Running for cover in the health insurance debate

Hamish says:

12:34pm | 15/02/12

It’s just another populist retrograde step by a PM who might as well just quit before she gets knifed. The fact that Oakeshott supported the policy is pretty strong evidence that it’s a load of crap. It simply means that middle class taxpayers will be funding hospitals even more than previously. As Abbott says, all it will do is discourage people like me from maintaining my private health insurance. What’s the point? I’m only 30 and if something bad does go wrong I can just clog up the public system. That’s gotta be good for ‘the poor’.

Hamish says:

12:33pm | 15/02/12

It’s just another populist retrograde step by a PM who might as well just quit before she gets knifed. The fact that Oakeshott supported the policy is pretty strong evidence that it’s a load of crap. It simply means that middle class taxpayers will be funding hospitals even more than previously. As Abbott says, all it will do is discourage people like me from maintaining my private health insurance. What’s the point? I’m only 30 and if something bad does go wrong I can just clog up the public system. That’s gotta be good for ‘the poor’.

Hamish says:

12:35pm | 15/02/12

It’s just another populist retrograde step by a PM who might as well just quit before she gets knifed. The fact that Oakeshott supported the policy is pretty strong evidence that it’s a load of crap. It simply means that middle class taxpayers will be funding hospitals even more than previously. As Abbott says, all it will do is discourage people like me from maintaining my private health insurance. What’s the point? I’m only 30 and if something bad does go wrong I can just clog up the public system. That’s gotta be good for ‘the poor’.

Hamish says:

12:34pm | 15/02/12

It’s just another populist retrograde step by a PM who might as well just quit before she gets knifed. The fact that Oakeshott supported the policy is pretty strong evidence that it’s a load of crap. It simply means that middle class taxpayers will be funding hospitals even more than previously. As Abbott says, all it will do is discourage people like me from maintaining my private health insurance. What’s the point? I’m only 30 and if something bad does go wrong I can just clog up the public system. That’s gotta be good for ‘the poor’.

Marco says:

12:52pm | 15/02/12

@AdamC.  Too right!!  And it’s the same group (earning $80k+) who are targeted yet again for another new Labor tax!  I’m still not sure if Gillard and Labor despise these people, or just see them as easy targets - both to progressively tax, and ridicule in the media.  Thank God Gillard will be gone by this time next week

Hoob says:

12:54pm | 15/02/12

Hamish do you live on a mountain?

I noticed an echo?

Marco says:

12:54pm | 15/02/12

@Hamish.  Oakeshott believes in it, so it must be shit.  LOL!  I like your thinking, and it’s my new decision strategy in life .... thinking “hmm, what would Oakeshott do?  Must do the complete opposite!”.

AdamC says:

01:31pm | 15/02/12

Hamish, I agree re Oakeshott, and on the other points. Though, I should mention that Labor expects private health insurance membership numbers to stay high, as they are jacking up the tax penalty for not getting the insurance. Hence the reason why this is purely a revenue measure that has nothing to do with health.

Marco, exactly. Class warfare, economic irrationalism and dishonesty are this government’s guiding principles.

Gregg says:

01:42pm | 15/02/12

” If this was really about not subsiding healthcare, affected persons would receive equivalent cuts in their income taxes to compensate for the loss of the rebate. “
Well it is really not about subsidising health care for the rebate is on private insurance and regardless of insurance, the health care costs will still exist.

This possibly one case where the Doctor No might just need to review his attitude for first of all, anybody who thinks someone earning $80,000+ a year is going to think about opting out of private insurance if they have it needs a rethink.
Secondly, just what percentage of people are earning in excess of that ammount
And yes, with that ammount of income they should well be able to manage with a reduced or zero rebate.

Where would the sense be in compensating via taxation for the loss of rebate!

AdamC says:

02:00pm | 15/02/12

Gregg, see my response to Hamish. Labor have been pretty effective at keeping the ‘stick’ aspect of their policy out of the debate. This is a revenue/budget measure pure and simple. Tanya Plibersek’s sales job is just another attempt at obfuscation from this chronically deceptive government.

LostinPerth says:

04:06pm | 15/02/12

If your family income is over quarter of a million dollars you hardly need a government subsidy or another tax cut aimed at the wealthy.

This seems more to do about the middle class welfare recipients whinging about losing some of their cake while others do without bread.

sam says:

04:13pm | 15/02/12

AdamC - Howard increased middle class welfare to incredible levels. Labor has had to cut it back becasue GFC blew a $100 billion + hole in the economy and thus taxes.

If a single person on $100,000 does not have private health insurance they still get whacked with the stick for the privaledge.

I hate that I have private health insurance, I find it a complete and utter waste of money, not least of which is because I live in an area with 1 public hospital. All that money on insurance and nowhere to be able to use it. Personally I would be a lot happier if they scrapped the rebate and the additional health insurance penalties. Then I could drop my insurance in a heatbeat and save a bundle.

Wauker says:

04:20pm | 15/02/12

Wow, 4 “Hamish” sayses, all in a row, is this a record?

AdamC says:

04:25pm | 15/02/12

LostinPerth, I don’t buy this trite ‘middle class welfare’ canard. Why should I be happy that this government is effectively raising my taxes and telling me I shouldn’t care because I am on a higher-than-average income? I already pay quite a bit of tax, thanks.

Sam, I know: that is why this measure is simply a tax grab. They may have dressed it up in their usual brainless, class warfare rhetoric and dragged out their telegenic new health minister to try to sell it as some sort of health measure, but this is all just another Labor tax.

Thanks, Julia.

lostinperth says:

09:33pm | 15/02/12

@Adam C - This isnt a tax increase. It is the removal of a government rebate for those in the upper quartile of salaries. It won’t effect your tax at all. The change will make private medical insurance more expensive for those who make roughly twice the average salary and above.

I dont believe that a couple who earn a quarter of a million dollars a year between them are entitled to get a tax payer funded rebate from the government because they have private medical insurance. Surely there are more needy people in our society who could use the money.

Cobbler1 says:

12:04pm | 17/02/12

Another issue where people make up fantasies to suit their own arguments.  Here’s a fact for you:  I don’t know a single person who has private health insurance who doesn’t have it simply to save over-all taxation.  That’s right, they get private health insurance and pay LESS than if they didn’t have it.  Where’s the equity in that?

  Believe it or not there was a time when the public system and the private system survived without this rebate.  It was WAY back in 1999.  That’s right Adam, it would be a bit hard for Howard to cop flack for removing a rebate that he introduced.

iMitchy says:

12:32pm | 15/02/12

Well said Jennifer.

RED says:

01:02pm | 15/02/12

Thank you!
How are the ‘poor’ subsidising anything??? They don’t pay tax!!

Carol says:

03:43pm | 15/02/12

Jennifer,
I agree the two tier system has got to go. Scrap the rebate altogether
and put the money into the public health sector.

Both our taxation and health systems are far to complex and divisive.

acotrel says:

04:23am | 16/02/12

@RED
‘How are the ‘poor’ subsidising anything??? They don’t pay tax!! ‘

But they are the people who generate the wealth by doing the REAL work !

Fromage67 says:

09:27am | 16/02/12

RED Re the poor not paying tax,

Never heard of the gst?

Tom says:

11:02am | 16/02/12

Bam!  Well played cheese dude.  The introduction of the GST was such a bigger imposte on the poor than this trifle is on the rich.

Liz says:

11:12am | 16/02/12

I completely agree. I don’t have an issue with the medicare levy, nor do I mind paying tax commensurate to my wages. I do hate that I pay for a system (and pay more than most) that I am not able to use. Instead the government force us into costly private insurance on top of the higher levies. That’s what I don’t agree with.
Give us a system that everyone contributes to and that everyone can use.
Acotrel - this may upset you but higher income earners do work. It may not be dirty or laborious but it includes long hours and is just as tiring. Don’t make this about the class divide - make it about improving the health system for everyone, rich or poor.

Dash says:

12:52pm | 15/02/12

@seanr - absolutely correct! All this talk about the so called ‘rich’ getting a subsidy. Who’s paying for the farkin system in the first place! It’s OK for us to subsidise health care for ALP dope smoking bumbs! It’s OK for us to fork out their flood levy and absorb their carbon tax.

Down with this pack of idiots in the ALP who want to play class wars!

btw seanr - the surcharge was increased today to 1.5%

iMitchy says:

01:38pm | 15/02/12

And…. How will reducing the rebate change anything?

Unless of course the exact amount of the rebate reductions is put into the public health system - but the government have openly said that this is a measure to help bring the budget back to surplus - so it won’t.

And regardless of whether Abbott wins the next election, once the rebate is gone, it’s gone. Reintroducing it at its full level would not only be foregoing tax income but would also cause PHI premiums to jump whether the rebate reduction caused a reduction in premiums or not, which I suspect it won’t.

Kika says:

02:27pm | 15/02/12

Well you are right. I have worked out that it’s not even worth me having health insurance for tax reasons because I fall short of the threshold anyway. So I may as well keep paying the levy and not have health insurance and save the cash instead and pay for what I need when I need it. By not renewing my husband and I are saving $1200.00 a year which we can use TOWARDS expenses if we actually need it.

Kika says:

05:00pm | 15/02/12

in fact, for me the 1.5% is less than my annual health insurance bill. Haha.

Dieter Moeckel says:

09:13am | 16/02/12

seanr - no one is forcing you to have private health insurance. Go to the public system, wait 6 months to see a specialist as the growth on the neck keeps growing exponentially, wait 7 years for public dental care (extraction not a crown or bridge,) wait 18 months for correction of a simple umbilical hernia, wait 8 years for cataract surgery even after you are denied a licence due to blindness.
Lift something heavy, crick your back, get carried to the GP, on a board because you can’t move, for a referral to a specialist and get put on a 2 year waiting list just to see if you need a procedure.
It’s your choice - put your health on the public waiting list, or pay about 5-9% of gross average income and have your health service tomorrow.

Bill of Queensland says:

04:12pm | 15/02/12

This is the FIRST HIT of MANY MANY MORE HITS to anything PRIVATE ! LABOR IDEOLOGY excludes private education or health because this HIGHLIGHTS LABOR FAILURES!  LABOR has already SQUANDERED the Private Health Insurance Rebate savings on their costly failed asylum seeker policies! LABOR POLICY puts AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYERS a POOR THIRD, WELL BEHIND meeting UN DEMANDS! The disasterously costly Building the Education Revolution (BER) , Home Insulation and Malaysia debacle add up to more than any savings from means testing Private Health Insurance rebates. The mirage of savings will be exposed as access and waiting lists of public health facilities get worse as privately insured people are forced out.

Fiona says:

04:56pm | 15/02/12

Everyone who pays tax pays a small percentage for medicare. Someone said before that the poor don’t pay tax. Maybe those on pensions etc don’t have to, but even those on a low wage pay tax. Therefore they are paying a small amount towards Medicare. The reason we were"encouraged” via rebates, extra Medicare levy for those over certain income without health insurance etc, was because a lot of people weren’t insured. The public health system was struggling with the load.
I guess even though poorer people pay less tax there’s more of them than the rich aren’t there. So they probably do help subsidize Medicare. I don’t know why people struggle so much with this concept.

reality trumps concepts says:

07:23pm | 15/02/12

Fiona, the poor (whatever ‘poor’ means) really don’t pay tax.  Even the average income earner pays bugger all - especially if they have children.  I know because I am an average income earner and I’m embarrassed at how little tax I pay.

The reason people struggle with your ‘concept’ is because that’s all it is - a concept that exists in your mind.  Reality is different.

The truth is that upper income earners fund the whole of society while the lower income earners leech off it.  Everything from medicare, to public schooling, public transport, etc is funded by the eternally targetted ‘wealthy’.

Your idea that the lowly multitudes fund the existence of the rich is based on deeply rooted ignorance.  You’re just imagining what the figures might be.  If the lower 50% earners stopped paying tax tomorrow we would barely notice.  If the top 50% stopped paying tax Australia would be a third world country.  I don’t know why people struggle so much with reality.

Tim says:

01:20pm | 15/02/12

Dash,
I would gladly tell the person on $150K they don’t deserve a subsidy.

The problem isn’t means testing Private Health care it’s the level it’s set at.
It should be far lower.

Dash says:

01:35pm | 15/02/12

Tim, the high income earners are the ones paying for the system. They are the ones subsidising everyone else! And as thanks they are forced not to use it!

People who conveniently ignore the amount of medicare levy these people are paying are either stupid or on the ALP gravy train. When the waiting list at your public hospital grows and you have to get in line behind rich people who are paying more medicare levy than you, remember the government you voted for!

andrew says:

01:47pm | 15/02/12

Dash

i dont believe you are rich, but i do believe that you earn enough to support a lifestyle that you can and should have - without going beyond your means. 

you made the choice to have a child (or was it an accident) which in turn appears to have reduced your income to a single source.  this is your decision, why should the government prop you up?

here is a little tip for you - you dont get private health insurance becuase of the tax system.  you get private health insurance because you care about your health and that of your family.  if you get it for tax purposes, cancel it.

here is another tip for you, something the government nor the insurance companies advertise greatly.  there are two components to health cover, hospital and extras.  you only need hospital cover to avoid medicare levy surcharge.  in fact most of the advertising you see on tv and billboards is detailing the waiting periods for the extra cover.  however most people i know have both (like myself) because of optical, dental etc etc.  so if money is tight and you dont need optical or dental or a massage, cancel the extra cover you have.

just remember, yes the ALP are changing this, but it was the coalition government that initally introduced this scheme in the first place.

Tim says:

02:07pm | 15/02/12

Dash,
that’s what our tax system is all about. Higher income earners will pay a higher amount.
The government needs to simplify the tax system and remove all these subsidies to the middle class.
These means tests should kick in at $50 -60K.

We’ve got far too many people being a drag on government spending, it’s time to kick their snouts out of the trough.

stevem says:

03:04pm | 15/02/12

Higher income earners do pay more and that is the system. Correct. This Insurance situation is something different. Get your head out of your backside and look at Daash’s numbers and explain how the 30% is welfare. the person on $150k is paying $2250 Medicare and not being allowed to get any benefit from it. Some universal healthcare!

On top of that pay $1400 for private healthcare. This “welfare cut” as you call it means that a $1400 private premium becomes $2000. How the F^&$ does being forced to pay $1400 on top of $2250 equate to welfare? How can being forced to pay yet another $600 for a service that should be covered in the $2250 Medicare Levy be fair?

You are clearly stuck in the mindset that nobody who earns more than you should be wrung dry. Just how much do you think people should expect to be bled for? Clearly $3650 for health is not enough - Will $4250 be enough or would you like us to perhaps double that again?

We’ve paid your damn $900 Stimulus payment, we’re paying for Queensland’s negligence in not insuring themselves, we’ll pay for your Carbon tax rebate. How about You pay your own Bl&*^y way for a change?

Ando says:

03:27pm | 15/02/12

Andrew,
I doesn’t matter what you think.The only thing that matters is whether this will cause people in Dash’s position to reduce their cover. If it does it will be a disaster for everyone

Dash says:

03:48pm | 15/02/12

@Ando - yes I will reduce my cover to the bare minimum now. I have to have it because the surcharge increase to 1.5% will kill me. I will reduce it to make up the shortfall. I guess that means a lot more people in the public health system which will mean increased cost to the taxpayer. It’s hard to see why the ALP are looking for such short term gain.

@Andrew - you completely miss the point. The coalition introduced the scheme but in order to soften the blow of forcing people off public health and into the private system, they gave the rebate. Now the ALP are taking it away and at the same time introducing the surcharge. The ALP have again increased taxes. Carbon tax, flood tax, private health tax, superannuation tax. High spending and high taxing and they still can’t balance the nations budget!

@Stevem - thank you. that’s exactly the point I make. We’re subsidising their health, we’ve paid for the ALPs negligence in Queensland, we’re paying for their carbon tax rebate, we paid for their $900 handouts, it’s about time the ALP stopped this ridiculous class war. When is enough enough? they can only bite the hand that feeds it for so long.

Dash says:

03:55pm | 15/02/12

@Tim - but it’s OK for ALP backed builders to feed at the taxpayer trough under the BER?? It’s OK to waste $13m not to deliver grocery choice. And Ok to waste $21m not to deliver fuelwatch? And to use $200m to bring people from Malaysia, and $10m to set up a climate change propaganda institute and a further $13m on propaganda mailouts? It’s OK to waste billions on a second stimulus that was way too big and rack up record levels of foreign debt?

Give me a break. These people are paying for everything! The top 10% of taxpayers contribute more than 50% of the PAYG tax revenue. And the ALP keep taking more! They paid your $900 handout, they subsidise your health care, they bail out the Queensland state government, they lose the cossessions for saving for their retirement and you still want more?

Tim says:

04:18pm | 15/02/12

Yes Dash,
Because me saying we should cut these subsidies means I approve of waste in other areas.

Oh wait, no it doesn’t.

I’m one of the people who gets my rebate completely cut.  The only thing I’m worried about is the fact these means tests don’t cut in at much lower levels.
John Howard started this entitlement mentality and the ALP have continued it. It needs to stop.

Fiona says:

05:01pm | 15/02/12

Stevem, once you take out health insurance your Medicare levy reduces from 2250 to about 1000, the same as everyone else’s. You only pay extra if you don’t take out the insurance. Our accountant used to bang on about it all the time, until we took out health insurance.

james says:

09:10am | 16/02/12

Dash

The stick, i.e the surcharge was all Howards creation.
Deal with it.
The rich don’t need welfare.
Means test for private school government funding must be next.

stevem says:

09:30am | 16/02/12

No Fiona, The Levy is $2250. 1.5% of 150,000. Not taking out private insurance would cost another 1% (soon to rise as part of this deal) or $1500 taking the cost to $3750 (soon $4500) or 4 times the cost you describe a “anybody else”.

Dash says:

09:51am | 16/02/12

@Fiona - medicare is a flat 1.5% of your gross wage. The more you earn, the more you pay. It is not the “same as everyone elses”. You’re talking about the surchage which the ALP increased yesterday.

@James - yes and the rebate carrot that the ALP has just removed was also Howards! And the ALP have increased the stick. They are forcing people to reduce their level of cover, and once again putting more and more of the financial responsibility of running this country on to the top 10% who already pay for most of everything!

Your view, that being forced to incur an expense is welfare is such a blinded ALP propaganda view of the world it’s laughable! How can forcing someone to incur $1,000 health bill be welfare?

Your so called “Rich” are subsidising everyone elses health, they paid for the Qld ALPs failure to insure, they are the ones subsidising the carbon tax compensation, they are the ones paying for Craig Thompsons legal bills, they are the ones who paid for your $900 handout! And you want to whinge about about a rebate that was put in place because people were forced to incur a cost? This communist sickness infesting the ALP and their supporters will lead us down the path Greece has taken!

Time you took responsibility for your own health and stopped having it subsidised by the “rich”! The ALP are playing class wars.

james says:

10:46am | 16/02/12

I love seeing the rich cry poor, makes my day.

The threshold for howards medicare surcharge was moved by the Labor government from 50k to 80k, now that is fairness.

Dash
Why hasn’t Tony given you a blood oath to repeal it? Because he doesn’t have the bollocks. Another meaningless aspiration.

redvixen says:

01:23pm | 15/02/12

And let me guess, Loxy, you actually *worked* to be in your current income bracket!  How dare you!  If you’d been a drain on the system you wouldn’t have this problem.

Loxy says:

02:10pm | 15/02/12

Yes redvixen, all going to uni and working hard seems to get you with Julia is more and more taxes! I’ll take your suggestion to be a drain on the system under advisement, after all it seems to be quite a lucrative business these days living off welfare.

LostinPerth says:

04:17pm | 15/02/12

If you are paying $100K in taxes your family income is a lot more then $205K, in fact it is probably closer to $300K. And at that level, why should you receive a government subsidy when there are pensioners who are trying to live on a third of what you pay in tax each year who cant get access to a dentist?

Greedy people whinging about losing their perks is very unattractive

stevem says:

04:44pm | 15/02/12

LostinPerth. Once again I ask, How on earth is being forced to pay 70% of a private insurance premium a perk when we’ve paid over $2k per year for a Medicare system we can’t use?
We’ve paid for the universal healthcare. That should be enough. 70% of a service we don’t want isn’t a perk. 100% is just wrong.

lostinperth says:

09:09pm | 15/02/12

@stevem - what do you mean you “cant” use.?? Care to explain. Is there some law which I am unaware of that precludes you from seeing a doctor or receiving prescription medicine under the PBS?

You view it as an extra tax. I view it as removing a government subsidy from people who earn so much they dont really need it or deserve it.

Sorry, but I believe that freeing up money to pay for medical treatment for the poor and pensioners is more important then maintaining a government rebate for those earning over $200K a year.

Liz says:

11:45am | 16/02/12

Lostinperth - We can’t use it as if we try to, we’re hit with an additional levy to the normal medicare levy of we want to actually use the system. This is what everyone is up in arms about. I have NO PROBLEM paying tax, and understand that I need to pay a higher amount of tax to support those less fortunate. That is fine. But what upsets me is being forced into private health insurance when I should be able to pay my (substantially higher) taxes and actually USE the system/s I support.
It is you who is coming across as greedy - wanting to fleece everyone for your own benefit. I bet you’re not forced into private health insurance and I would lay my life on it that you’re not going to have to pay the extra 1.5% levy they are now going to screw us over with.

Kika says:

02:38pm | 15/02/12

Robert, terminations aren’t covered by health insurance!!!  They aren’t even covered by Medicare! Extreme trolling?

I gave up my health insurance, otherwise, for the same reasons you had. Why should I pay for something I rarely if ever receive a benefit for? Glasses? My ex insurer refused to confirm indemnity for emergency surgery my husband needed in case it was pre-existing - his ankle was sliced upon! They were concerned it was ‘pre existing’ - yeah sure.

Emma E says:

06:14pm | 15/02/12

@Kika, Medicare does, in fact, subsidise terminations. It is up to half of the cost of the termination i.e $300 of $600+ for the procedure.

Private Health Insurance does not cover it, as far as I’m aware.

iMitchy says:

01:25pm | 15/02/12

Ascent of Money documentaries were fantastic. Everybody should see them.

Libby says:

02:30pm | 15/02/12

Except that even when you have insurance, and you need to claim, your insurance company will try every trick in the book to get out of paying you.  The gamble is that you pay out all your money in premiums and hope that your costs will actually be covered if and when you need it.

St. Michael says:

03:51pm | 15/02/12

@ Libby: “Except that even when you have insurance, and you need to claim, your insurance company will try every trick in the book to get out of paying you.”

Personal experience on that, I take it, or are you just generalising? Got any statistics there for denied claims versus admitted claims in Australia per year?

Insofar as single subjective experience is valid, I can tell you every time I’ve had to claim with my insurance company, they’ve paid out.  And quickly.  But then maybe that’s because of the following…

” The gamble is that you pay out all your money in premiums and hope that your costs will actually be covered if and when you need it.”

No, the gamble is when you choose to sign an insurance agreement without reading the fine print or getting advice on it before you sign.  This is true of any legal document or agreement you get into.  There is no gamble if you know exactly what insurance you’re getting, which, to be fair, most people don’t bother to work out.

Libby says:

04:17pm | 15/02/12

@St M - yes, personal experience - waiting 7 months now… 

And what’s even better, I’m a lawyer, so i am trained to read and interpret complex contracts and i heartily dispute your assertion that i didnt understand or bother to read what i was signing.  Moreover, in my fight with my insurer to date, i have been better placed than most to argue on my own behalf. 

Unfortunately, in my case at the moment, i’m too sick to keep up the fight.  I have more important things to focus on so it looks like i’ll just have to cut my losses and focus on my health. 

It’s nice that you’ve had an easy run with your insurers, but trust me, once you’ve been burned, you’ll start to question the true value of it as I have.

Nyx says:

04:19pm | 15/02/12

@Libby - That’s simply just not true. Insurance companies are there in order to pay out claims based on what you pay to be covered for. If you fail to read the PDFs provided to you, or ask the correct questions before you sign up for insurance, that’s not the insurance company’s fault…its yours.

St. Michael says:

04:31pm | 15/02/12

“And what’s even better, I’m a lawyer, so i am trained to read and interpret complex contracts…”

So am I.  And I know the first advice I give myself as a lawyer is to never represent myself.

Fiona says:

05:12pm | 15/02/12

Well, I’ve made some massive claims over the years, for house (fire, complete payout), health ( unexpected retinal surgery for one of my kids and brain surgery for myself)  and trauma (due to second health claim mentioned) and income protection through my super. The only one that knocked me back was the trauma and even that paid out eventually, after review.  I’m no fan of insurance companies, but generally they pay out when they’re meant to.

JT says:

06:16pm | 15/02/12

As they say; A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. It seems Libby if your fight has dragged on this long that you did not read the contract you signed and the insurance company is confident of this fact.

Liz says:

12:07pm | 16/02/12

We took out top level private health insurance.My partner injured himself running and had to have his knee operated on. We paid over 7k out of our own pocket, and received about $1500 from our insurer. Apparently only the hospital stay was covered. Not the surgeon, mediation, anaesthetic etc etc… go figure.  Then the rehabilitation started. Only covered us for up to 5 physiotherapy visits. Why bother??

Libby says:

06:38pm | 16/02/12

My, oh my…  your compassion is overwhelming…

Not only have you been able to come to a decision regarding the merits of my claim, you have also managed to determine that my professional skills are lacking - from all of about 6 sentences…

If I don’t have the energy to fight with my insurer, i sure as hell don’t have the energy to fight you with lot, but for the record, I am not representing myself - to have any sort of claim on foot would require my insurer to have actually given me an answer, but instead it has been over 5 months in the assessment phase as they trawl my medical history for reasons to deny my claim.

How do i know that?  For one, a call from my gynaecologist from 7 years ago who was asked to give a report to my insurer for a claim that was absolutely nothing to do with my reproductive system! 

You lot must work for insurance companies!

Kika says:

02:52pm | 15/02/12

Rich should be charged less for health cover? Why???

Gosh these comments about rich paying less tax is a joke! Move to the US where you can pay less tax if you earn more. We live in a fair society where you pay according to a scale which you can afford. I think I pay too much tax too and I earn less than $65K pa. Tough bickies isn’t it… Tax is part of life. Get used to it.

iMitchy says:

05:06pm | 15/02/12

@Kika,

Oleg said the “rich should be charged less for their health cover”, not, charged less tax. He said this on the basis of: a “lower health cost the richer you are” because his “guess is that health and income are positively correlated”.

He has good reason to suspect this as healthy food is generally more expensive whilst fast food (which is high in bad stuff and low in good stuff which means it makes you fat and sick) is cheaper and outlets tend to be common in lower socioeconomic areas. It’s been studied and reported on and discussed here on the punch and elsewhere countless times. It has become common knowledge.
For that reason, you can look into it yourself, I can’t be bothered citing sources.

Oleg says:

07:30pm | 15/02/12

@iMitchy, Thanks for your reply to @Kika.

The point I wanted to make is that Meducare already charges more for health cover from the rich. Let’s call a spade a spade - we have a new tax in everything but the name. True, Howard essentially created a tax cut under the table. This is ‘real politik’. I also wanted to highlight that health charges are not ‘fair’ from Economics perspective.

However, I don’t see why ‘rich’, irrespective of definition, need to demonized and demeaned. I don’t complain about how much tax I pay but claiming that I’m subsidized by the poor is disingenuous at the least.

redvixen says:

01:24pm | 15/02/12

Please explain your reasoning as to why dependent children should be tax deductible.

Mumofmany says:

01:56pm | 15/02/12

@ redvixen

Making children tax deductible would replace the Family Tax Benefit. Our economy needs children to be born, and as a way of recognising the costs the government already assists parents to meet this need. There could be a limit to the number of children one could claim a deduction for, or the amount could be reduced after the first 2 or 3. This is simply a way of families being recognized for the social contribution they are making by allowing them to keep more of their own money, and leave welfare payments for those seriously in need (unemployed, disabled and very low income earners). Basically getting rid of the ‘take with one hand, give with the other’ that happens now, and the vote-buying of giving more of other people’s money to one sector - just let parents keep a bit more of what they already earn!

Mumofmany says:

01:56pm | 15/02/12

@ redvixen

Making children tax deductible would replace the Family Tax Benefit. Our economy needs children to be born, and as a way of recognising the costs the government already assists parents to meet this need. There could be a limit to the number of children one could claim a deduction for, or the amount could be reduced after the first 2 or 3. This is simply a way of families being recognized for the social contribution they are making by allowing them to keep more of their own money, and leave welfare payments for those seriously in need (unemployed, disabled and very low income earners). Basically getting rid of the ‘take with one hand, give with the other’ that happens now, and the vote-buying of giving more of other people’s money to one sector - just let parents keep a bit more of what they already earn!

Mumofmany says:

01:56pm | 15/02/12

@ redvixen

Making children tax deductible would replace the Family Tax Benefit. Our economy needs children to be born, and as a way of recognising the costs the government already assists parents to meet this need. There could be a limit to the number of children one could claim a deduction for, or the amount could be reduced after the first 2 or 3. This is simply a way of families being recognized for the social contribution they are making by allowing them to keep more of their own money, and leave welfare payments for those seriously in need (unemployed, disabled and very low income earners). Basically getting rid of the ‘take with one hand, give with the other’ that happens now, and the vote-buying of giving more of other people’s money to one sector - just let parents keep a bit more of what they already earn!

Shane From Melbourne says:

02:32pm | 15/02/12

@Mumofmany. No. If we need extra people (not that I think Australia needs any more people) simply import adults through immigration. This saves the state the costs of maternity ward places, child care subsidies, education subsidies etc. and plus they can be a contributing taxpayer instead of a drain on the state for 18 years. Children should not be a tax deduction or subsidized in any shape or form.

Kika says:

02:44pm | 15/02/12

@Mumofmany - how would making children tax deductible any less of a public burden than what the other middle class welfare is doing? If that’s the case you could keep your receipts for everything you have spent on your child - food, clothing, beds, cutlery, manchester, travel, school expenses, EVERYTHING could be claimed.

Why should I, a childless tax payer, pay tax towards your personal choice to have many kids?

How about we make the pill tax deductible (i.e. free) and do everyone a favour? This would prevent people having too many kids and reducing everyone’s tax burden?

Mumofmany says:

03:03pm | 15/02/12

@Kika, @Shane

I’m assuming, then, that you don’t support Family Tax Benefit either?  All I’m suggesting is changing the current method of subsidising parents.  I don’t think you’ll find that either party would ever scrap parenting payments, but I think there is a better way to do it.  Making things tax deductible is a way of helping people to help themselves, rather than encouraging the attitude that ‘the government owes me’.  The more you earn, the more you should get - and if you are doing things that help society as a whole like taking out private health insurance or having children then the government can reward you by taking a little less tax.  Welfare should only be for those with a REAL need.

Kika says:

04:50pm | 15/02/12

Mumofmany - it’s actually false to assume having children benefits society. It has been demonstrated time and time again that low populations with high resources benefit better than spreading the resources around to more people. Norway has a lot of natural resources as we do and has a low population, so more people can benefit from the pie.

More kids = more mouths to feed. You AND the public.

Oh and tax subsidisation = welfare

Mumofmany says:

05:18pm | 15/02/12

@Kika

Please tell how a society, in the long run, benefits from no children being born?  Tell that to countries, such as Latvia, who are in serious economic decline due to birth rates well below replacement level. 

Less tax does not equal welfare, it is the government ‘allowing’ you to keep more of your money to spend/save as you see fit.  Welfare is the government giving you someone else’s money because they see you as needing it more than the person who earned it.

Geoffrey Chaucer says:

01:38pm | 15/02/12

You mean the same system as in the USA?

Yeah, that works really well. When it comes to public health, worse country in the world after Bangladesh and Uganda.

Dan Webster says:

03:02pm | 15/02/12

“Lets remember its the middle and upper class that are responsible for building Australia, without the jobs created by companies owned by the middle and upper class there would be no ‘lower class’. “

Lets remember it’s the lower class people who do the shit jobs, that the middle and upper would never do, and get shit money for it….....

JT says:

06:21pm | 15/02/12

@Dan Webster
“Lets remember it’s the lower class people who do the shit jobs, that the middle and upper would never do, and get shit money for it…..... “

They get paid what they are worth. If they don’t like it, they can undertake the same hard work, study and sacrifice Nick did to improve their lot in life. The fact so many don’t and prefer to whine about it is why they will forever do the shit jobs for shit money.

Liz says:

12:04pm | 16/02/12

@Dan - actually, no. They don’t - our government ship in people from other countries to do that. God forbid an Aussie would get his/her hands dirty!

Kika says:

02:31pm | 15/02/12

You are richer than me! I don’t earn anywhere near that.

Hillsgirl says:

03:19pm | 15/02/12

Yeah Kika, I appreciate that and I’m totally *not* wringing my hands and crying ‘poor me’. But then again I’m nowhere near “rich” - servicing an average mortgage, running a below-average car, paying ever-increasing utilities etc etc. $85k gross just isn’t what it used to be. And I’m lucky, I’m not bringing up kids (though that would open up a fair load of welfare opportunities…).

On thinking about it more though, my beef with the loss of the PHI rebate is probably more to do with the cost of my premiums, the necessary stuff they don’t cover (scans) and the bucketloads of complete BS they do (homeopathy, give me strength! and you’re covering it for others even if you don’t choose it for yourself). The one time I’ve needed hospitalisation I was still out of pocket by $1.5K so really think that public would have been the way to go as “rich” or not, the unplanned expense sure put a dent in the budget!

Ando says:

03:22pm | 15/02/12

Kika
Unfortunately your comment sums up some peoples distorted definition of “rich”. I hope you were joking.

Kika says:

04:59pm | 15/02/12

Did I say ‘she is rich?’. I said she is richer than me, fact. I don’t even own a home yet.

The whole average income thing is a joke. I am nowhere near there yet I live a comfortable lifestyle… I guess it’s about living within your means and saving, right?

Kika says:

02:41pm | 15/02/12

Exactly. I didn’t renew mine. I reckon it’s not worth it at all because when you DO need them they hardly cough up a razoo anyway.

Fiona says:

05:26pm | 15/02/12

Well, good for you then. The two biggest ops I and one of my kids, had were done in a private hospital and couldn’t be done publicly and I give thanks every day that we had such good surgeons.  I know someone that recently had stereotactic radio surgery and the only place in the state that has that facility is in a private hospital.
I love the public system, I’ve worked in it for years (and used both systems too) and quite often the same staff that work in the private system work in the public one. Sometimes you get better facilities in a public hospital, butnot always. That’s what private health insurance is there for.

Kika says:

02:33pm | 15/02/12

Maybe move to Monaco where you don’t have to pay income tax and pay for own potholes to be filled and your buses to run. Yes… ahem nothing gets done. But you get the point. We pay tax to live in a functioning society.

Get real! Everyone pays tax on a scale for how much they earn. Why should you pay less tax just because you earn more? Move to US. They can help you with that.

Browned off says:

02:34pm | 15/02/12

My plan is to continue with my PHI but if I need anything done that is not urgent or life threatening I will be using the public health system and not telling anyone I have private insurance. I’ll be paying double the Medicare Levy after all, at least I’ll get something for the effort it takes to earn that money.

JT says:

06:27pm | 15/02/12

@Kika

‘‘The state has no income tax and low business taxes, and is well-known for being a tax haven.[26] Monaco boasts the world’s highest GDP nominal per capita at $172,676, and GDP PPP per capita at $186,175.[27][28] Monaco also has the world’s highest life expectancy at almost 90 years,[29] and the lowest unemployment rate at 0%,[30] with over 40,000 workers who commute from France and Italy each day.[31][12] For the third year in a row, Monaco in 2011 had the world’s most expensive real estate market, at $56,300 a square meter.[32] According to the CIA World Factbook, Monaco has the world’s lowest poverty rate,[25] and the highest millionaires and billionaires per capita in the world.[33]’‘

Sounds good to me.

Terry2 says:

04:27pm | 15/02/12

Sorry, I forgot:
5. Stop the NBN rollout
and if Mr Abbott doesn’t have control of both houses he will have a double dissolution in his first term; he’s going to be busy isn’t he.

Fiona says:

10:14am | 16/02/12

WTF? Of course private hospitals do the hard stuff. They have ICUs, cardiac, neuro and oncology wards. What happens is if you’re in a car accident, for example, an ambulance will take you to the nearest public hospital. If, when you’re there and competent to make the decision, you can choose to transfer to a private hospital.

The King says:

01:42pm | 16/02/12

Tim
You are clearly delusional!
If anything serious happens to me, i’ll be going private all the way!

LostinPerth says:

04:23pm | 15/02/12

Actually you “susidise” the system to the tune of $1,350. The medicare levy is 1.5%. (Never let facts or a basic inability to do multiplication ruin a good whinge).

You are only “subsidising” the system if you, or your family, never see a doctor or go to a hospital or take medication use during the year. Otherwise you are getting a benefit and not subsidising anyone.

Margaret Gray says:

05:08pm | 15/02/12

“...Actually you “susidise” the system to the tune of $1,350. The medicare levy is 1.5%...”

Actually, this proves how little you know about the Medicare system, who and how it is funded.

1.5% is only the BASIC levy.

If you bothered to do any research you would know that an additional surcharge of 1% of your taxable income is applicable:

A.  above $77,000 (single, no dependants)
B.  household income above $154,000 (dependants or not)

That means you on $50K pays a paltry $750 a year into Medicare.

Meanwhile, I and plenty of other high achievers subsidise you, your family and your red-headed stepchild by a factor of +5.

Last year it was $3,750 straight into Medicare coffers + a further $1750 in ‘flood levy’.

With nothing to show for it either.  Now the government wants to slug me again.

On $50K your total tax bill is just 17% of the total.

I pay almost twice as much tax as you earn with 40% of my income taken handed over to the government.

That gives me a right to “whinge”.

lostinperth says:

09:24pm | 15/02/12

@Margaret Gray - How patronising of you to suggest I only earn $50K. And describing yourself as a “high achiever” -  your modesty is astounding.

As a mere mortal, I beg your forgiveness for pointing out you only pay the extra 1% if you dont have private cover.

As you claim to pay $3,750 to medicare but only 40% tax, then I calculate that you dont have private insurance. So are you actually whinging about losing a government rebate you dont use or did you make up the rest of your figures?

BTW, I earn a lot more then $50K, in fact if you pay are in the 40% bracket I earn more then you. But if there was a new tax for being a stuck up patronising idiot then I’m afraid you would qualify for that as well.

liz says:

12:16pm | 16/02/12

Margaret Gray -

“Meanwhile, I and plenty of other high achievers subsidise you, your family and your red-headed stepchild by a factor of +5.”

Absolute gold.

Kika says:

04:51pm | 15/02/12

Exactly. They wouldn’t remember that important fact that it was a liberal government who brought in the lifetime guarantee coverage and the rebates. Not ALP.

Roy says:

07:50pm | 15/02/12

Kika
I remember Howards rebate, his mates in the insurance companies put their charges up immediately, so I did not get any reduction at all in my premium!  Shortly after I finally got sick of always paying extra, that the private insurance did not cover, and after 30 years I dropped my private cover.  Been medicare only since, and have invested my (then) $200 a month premium since.
Govt money should only be directed to the public system, no private rebates. With the extra cash the public sytem would easliy cope. As mentioned previously, if you have a major emergency (heart attack, car crash)  your beloved private sytem will not be the one that takes on the job of saving you. Same with the elderly, they will shove you out the door and into the public sytem as quick as they can.

stevem says:

12:22pm | 16/02/12

Why encourage people on $80k plus? Based on the rhetoric from Canberra these people are the leeches on society, taking money from the poor and deserve all they get. Labor must have decided these people all vote Liberal anyway so to hell with them.

Jay says:

07:36am | 17/02/12

I was actually hoping that they were going to tell us the truth and honour their pre election commitments. Instead they tell us what they want to hear and then go off and do whatever. I know I will not trust them again and there are many people I speak to who have the same opinion.