.
  • Despite the Oppositions past predictions of mass exodus from funds after the Medicare levy Surcharge changes last year (which gave many Australians welcome tax relief), more people now have private hospital cover than before the changes.

But here’s one of the most important: This measure will save about $1.9 billion over the next four years, leaving us free to invest more in better services, new medicines and reforming our health system.

And, if we do nothing, taxpayers will have paid out an extra $80 billion in subsidies to higher income earners by 2039-40. 

Taking action now is the financially responsible thing to do.

It is financially irresponsible of the Opposition to block this legislation.

The Opposition have said that they will replace this measure with a higher tax on tobacco.  It’s not that simple. Treasury analysis shows that over the next 10 years the cigarette tax increase would reap $3.2 billion less than the Government’s proposed PHI savings.  This is because PHI savings increase over time, while the savings from the cigarette tax remain at best static as fewer people take up smoking.  So the Opposition’s big tobacco solution leaves a big black hole in our budget bottom line.

The previous Government’s failures in health and inaction on reform have left a sad legacy of doctor shortages, nurse shortages and bed shortages. 

Reforming the system to deliver the care we need to improve and extend lives, will be expensive and difficult, especially after 12 years of neglect.

Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals appear to only want a health system for some – where working families subsidise health care costs for millionaires.

The Rudd Government is being both fairer and financially responsible by making the hard decisions to build a better health system for all.

15 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • fehowarth says:

      11:02am | 17/08/09

      Notice that when there are suggestions of benefits are being lowered for the wealthy, there is a immediate and organised outcry.  The methods the rich use are to alleged that the poor will be next and they are protecting the needy.  This is the second outcry this week. The first was the suggestion that capital increase on homes over 2 million dollars should be subject to some type of tax. Beware when the rich call poor.  Most people work hard, not just the wealthy.

    • JB says:

      11:05am | 17/08/09

      I’d love to see your sums on how much it costs in beaucratic wastage as the federal money is funnelled through several layers to Labor states and then hospitals.
      Your claims about hard decisions and sustainable investments in our future ring incredibly hollow in light of your election promise to end the blame game. Instead you’ve increased the blame game by playing the politics of division in unfairly means testing the Private Health Insurance rebate.
      This is undoubtedly a political distraction for the media and society to distract us from the real issue at hand.
      Show some leadership.
      Tap Rudd on the shoulder and tell him it’s time to make REAL REFORMS not little adjustments. Surely he’d have enough interest in his own political legacy to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

    • Annoyed doctor says:

      11:07am | 17/08/09

      I am a doctor in a rural town. I bulk bill all my patients. I have done so for six years. The item number for joint injections was taken away-it was $24. The cost of the injection is $20 with meds and consumables. My overheads to run the clinic are around $200,000 a year. With such item numbers being withdrawn my income is not enough to cover the injection or my running costs of the practice. This year is the first time I will need to charge my patients ever. My view is the ALP is being reckless to Medicare, don’t worry about private health.

    • DJG says:

      11:41am | 17/08/09

      Bite the bullett. Stop proppong up the for profit private sector. Remove the rebate and pump every cent into the public system. Those that want private can pay for it. The truth is the heart attacks, strokes and serious trauma such as vehicle accidents , viscous assaults all wind up in our public system. Why? Because for all the winging and carping the medical care is superiour to the profit sector.

    • joe says:

      12:11pm | 17/08/09

      If the coalition is being reckless on private health insurance then the Rudd government has already wrecked our economy with insurmountable debt. Stop wasting our money on Julia Gillard memorial halls and foreign imported pink bats please Nicola they will only send us broke.

    • Ben says:

      12:45pm | 17/08/09

      If any debate requires some rational perspective its this one.
      People who are earn over $150K aren’t evil or less entitled to be respected members of our society. Its true that the wealthier one becomes the more scope they to minimise tax liabilities - but nevertheless most ‘wealthy’ people still contribute an enormous amouth through their taxes to our health system and other vital community infrastructure and they shouldn’t be vilified.
      On the other hand means testing is clearly the fairest way of dealing with the issue. I know many people who have received the ‘baby bonus’ just as an example when they earn well over $150k. Most of these people would acknowledge that these kinds of benefits aren’t really appropriate for them, but if they can legally access them then why not.
      Australian’s also need to get over their aspirational class envy if these issues are to be resolved. Its great that people aspire to a higher income and want to retain key benefits along the way. But lets draw a line and say that $150K is a very healthy income and that is reasonable for benefits to start decreasing from this point on.

    • RobJ says:

      02:02pm | 17/08/09

      “the proposed means testing of the Private Health Insurance rebate.  “

      Here’s a means test, if you can afford private health cover - NO REBATE.

      As long as there is money to buy laser guided bombs from the US to drop on targets in Iraq of their choosing, as long as there is money to lock up the children of asylum seekers indefinitely THERE DAMN WELL ought to be enough money for a top notch public health and education system.

      Like all politicians you won’t think past your own re-election, like all politicians you are responsible for our failing health and education systems. No more excuses just get your priorities right with regard to expenditure! Health and education FIRST, and then if there’s money left over you can go and wage war in Afghanistan or something but look after AUSTRALIANS first!

      For The Record I could easily afford private health care but I’d rather pay more for medicare. The thought of a two tiered health and education system is abhorrent, it basically says you have more right to health and education if you have more money, regardless of how you may have come about that money.

      BTW Nicola, do you think your party could change it’s name? You’re after the exact same middle ground of voters that the Liberals are, you are well and truly right of centre, may i suggest, Liberal Lite?

    • Jacob says:

      02:11pm | 17/08/09

      hey people spread the word - the government is trying to get rid of medicare and get doctors out of primary care and create a poor quality health system Did you know there are no funding for GP and junior doctor training positions in the next 10 years. Which means tax payer funded educated docs will be untrained and unemployed. Government is getting ‘specialist’ nurses to replace GPs, it has already happened. If this continues when your child is sick in the future, good luck on finding a doctor. Plus a overloaded medicare being billed by nurses will lead to the breakdown of medicare and turfing health to the private insurance companies. This is a Labor government that sells away its problem to foreign investors.

    • AJ says:

      03:36pm | 17/08/09

      Aside from the shaky analysis (and keep in mind, I think private health insurance as a concept is stupid and inequitable), I would like to point one thing out:

      “This means receptionists are subsidising the private health insurance of Chief Executives, and baristas are subsidising the barristers collecting their daily coffee”

      Oh please.  Come on Nicola, you can do better than this populist tripe.  The above sentence sounds like something spewed by an underperforming first-year politics student in a Che Guevara t-shirt.  In any case, the poor ‘subsidise’ (i.e. pay taxes for) all sorts of things that the rich use.  Like, say, airport security at private airports, or, god forbid, the car-with-driver service that the PM uses.

      This debate should be about how to best provide the highest-quality universal health service to the public at the lowest cost.  Stop muddying the waters with these ridiculous appeals to the lowest common denominator.

    • DJG says:

      03:57pm | 17/08/09

      AJ, poor punters who have never caught a plane in their life do subsidise air travel. Is that fair, i think not. Robj is so right. Where do we find the money to bomb the shit out of people on the other side of the world whilst our health system collapses around our ears? Undergraduate i know.

    • Shelley says:

      04:02pm | 17/08/09

      So Minister.

      How much is the Medicare levy going up by?

      If Medicare is not going to rise what taxes will be rising to support your changes and by how much?

    • bb says:

      09:53pm | 17/08/09

      Hey Shelly don’t expect the minister to answer hard questions, she answers the questions she wants with pre-written spin. I just want her to be accountable even if the consequences happen long after her term.

    • Reece says:

      08:18am | 18/08/09

      Great idea, horrible rhetoric.

    • Sherlock says:

      09:27am | 18/08/09

      Yet another step in the class war that’s been waged by the Rudd Government since the day it took office.

      It’s refreshing this time to see the responsible minister actually admit it.

    • tracey says:

      09:54am | 18/08/09

      I am a 72 year old lady whom is on a disabled pension. If you can afford private health cover then why not take it out. I have some crippling and disabling chronis disase problems that the public system has tried to manage but just does not have the resources. In private my problems are very well managed. I am very happy. My premuims are quite afforable. I think health should be more private than public especially for elective procedures. Once you have to pay for something I think you use it mor wisely. i have certainly found this.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @Colgo: Read this article on commas. Then see the correction at the end. Ooof! http://t.co/ZkLs6494

Paul Colgan

Read this article on commas. Then see the correction at the end. Ooof! http://t.co/ZkLs6494

Paul Colgan

And here is a picture of a fox cub with its little head stuck in a can http://t.co/bDsY351x

ToryShepherd

RT @cuisinemagazine: Yep, there's always a time for rubbish bread “@ToryShepherd: Imagine a world with multigrain at the sausage sizzle... http://t.co/0K4JyWKH

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

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

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter