How the rich get well - and enjoy subsidies



Before we get too carried away with our relative success, we should note that some ''reforms'' made by the Howard government to Medicare continue to attack equality of access.

The first of these is the private health insurance rebate, by which the government pays 30 per cent or more of the cost of private health cover. This is promoted as a way of ''taking pressure'' off the public system. Unhappily, the evidence for this is scant, whereas it is clear that treating people privately remains far more lucrative for doctors.

Many, if not most, of those with private health insurance are relatively well off and would have it regardless of the rebate. Yet it costs the taxpayer $3 billion a year and largely represents redistribution of scarce public health dollars to the affluent.

You fool, getting rid of the 30% rebate will place more demands on the public health system, as many (many who aren't rich by the way) wont be able to afford their private health care premiums.

If you think private health care is for the wealthy, think again, most people I know have it, and I wouldn't call them rich....just ordinary Australians.

I think it's particularly important to have it if you have children,  or are elderly.

If you think it's not made a difference, get rid of the 30% rebate and see how long you have to wait for surgery via the public system then.

I would be willing to pay an extra 30% for a year, just to show you up!

8-)

By getting rid of the rebate could we not put the money straight back, into the public hospital system?.

wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:53am:

How the rich get well - and enjoy subsidies Before we get too carried away with our relative success, we should note that some ''reforms'' made by the Howard government to Medicare continue to attack equality of access. The first of these is the private health insurance rebate, by which the government pays 30 per cent or more of the cost of private health cover. This is promoted as a way of ''taking pressure'' off the public system. Unhappily, the evidence for this is scant, whereas it is clear that treating people privately remains far more lucrative for doctors. Many, if not most, of those with private health insurance are relatively well off and would have it regardless of the rebate. Yet it costs the taxpayer $3 billion a year and largely represents redistribution of scarce public health dollars to the affluent.

I'd like to see Medicare worked in to the flat tax/high tax-free threshold proposed by the Henry Tax review. So if you set the high tax-free threshold at $25000, those who earn more than that are not entitled to Medicare. You then supplement that with easier access to Health Savings Accounts, or perhaps even forced savings similar to the Superannuation system, to help people get off the system of relying on third party insurance for medical coverage and on to a market-based system of paying for medical costs out of pocket. This is done very successfully in Singapore, which is ranked #6 in the world for health care according to the UN. Market-based health care works. You can achieve universal health care without government control.

If you get rid of the 30%, many many will exist the private health care system, and in droves, of which will place so much pressure on the public system, it would be ridiculous.

In theory, it sounds great, (I only have private extras, not hospital cover at present by the way given our local hospital is very good).. for when Rudd came in, we had to compromise)..but I can tell you now.... the ALP wouldn't put the 30% into public health, when they cant even put anything back into public education.

At least this way, we have choices, we may go public or private...the ALP would love to take these choices away from us.

The ALP wont be happy until we are a socialist Republic.

::)

Perhaps we could still keep the rebate for some people, but should we means test it for those that are well off?.  After all as you know, we cant all afford private health insurance.  In other words a rebate is all well and good, but should those that are well off, and that can easily afford the insurance still get the rebate?.

You will ALWAYS have divided opinion on middle class welfare - as you will on public funding to elite private schools

Don't expect consensus on a matter of personal political ideology

mellie wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:57am:

You fool, getting rid of the 30% rebate will place more demands on the public health system, as many (many who aren't rich by the way) wont be able to afford their private health care premiums. If you think private health care is for the wealthy, think again, most people I know have it, and I wouldn't call them rich....just ordinary Australians. I think it's particularly important to have it if you have children,  or are elderly. If you think it's not made a difference, get rid of the 30% rebate and see how long you have to wait for surgery via the public system then. I would be willing to pay an extra 30% for a year, just to show you up! 8-)

For once I agree with Millie.
*shock horror*

wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 10:14am:

Perhaps we could still keep the rebate for some people, but should we means test it for those that are well off?.  After all as you know, we cant all afford private health insurance.  In other words a rebate is all well and good, but should those that are well off, and that can easily afford the insurance still get the rebate?.

Everyone who pays tax, pays the medicare levy. If they are forced to pay the levi, then they are entitled to medicare. End of story. (residents anyway)

In a word NO, we should not.

Think of this situation -

1) A person is earning roughly A$150k per year. He takes out private healthcare. He is paying over $60,000 in tax to the ATO. When he needs hospital cover he doesn't use the public system.

2) A person is either not working, claiming benefits, earning a low amount and paying very little if any tax. He uses the public system.

Who is funding who? Who is helping to pay for the public system and NOT USING IT.


Answer me this why should those people who earn $150k+ directly pay for their own healthcare AND fund those who don't pay for the public system.

Why should we have one set of people living off the backs of others?
Why should we pay for other people?

I never had a free ride in life, I worked hard. I fail to see why its acceptable to give it others.

I refuse to support losers and deadbeats.

wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 10:14am:

Perhaps we could still keep the rebate for some people, but should we means test it for those that are well off?.  After all as you know, we cant all afford private health insurance.  In other words a rebate is all well and good, but should those that are well off, and that can easily afford the insurance still get the rebate?.

That's pretty much the concept of the upcoming legislation
The rebate would be means tested and gradually reduce, based on need

It would be abolished TOTALLY for a family on $300,000 plus per annum
There are those that argue that these people are 'not rich' and still in need of tax breaks, despite earning over FIVE times the average annual income
It is estimated those affected by the means  test in ANY way are the top 15% of income earners

Buzz - my family unit is not far off A$300k per year.
We are NOT rich.

Wayne Rooney earns in a WEEK what I earn in an entire year.

Tell me again that we are rich??

Comparing us to dropouts is hardly demonstrating we're rich.
Rich is Rooney, Beckham, Lleyton Hewitt, Rupert Murdoch, need I go on.....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 3:09pm:

Buzz - my family unit is not far off A$300k per year. We are NOT rich. Wayne Rooney earns in a WEEK what I earn in an entire year. Tell me again that we are rich?? Comparing us to dropouts is hardly demonstrating we're rich. Rich is Rooney, Beckham, Lleyton Hewitt, Rupert Murdoch, need I go on.....

You may not be "rich", on FIVE times the average workers income - but nor are you in need of government assistance to pay your family health insurance

The function of welfare is to give those at the bottom and middle of the ladder a bit of a boost up
If EVERYONE gets welfare - effectively, NO-ONE does

I fundamentally disagree.

If I am paying for private healthcare and not using the public system then explain to me why I should pay for someone else to use the public system at my expense and for them to pay nothing??

In the United States, I have private healthcare. I am able to afford this why?
Because my taxes are lower.
Why?
Because I do not have a burden of paying for other people to use a public system.

What a joke, my wife and I make over 100K combined so we took out the insurance to save on the costs of the medicare levy surcharge.

Get rid of the 30% rebate it cheaper for us to just pay the surcharge levy, or go out of our way to salary sacrifice so we dont pay either.

Just typical envy.  My wife and I are not even remotely rich, yet you want to screw us.  Sounds about right.

Verge wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 5:20pm:

What a joke, my wife and I make over 100K combined so we took out the insurance to save on the costs of the medicare levy surcharge. Get rid of the 30% rebate it cheaper for us to just pay the surcharge levy, or go out of our way to salary sacrifice so we dont pay either. Just typical envy.  My wife and I are not even remotely rich, yet you want to screw us.  Sounds about right.

On a combined income of $100K you will not be affected by the means test - and still receive the FULL 30% rebate

It doesn't even START to reduce till a combined income of $150K pa is reached, cutting out completely on a combined income of $300K pa

It will get that way whereby only the wealthy will consider private health cover.  Had the Coalition won this election, I would have stepped up my level of private cover, because I would have been secure knowing it would have been worth my while, though in light of a GALP now wishing to penalise those who are clearly not wealthy at all...150k combined is far from wealthy when you have kids school fees, and a mortgage to pay etc... what's the point?

Beware people, we are going to see more and more far-left socialist policies creeping out of the woodwork, whereby only the elite will reap the benefits of socialism and it's associated far-left policies.

::)

Just to clarify, as this means test seems to have been widely misconstrued .......






The Government is rebalancing the suite of policies supporting private health insurance – so that those with a greater capacity to pay for their own private health insurance do so.



•Tier 1: for singles earning more than $75,000 (couples $150,000), the Private Health Insurance Rebate will be 20 per cent for those up to 65 years (25 per cent for those over 65, and 30 per cent for those over 70 years). The Surcharge for avoiding private health insurance will remain at one per cent.


•Tier 2: for singles earning more than $90,000 (couples $180,000), the Private Health Insurance Rebate will be 10 per cent, for those up to 65 years (15 per cent for those over 65, and 20 per cent for those over 70 years). The Surcharge for avoiding private health insurance will be increased to 1.25 per cent.



•Tier 3: for singles earning more than $120,000 (couples $240,000), no Private Health Insurance Rebate will be provided. The Surcharge for avoiding private health insurance will be increased to 1.5 per cent.



http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2009/048.htm&pageID=&min=wms&Year=&DocType=0

Since the 2007 Federal election, Libs have discovered the concept of costs-benefits analysis - but only want to apply it selectively...and therefore they continue to rely upon elitist myths and assumptions on those issues that don't stack up...

In its current form, the 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate does not stand up to any reasonable costs-benefit analysis - FACT!

Here's a relevant article from 2009: -

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/rich-profit-from-a-sick-system-20090616-cghz.html


Quote:

Rich profit from a sick system John Watson June 17, 2009 It's time to end the wasteful private health rebate, which has not eased the burden on public hospitals. THE private health rebate is one of the worst rorts in Australian public policy. The uncapped cost has risen to $3.5 billion a year, a subsidy to an industry that mostly caters to the better-off half of the population, and does precious little to ease the load on public hospitals. The rebate would appear to be a natural target for anyone who professes to be concerned about wasteful spending and debt — the Coalition, for instance. Awkwardly, its constituents have become addicted to the middle-class welfare that the rebate epitomises. Last week, Coalition senators initially boycotted a Senate economics committee hearing into legislation to reduce the level of subsidy to holders of private health insurance. The bills came before the Senate again on Monday and were referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for further inquiry. It's about time something was done. Since the election of the Rudd Government in 2007, the Treasury has made repeated submissions to the effect that the rebate is "very poor policy" and should be dumped. A 2007 briefing to the Treasurer summed up the argument: "There is no doubt that its $3 billion annual cost to revenue could deliver far better health outcomes if directed to additional capacity in public hospitals." No other industry in Australia enjoys such a high level of assistance. Treasury would appear to have had a modest victory, with the bills before the house reducing the rebate to high-income singles and couples/families: to 20 per cent for those aged under 65 and earning more than $75,000 and $150,000 respectively, with the Medicare surcharge levy remaining at 1 per cent for those without cover; to 10 per cent for earnings above $90,000 and $180,000, with the surcharge increasing by 0.25 percentage points; and cutting out the rebate altogether for incomes of more than $120,000 and $240,000, with a 0.5 percentage point increase in the surcharge. The Treasury expects savings of $1.9 billion over four years, plus $150 million from the surcharge. It predicts that, faced with the stick of a surcharge increase, only about 25,000 adults will drop out. Last year, despite a rise in the income thresholds at which the surcharge applies, private health membership rose to 48.8 per cent of Australians. Predictably, the health funds are warning of a much more disastrous impact, arguing that "supporting private health frees up public beds for those who need them most", in the words of Catholic Health Australia chief executive Martin Laverty. He cites an Access Economics report that predicts 100,000 will drop out of private health — others claim as many as 250,000 — forcing up premiums and swelling public hospital queues by 36,000 patients. (Treasury's estimate is 8000 over two years.) There are several assumptions here: that private cover greatly eases the burden on public hospitals; that the rebate is a strong driver of membership; and that private health is equally cost-efficient. These claims were also made earlier this year in a letter to The Age by Australian Health Services Alliance CEO David King, who cited Ipsos Australia as his authority. None of these claims is supported by the evidence collected in the decade that various "carrot and stick" measures to support private health were introduced. The rebate is a sop to people paying for private cover, but did very little to boost membership. It was the policy "sticks" of the surcharge and lifetime health cover (which lifts premiums for every year that people over the age of 30 stay out of private cover) that did the trick. Health funds openly promote products that minimise coverage — the public system covers the gaps — while offering a way to "reduce tax". In the past, some people could even be better off financially for taking out health cover. Consider what Ipsos, which surveys the health market for the industry, had to tell a Australian Health Industry Association national conference before the current rearguard action against the Rudd Government reforms began. Message 1 was that private cover was far from being seen as a "must have", and the sticks far outweighed the rebate carrot in their effect. Hence Message 2, "A lot of 'stick … not much carrot" and Message 3: "If the 'stick' works … look for a bigger stick!". To reinforce the point, an Ipsos graph, for the period 1997 to 2005, showed 12 per cent of inquiries were "converted" into sales in 1999, when the rebate took effect. In its first year, only 0.8 per cent of the population joined up. After lifetime health cover came in, the "sales conversion" rate jumped to 49 per cent (labelled on the graph as the LHC Effect) and membership rose from 32.2 per cent...

Nothings been misconstrued at all, those who forked out for private health cover (and were basically forced to).. will be worse off AGAIN.
If my estimates are correct, young singles ,Greens meterosexuals and non breeders will be better off, though mature working couples and ordinary family's will be paying approx 10% more (in some cases more, depending on how close you are to the cut-off) based on a duel income earning of 150k.

::) The GALP don't like woooeerrking famaleees do they.

/Contd.


Quote:

Consider what Ipsos, which surveys the health market for the industry, had to tell a Australian Health Industry Association national conference before the current rearguard action against the Rudd Government reforms began. Message 1 was that private cover was far from being seen as a "must have", and the sticks far outweighed the rebate carrot in their effect. Hence Message 2, "A lot of 'stick … not much carrot" and Message 3: "If the 'stick' works … look for a bigger stick!". To reinforce the point, an Ipsos graph, for the period 1997 to 2005, showed 12 per cent of inquiries were "converted" into sales in 1999, when the rebate took effect. In its first year, only 0.8 per cent of the population joined up. After lifetime health cover came in, the "sales conversion" rate jumped to 49 per cent (labelled on the graph as the LHC Effect) and membership rose from 32.2 per cent of the population in March 2000 to 45.8 per cent in September 2000. Surely, the public hospitals' load was eased as a result? The Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association says the past decade's policies had "no effect in taking the burden off the public hospital system". Data published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows no discernible decline in the use of public hospitals in the years 2001-02 to 2003-04, the period immediately following the 42 per cent increase in private hospital coverage. Government spending on public hospitals grew annually by 8.9 per cent, up from 8.1 per cent in the period 1996-7 to 1998-9. Health fund finances have improved, though. Gross industry margins were up from about 10 per cent in 2001-02 to 15 per cent in 2006-07. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of private patients are admitted to public hospitals — about one in 10 admissions — as public hospitals seek extra revenue. Each private patient in a public hospital is denying a patient on a public waiting list a bed. The cost per procedure is significantly higher for private patients than public patients and fund members are more likely to seek non-essential treatment to justify the cost of their premiums. Health fund administration costs are also three times higher than those of Medicare. Taxpayers get much more bang for their buck from public health funding, by some estimates 20 per cent more, than from private health subsidies. If people can afford it, let them take out private cover — as I have — to avoid waiting lists and jump the queue, which is really the main attraction. But they should not expect to be subsidised by the taxpayers who don't have private cover, still a majority, and who don't see any benefits flowing to the public hospital system. John Watson is a senior writer.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/rich-profit-from-a-sick-system-20090616-cghz.html

I think the GALP think if they can change policy, they can change society, keep our birth rate low, allowing for more immigrants and their progeny to arrive , work for peanuts and allow foreign investors to buy up what's left of our artificially inflated housing market.
If you are a Meterosexual 'unmarried gay couple' who declare themselves mere flat-mates, you could really cash in here....take a look at it, it's more affordable to declare yourself single, than pay the duel-income rate.

Sure leaves the traditional family disadvantaged, when saying "I do" just became so much more of a burden.

I might be wrong here, but this is what it looks like to me.

Thanks GALP...  when being a single gay with an adopted child (and a flat-mate) becomes the more viable alternative to a nuclear Australian family.

We live comfortably on 60k. We are not poor. I guess to those who earn 20k we are well off. We have private health insurance. Without the rebate we probably could still afford it. But why shouldn't we get it?

I remember a certain hicks on Yahoo complaining that he had to take his sick daughter to a public hospital when she was ill.

And this is the point of health.  If you are in an accident, need urgent care, get in a fight then where do you end up?  In the PUBLIC system.  If you declare a private health insurance then you MAY get a better room and your own doctor if he is available, but buy and large you are at the mercy of public emergency procedures.

If you have a life threatening need for an operation, the public system will assist = of course if you have private insurance, you may get the same doctor in a private hospital, but you will be more comfortable in your single room.

If you need elective surgery, then private will see you through much quicker than public, but then again you have paid for it.

The wish of many would be to stay public, but save the insurance premium in a bank for a rainy day - I guess a few people may actually do that

Me, I have had private insurance for decades, if I need to go to publicemergency i declare it - even though in the end it costs me more

mellie wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 7:12pm:

I think the GALP think if they can change policy, they can change society, keep our birth rate low, allowing for more immigrants and their progeny to arrive , work for peanuts and allow foreign investors to buy up what's left of our artificially inflated housing market. If you are a Meterosexual 'unmarried gay couple' who declare themselves mere flat-mates, you could really cash in here....take a look at it, it's more affordable to declare yourself single, than pay the duel-income rate. A great rambling, but WTF has it to do with the topic of this thread? Sure leaves the traditional family disadvantaged, when saying "I do" just became so much more of a burden. I might be wrong here, but this is what it looks like to me. Thanks GALP...  when being a single gay with an adopted child (and a flat-mate) becomes the more viable alternative to a nuclear Australian family.

mellie wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 7:12pm:

I think the GALP think if they can change policy, they can change society, keep our birth rate low, allowing for more immigrants and their progeny to arrive , work for peanuts and allow foreign investors to buy up what's left of our artificially inflated housing market. If you are a Meterosexual 'unmarried gay couple' who declare themselves mere flat-mates, you could really cash in here....take a look at it, it's more affordable to declare yourself single, than pay the duel-income rate. Sure leaves the traditional family disadvantaged, when saying "I do" just became so much more of a burden. I might be wrong here, but this is what it looks like to me. Thanks GALP...  when being a single gay with an adopted child (and a flat-mate) becomes the more viable alternative to a nuclear Australian family.

Umm yeah...A great rant.  But WTF has it to do with this thread?

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 7:13pm:

We live comfortably on 60k. We are not poor. I guess to those who earn 20k we are well off. We have private health insurance. Without the rebate we probably could still afford it. But why shouldn't we get it?

Do we presume that you meant $200K?

The issue, Deborah, is that the non-means-tested rebate is not only inefficient but it is actually counter-productive - especially when we consider the opportunity costs!

What's worse: the rebate was unnecessary because the associated sticks have proven to work far better than the carrot!

Since we now have this wasteful carrot, it is difficult to remove it without backlash - so means-testing of the rebate is probably the best way forward!

Read it again, sam...  if health premiums become so unaffordable this and the medicare levy is lifted also, (penalised whichever way you go)...then are people going to be inclined to have one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country?

Just look at it, it's more affordable to be flat mates paying a single rate than a nuclear working family's combined rate.

Boomers are clearly being targeted here, as they are still working, are at a life-stage whereby they are earning more money now than they were before, have climbed the ladder and reached their maximum career potential (I can only speak for both my parents who are both 56)...,  though their kids have generally left the nest, (well, should have anyway)... and now they are being penalised for it.

Equitist wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 7:26pm:

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 7:13pm: We live comfortably on 60k. We are not poor. I guess to those who earn 20k we are well off. We have private health insurance. Without the rebate we probably could still afford it. But why shouldn't we get it? Do we presume that you meant $200K? The issue, Deborah, is that the non-means-tested rebate is not only inefficient but it is actually counter-productive - especially when we consider the opportunity costs! What's worse: the rebate was unnecessary because the associated sticks have proven to work far better than the carrot! Since we now have this wasteful carrot, it is difficult to remove it without backlash - so means-testing of the rebate is probably the best way forward!

No Equitist, I meant 20k. Which is less than our 60k and why I said, to them we would seem well off.

I get sick of the constant loser-driven cry to ban all benefits to those who dont need them as if 'need' is some kind of absolute definition. The classic photo I saw recently was Michelle Obama at a soup kitchen helping the 'poor' who all had mobile phones. 'Poor' is often synonymous with 'loser' and 'hopeless manager'. I have no problem with the govt supporting the poor - even those who are poor because they are lazy morons. we as a society accept that obligation without qualification. But to seek to penalise those who fund the majority of this welfare seems not only strange but decidely nasty. What exactly is the problem with letting the well-off have a few of the hundreds of welfare benefeits available to others? A very small amount of money flows to the well-off and when compared to the amount of money that is generated by these same people it is curious that some people think they should be penalised and abused for it.

This is the core of the loser/failure mentality: to attack those who do better than you do rather than to seek to be successful yourself. You could double the taxes of the successful and they will continue to be successful. You could double the welfare of the poor and they will continue to be poor. Success is defined and delivered by what is inside you, not by the welfare cheque.

A final example to think on... I knew a woman who was legally blind with less than 1% vision. She was offered the opportunity to have her sight restored, but refused saying 'then I wouldnt be able to claim welfare'. The loser mentality in all is inglorious ugliness.

Lol, and they wonder why a majority of boomers and elderly people wont vote Labor......when it's clear, all that will vote GALP are kids, dole bludgers, immigrants ..oh and young singles who have not a clue what this governments really all about yet, (A socialist republic)  and or how in the event should they conceive a child (heaven forbid) they will be paying through the nose for private health insurance, unless they earn a combined pittance or are on welfare in which case, they shouldn't be having kids anyway during these family-unfriendly times if they can help it.

Family unfriendly policies for a family unfriendly government.

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 7:13pm:

We live comfortably on 60k. We are not poor. I guess to those who earn 20k we are well off. We have private health insurance. Without the rebate we probably could still afford it. But why shouldn't we get it?

You WILL get it
Even a single person with no dependents on up to $75,000 pa will STILL get the FULL 30% rebate

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 7:52pm:

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 7:13pm: We live comfortably on 60k. We are not poor. I guess to those who earn 20k we are well off. We have private health insurance. Without the rebate we probably could still afford it. But why shouldn't we get it? You WILL get it Even a single person with no dependents on up to $75,000 pa will STILL get the FULL 30% rebate

Why is it when talking to labor supporters that the concept of 'principle' is impossible explain? I dont care whether I still get the rebate or not (and I do). That isnt how I define good from bad policy. I support maternity leave too and that policy is DEFINATELY of no value to me. You need to understand (if you can) that some people actually have core beleifs not tied to their personal advantage (or disadvantage). Just occasionally it would be nice to show some token appreciation to the segment of society that actually pays the govt's way.

Quote:

Why is it when talking to labor supporters that the concept of 'principle' is impossible explain?

I lean more towards labor than the other way.
I don't think that what you said is quite true. Although I can see why you might want to pull your hair out.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 7:57pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 7:52pm: Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 7:13pm: We live comfortably on 60k. We are not poor. I guess to those who earn 20k we are well off. We have private health insurance. Without the rebate we probably could still afford it. But why shouldn't we get it? You WILL get it Even a single person with no dependents on up to $75,000 pa will STILL get the FULL 30% rebate Why is it when talking to labor supporters that the concept of 'principle' is impossible explain? I dont care whether I still get the rebate or not (and I do). That isnt how I define good from bad policy. I support maternity leave too and that policy is DEFINATELY of no value to me. You need to understand (if you can) that some people actually have core beleifs not tied to their personal advantage (or disadvantage). Just occasionally it would be nice to show some token appreciation to the segment of society that actually pays the govt's way.

I couldn't agree MORE
I NEVER minded MY four decades of income-tax going towards childhood education and TPI war pensions
Services I would obviously never draw from

Should We Get Rid Of The Private Health Rebate ???


Absolutely not.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 2:53pm:

In a word NO, we should not. Think of this situation - 1) A person is earning roughly A$150k per year. He takes out private healthcare. He is paying over $60,000 in tax to the ATO. When he needs hospital cover he doesn't use the public system. 2) A person is either not working, claiming benefits, earning a low amount and paying very little if any tax. He uses the public system. Who is funding who? Who is helping to pay for the public system and NOT USING IT. Answer me this why should those people who earn $150k+ directly pay for their own healthcare AND fund those who don't pay for the public system. Why should we have one set of people living off the backs of others? Why should we pay for other people? I never had a free ride in life, I worked hard. I fail to see why its acceptable to give it others. I refuse to support losers and deadbeats.

I remember on Yahoo you said that when your daughter got sick your wife  took her to A & E ward at a public hospital and you complain about your wife had to sit with losers and deadbeats.

If the public health system is so bad why didn't you take her to a private hospital or go to a private doctor

It alright to rubbish the Public health system but it is there when you want it andrei you are two faced.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 8:18pm:

[quote author=longweekend58 link=1284422032/30#33 date=1284458265][quote author=buzzanddidj link=1284422032/30#32 date=1284457952][quote author=Deborahmac09 link=1284422032/15#23 date=1284455619] I couldn't agree MORE I NEVER minded MY four decades of income-tax going towards childhood education and TPI war pensions Services I would obviously never draw from

Buzz i'd like to personnally thank you for my $12:00 per fortnight Vet Affairs pension I receive because of my military service.  ;D

Yes we should get rid of the stupid rebate.
The rodent has a lot to answer for, why should the health industry be propped up when he let companies like Ansett go bust during his time as PM?
Why did many other businesses go bust but the only one that was bailed out was the one run by the rodents brother?
Howard was a filthy scumbag just like the retards who will no doubt come in here and defend him.
STOP taking our money to prop up private business, if  MBF cant survive without massive government handouts, tuf titty.
Give OUR TAXPAYER FUNDS BACK TO PUBLIC HEALTH.
Screw the tards who want a handout, if you cant afford private health stop taking my money, you bludging scum.

Let me get this right. If you don't have private health insurance you have to pay 1% surcharge on your medicare levy.

Where is you free will on not wanting private health insurance? Isn't that controling the people?

You would expect that from a Socialist/Communist Goverment not from a rightwing/liberal goverment.

So everyone that is defending the health insurance must have left leaning veiws.

I never though I see andrei leaning to the left

;D  :)

John S wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 10:56am:

Let me get this right. If you don't have private health insurance you have to pay 1% surcharge on your medicare levy. Where is you free will on not wanting private health insurance? Isn't that controling the people? You would expect that from a Socialist/Communist Goverment not from a rightwing/liberal goverment. So everyone that is defending the health insurance must have left leaning veiws. I never though I see andrei leaning to the left ;D  :)

Only if you earn over 77k for a single and around 150K for families.

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 11:16am:

John S wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 10:56am: Let me get this right. If you don't have private health insurance you have to pay 1% surcharge on your medicare levy. Where is you free will on not wanting private health insurance? Isn't that controling the people? You would expect that from a Socialist/Communist Goverment not from a rightwing/liberal goverment. So everyone that is defending the health insurance must have left leaning veiws. I never though I see andrei leaning to the left ;D  :) Only if you earn over 77k for a single and around 150K for families.

If I recall rightly, a $150k gross salary gets you about A$8,500 per month after tax.

Now think of a family of 4 with two children and one income of $8,500 per month.

Mortgage is about $3,000 per month.
Bills (utilities, car registrations x2, clothes, food etc) - another $1,500 per month in a good month.

That leaves only $4k per month left.

Petrol of $600 per month?
School fees?
Healthcare?
Rates?

All of a sudden it makes people talking about these families being 'rich' a little silly.

Wayne Rooney earns $240,000 per week.
Who is rich? Rooney or the family above?

"Wayne Rooney earns $240,000 per week.
Who is rich? Rooney or the family above?"

Rooney earns $240K per week
Hicks' theoretical family earns $2150 or so per week after tax
Another wage earner pulls in $750 per week after tax

Who is rich?

Please delete wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 11:43am:

"Wayne Rooney earns $240,000 per week. Who is rich? Rooney or the family above?" Rooney earns $240K per week Hicks' theoretical family earns $2150 or so per week after tax Another wage earner pulls in $750 per week after tax Who is rich?

To the lower income earner, anyone earning well over what they earn may seem rich.
This is a mistake we all seem to make. We get a new job earning 10k more than our old job, and we have to spend it.

Please delete wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 11:43am:

"Wayne Rooney earns $240,000 per week. Who is rich? Rooney or the family above?" Rooney earns $240K per week Hicks' theoretical family earns $2150 or so per week after tax Another wage earner pulls in $750 per week after tax Who is rich?

Isn't the answer the same as to my question?
Wayne Rooney is.

Should we get rid of the rebate? Probably, but not in isolation. The rebate is part of a complex system. If we're going to mess with it, we must do so in the context of an overhaul of the whole health funding system.

The rebate was one of Howard's ways of buying our votes with our own money. The amount of money that was taken from us in taxes, cycled through the public service, then returned to us as so-called "middle-class welfare" must be phenomenal. The only real beneficiaries were the Coalition and the public service. Think how much could have been saved if they hadn't taken it from us in the first place.

The joke is we've fallen for it for so long.

Oh God, I'm beginning to sound like Andrei! Sort of.

Oops, double-posted somehow. :-[

mellie wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 10:09am:

At least this way, we have choices, we may go public or private...the ALP would love to take these choices away from us. The ALP wont be happy until we are a socialist Republic. ::)

It seems that you want the choice but you expect the comrades to collectively pay for it.

I would have thought that for the state to reduce their subsidy and expect the people who want it to pay for it themself would be a move away from socialism?

I am not in favour of removing the rebate but do agree that their should be some cap.

There is a point to providing a subsidy as incentive to reduce pressure on the public system but at some level the subsidy has no benifit as the people recieving it would be paying for the private cover anyway.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 2:53pm:

In a word NO, we should not. Think of this situation - 1) A person is earning roughly A$150k per year. He takes out private healthcare. He is paying over $60,000 in tax to the ATO. When he needs hospital cover he doesn't use the public system. 2) A person is either not working, claiming benefits, earning a low amount and paying very little if any tax. He uses the public system. Who is funding who? Who is helping to pay for the public system and NOT USING IT. Answer me this why should those people who earn $150k+ directly pay for their own healthcare AND fund those who don't pay for the public system. Why should we have one set of people living off the backs of others? Why should we pay for other people? I never had a free ride in life, I worked hard. I fail to see why its acceptable to give it others. I refuse to support losers and deadbeats.

A perfect respopnse.    

No way.

Something that irks me about Private Health Insurance though.  All other insurance pays the whole amount (except perhaps a small excess), so why can't you get that option with Private Health Cover? I pay for the top cover, and recently when claiming for a family member, with some services I was only getting back about 35% including Medicare and Health Fund refunds.

This is something that is common across all insurance funds.

Why is it so?  

Quote:

Why is it so?

'Cause you bought a lemon.
The democratic public assumes that health care is a priority in a successful society.

It might be an assumption, but it's in no way reflected in practice. If you can afford it, you can get priority treatment for everything.

My own view is that it's fair enough. If you want to pay for extras, you should be entitled to it.  

I might have bought a lemon, but they only sell(edited typo) lemons. The comment was made by two of the doctors concerned that our health fund was the best of the lot.

Jasignature :D

skippy. wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 8:23am:

Yes we should get rid of the stupid rebate. The rodent has a lot to answer for, why should the health industry be propped up when he let companies like Ansett go bust during his time as PM? Why did many other businesses go bust but the only one that was bailed out was the one run by the rodents brother? Howard was a filthy scumbag just like the retards who will no doubt come in here and defend him. STOP taking our money to prop up private business, if  MBF cant survive without massive government handouts, tuf titty. Give OUR TAXPAYER FUNDS BACK TO PUBLIC HEALTH. Screw the tards who want a handout, if you cant afford private health stop taking my money, you bludging scum.

Well Labor has not abolished it at all..it has simply ceased to allow fat cats to get fatter on the public purse.  Good on 'm .... Most middle and lower income earners will still havr full access to the rebate.
So go cry somewhere else.... as if you don't have enough already,,  you'd like to take away any thing and evrey thing from the poor, if you could. Andrei Hick doesn't even live in Oz..   what worth is that??.   

I worked and paid taxes for decades also, and I expected my taxes to be go toward the greater good. Not to prop up the McMansion and the 'lifestyle' you've become accustomed to.. You are all much too defensive....which you turn to offensive,  about how much this small change will cause you to lose.!!! You sorry lot of whinging ........!!!!!!!!!!