Comments on: Senate Economics Committee reports on Medicare Levy Surcharge Bills

By: Anthony Peterson

Anthony Peterson — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:37:42 +0000

There are limits to family budgets. I am one of those young healthy people who probably will drop out. I will do so for two reasons.

Firstly, its not insurance – its tax. Lets be honest here. True insurance is based on risk. An under 25 year old pays more than a 55 year old to insure their car, but the same to insure their body. Go figure. Cardivascular fitness, Body Mass Index, smoking and drinking have nothing to do with the price of insurance policies in this country – and frankly that stinks. I long for a day when Governments can be honest and just call a spade a spade. We are not stupid.

Secondly, we are “blessed” with statisically abnormal housing unaffordability. Whats blessed the Boomers has cursed the Gen X and Ys. This burden of debt has reached such a crisis point that our health will suffer. Period. There comes a point where in order to lead a healthier life you simply must have more disposable income. That means less debt or more income or a combination of both.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:18:27 +0000

David, if you are going to benefit from the service, then do it – it is a tough one. I know that what I seek is an ideal. If you have an illness that requires elective surgery, then you should consider your options.

Unfortuntally, we have to live within the confines of the system we currenly have…

By: David

David — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:59:02 +0000

Adam, I’m not worried about the level of care – let’s face it, if you’re seriously ill the private providers don’t want to know, and they’ll fuck you off to the nearest public hospital anyway. It’s the waiting that could be an issue, as my near-future plans involve being reasonably mobile.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:49:37 +0000

Chris – I think the best bet would be to remove the surcharge or to increse the medicare levy for all and enable full public provision of healh care. Private health insurance may go to the wall, however, the government can contract out services to the private sector – hospitals – using their market power – as the only purchaser of health services in the economy to lower costs. Coupled with the savings involved to the economy on lower admin costs – PHI is around 14% while Medicare has around 3% and the rebate the level should only have to be an increase of .75% – although I have done no modelling on this…

David – I recently had a cornea transplant through the public system, while you have to wait, you still get a good level of care and have had no problems..

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:55:31 +0000

The people I associate with ar Proud to be private health members and doing their bit to at least partially get off the public purse.
- kingsley
.
Err, your associates do realise that the value of the tax rort they have been given often exceeds the likely public health expediture on them, don’t they?
.
They’re not “off the public purse” at all, just as “self-funded” retirees aren’t (on average the actuarial value of their super tax concessions and Senior Australians Tax Offset far exceeds the value of an age pension).

By: Chris (a different one)

Chris (a different one) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:20:56 +0000

Adam – if wages have grown about that much then shouldn’t the threshold be set at around 60-70k rather than 100k? And why the other change at not having the family income threshold double the single income threshold (150k rather than 200k).

David – well you can self insure, though there is a risk involved in that you might need it tommorow when you haven’t saved enough money up yet and it requires a fair amount of financial discipline not to spend the savings. But hey insurance premiums are all about reducing risk. You buy insurance expecting to lose money in the long term (that or your insurance company is going to be bankrupt in the long term which is far worse).

By: David

David — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:37:45 +0000

Andos, the reason the Libs won’t back this (even if they viewed it as a tax cut) is because it would directly affect their mates in the private health industry. I agree they should be getting a shellacking over it, though.

Adam, I agree with you completely about health funds. However I lack the courage of your convictions – the thought of needing a new knee and having to wait years for it worries me a lot (particulalry as my knees are starting to get dodgy).

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:00:45 +0000

In some peoples eyes, it isn't really a tax cut - basically it is a redistribution of money from the government (people paying the surcharge) to PHI (paying premiums to avoid the surcharge). The lifting of the threshold is the same as readjusting the tax brackets for bracket creep... Just look at the increase in average weekly earning from 2000 - $800/week or $41k to today, whereby average wages are $1,132/week or $58k a year. This means that there is a vast proportion of the populations being squeezed at both ends either extra tax or pay for health insurance. No wonder the health insurance companies are seeking to protect their interests...

By: Andos

Andos — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:19:29 +0000

Is anyone else annoyed at the failure of media coverage to identify the changes to the Medicare Surcharge Levy as a tax cut for millions of middle income Australians?

I haven’t heard much in the media about the Opposition’s plans to oppose said tax cut. This is a tax cut which will actually save the Government money, not to mention all those workers who might save some money!

Surely the Liberals should be getting roasted about this??

By: Fine

Fine — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:03:12 +0000

Yay, Adam. If the private health insurance companies have products which people want, then they’ll be fine. like any other business. It’s been a giant rip-off of the Australian people.