Premiums to rise by 6.2%

Date
    December 24, 2013


The Abbott government has approved the biggest rise in private health insurance premiums in almost a decade, as it walks away from any early implementation of its election promise to scrap the means testing of the 30 per cent rebate for health fund members.        

In a pre-Christmas whammy for Australians grappling with rising health costs, the average family policy including ancillaries such as dental is likely to rise by more than $200 a year because of the average 6.2 per cent increase for 2014 endorsed by Health Minister Peter Dutton.      :(

For a basic family policy, the rise will be about $150 a year. Singles can expect to pay an extra $100 a year in premiums.


For all categories, the increase is almost triple the overall rate of inflation. The last time there was a bigger increase was in 2005, when premiums rose by 7.96 per cent.      :(


Among the top 10 most popular health funds, the increases range from just under 3 per cent (Health Insurance Fund of Australia) to just under 8 per cent for NIB for 2014.

Mr Dutton blamed an 8 per cent increase in overall payouts by health funds this year for the sharp rise.


The former government should also be held responsible, he said, noting health insurers had been ''constantly under attack''.

''There is no doubt this increase could have been lower had it not been for the pressures placed on the sector by Labor,'' he said in a statement.

Mr Dutton declined a request for an interview to explain what these pressures were.

Opposition health spokeswoman Catherine King said the premium hike was a slap in the face for consumers and had been pushed through just before Christmas in the hope people wouldn't notice.      :(

''Making this announcement two days before Christmas is highly cynical and something the government should be ashamed of,'' Ms King said.      >:(      

The rise in premiums comes as the government weighs up when, and indeed whether, to scrap means testing of the 30 per cent health insurance rebate.

Under measures that came into effect last year, singles earning about $88,000 and families earning more than $176,000 no longer get the full rebate. Singles earning more than $130,000, and families with an income of twice that amount, don't get any rebate at all.

During his election campaign launch this year, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said he would scrap the means testing within a decade.

One government source said on Monday: ''Given the financial situation as revealed last week, it could be a long while [before the means test is abolished].''

The mid-year economic and fiscal outlook released last week predicted budget deficits for the next decade unless savings were found. Removing the means testing of the rebate would cost almost $3 billion over the next four years.

The Consumers Health Forum of Australia said the federal government needed to take a serious look at why health costs continued to vastly outpace inflation. An ageing population, increasing doctors fees and rising equipment costs did not adequately explain the surge, spokesman Mark Metherell said.

''There are no real measures from government to show whether we are getting value for money. Health costs have been going up more than inflation for more than a decade,'' he said. ''We feel the whole issue should be examined. Premiums are going up. Out-of-pocket costs are going up. The average family will struggle to pay this increase.''      :(

He said good performance and efficiency among health funds should be rewarded by the government. At the moment, they were simply being compensated for the level of payouts they have made.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/premiums-to-rise-by-62-20131223-2zurt.html#ixzz2oKjn1Y00

Opposition health spokeswoman Catherine King said the premium hike was a slap in the face for consumers and had been pushed through just before Christmas in the hope people wouldn't notice.  Oh Mr Abbott, what are you doing to the good people of Australia?.      :(

wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 7:05am:

Opposition health spokeswoman Catherine King said the premium hike was a slap in the face for consumers and had been pushed through just before Christmas in the hope people wouldn't notice.  Oh Mr Abbott, what are you doing to the good people of Australia?.      :(

Stop worrying I'mphukingcrook. We have that wonderful ALP creation Medicare to look after the nation's health.

wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 7:05am:

Opposition health spokeswoman Catherine King said the premium hike was a slap in the face for consumers and had been pushed through just before Christmas in the hope people wouldn't notice.  Oh Mr Abbott, what are you doing to the good people of Australia?.      :(

FFSFO Either increase the premiums or decrease the refund,,Its business you tosser     >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Thanks Saladin. How could we forget the creation of Medicare.


Quote:

Medicare is a publicly funded universal health care scheme in Australia. Operated by the government authority Medicare Australia, Medicare is the primary funder of health care in Australia, funding primary health care for Australian citizens and permanent residents (except for those on Norfolk Island). Residents are entitled to subsidised treatment from medical practitioners, eligible midwives, nurse practitioners and allied health professionals who have been issued a Medicare provider number, and can also obtain free treatment in public hospitals. The scheme was introduced in 1975 by the Whitlam Government as Medibank, and was supplemented in 1976 by a government-owned private health insurance fund, Medibank Private, established by the Fraser Government. Medibank was renamed Medicare in 1984. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28Australia%29

You got that right.  Its business alright.  Thanks for the Christmas present Mr Abbott.      :(       

wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 7:15am:

You got that right.  Its business alright.  Thanks for the Christmas present Mr Abbott.      :(

for F F S You don't understand SFO ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Well I understand people will have to pay more, for private health insurance.  Glad you don't mind.   ;D       

wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 7:28am:

Well I understand people will have to pay more, for private health insurance.  Glad you don't mind.   ;D

F F S   So I can get a decent refund for FS   >:( >:( >:(

wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 7:05am:

Opposition health spokeswoman Catherine King said the premium hike was a slap in the face for consumers and had been pushed through just before Christmas in the hope people wouldn't notice.  Oh Mr Abbott, what are you doing to the good people of Australia?.      :(

what about the 0.5 increase to medicare levy that gillard was planning...to help pay for ndis.........................was she horrified by that.. I dont rememb er ::) ::) ::)

you want something guess what you have to pay for it...bit unusual I know.. but everyone wants a pay increase...that goes for the man who makes the coffee as well.. ::) ::) but dont tell lefties.. will you.especially crook... he doesnt understand pay increases get passed on..he thinks all the billionaires we have running the place pay it.. ::)

It means more people will opt out, putting an even bigger strain on the public health (non) system.

http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_91615373_mhmsjjwf3g.png

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:05am:

It means more people will opt out, putting an even bigger strain on the public health (non) system. http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_91615373_mhmsjjwf3g.png

So you would rather the coy's go broke..And put a larger strain on the public system  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

woody2014 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:05am: It means more people will opt out, putting an even bigger strain on the public health (non) system. http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_91615373_mhmsjjwf3g.png So you would rather the coy's go broke..And put a larger strain on the public system  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

The health insurance companies will do what they do. It means that those that want to stay in a health fund will continue to face substantial  price increases because there will be less customers.

At the moment health insurance is only affordable to middle income earners, like a lot of things that used to be available to everyone but the very impoverished.....electricity is fast becoming a luxury item.

Some essential services should NEVER be privatised.

Now watch the health insurance companies collapse. Keep it affordable or go out of business. They should have learned from the retail sector.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

Now watch the health insurance companies collapse. Keep it affordable or go out of business. They should have learned from the retail sector.

Tell that to the unions

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

woody2014 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:11am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:05am: It means more people will opt out, putting an even bigger strain on the public health (non) system. http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_91615373_mhmsjjwf3g.png So you would rather the coy's go broke..And put a larger strain on the public system  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) The health insurance companies will do what they do. It means that those that want to stay in a health fund will continue to face substantial  price increases because there will be less customers. At the moment health insurance is only affordable to middle income earners, like a lot of things that used to be available to everyone but the very impoverished.....electricity is fast becoming a luxury item. Some essential services should NEVER be privatised. Now watch the health insurance companies collapse. Keep it affordable or go out of business. They should have learned from the retail sector.

;D ;D What thu                                 Some essential services should NEVER be privatised.

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:26am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:23am: Now watch the health insurance companies collapse. Keep it affordable or go out of business. They should have learned from the retail sector. Tell that to the unions

The unions would have far more to do with the cost of public health than private health insurance.

It's like blaming the unions because my house and contents insurance is getting expensive?

wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 7:03am:

he Abbott government has approved the biggest rise in private health insurance premiums in almost a decade, as it walks away from any early implementation of its election promise to scrap the means testing of the 30 per cent rebate for health fund members.

Corporate welfare & a broken promise all in the opening sentence.

Gee imagine if his name was Gillard.

We'd need an extra hospital just to cope with apoplectic posters, funny all seems calm ATM


wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 7:03am:

the average family policy including ancillaries such as dental is likely to rise by more than $200 a year because of the average 6.2 per cent increase for 2014 endorsed by Health Minister Peter Dutton.

Wasn't there something about keeping the COL down for Australian's?


wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 7:03am:

For a basic family policy, the rise will be about $150 a year.

Well there's $150 of the mythical $550 savings from the CT gone :o


wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 7:03am:

For all categories, the increase is almost triple the overall rate of inflation. The last time there was a bigger increase was in 2005, when premiums rose by 7.96 per cent.

wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 7:03am:

Mr Dutton blamed an 8 per cent increase in overall payouts by health funds this year for the sharp rise.

Well stop rebating for sneakers, golf clubs, gym membership, aroma therapy etc & just pay for actual medical stuff.

Its just an illusion to make people think they are getting something for their money.


wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 7:03am:

''There is no doubt this increase could have been lower had it not been for the pressures placed on the sector by Labor,'' he said in a statement. Mr Dutton declined a request for an interview to explain what these pressures were.

As usual when called to back up verbal diarrhea they fold >:(


Quote:

Each year, the federal government pays health funds more than $5 billion to subsidise health insurance premiums. It is a significant sum of money, more than one-third of the total amount it pays to the states and territories for all health services and infrastructure.

1 third of total health spend, anyone else find this disturbing???


Quote:

Since 1998, the average health insurance premium has risen by 130 per cent, while overall prices have gone up by less than 50 per cent.

Cost up 50%
Prices up 130%

But of course its not corporate welfare.


Quote:

The introduction of the means test for the rebate highlighted how little it affects health fund membership. Amid predictions from health insurers that there would be a mass exodus of members, numbers have actually increased since it was introduced. The truth is that 12.8 million people are covered by health insurance now, compared with 12.4 million when means testing was introduced. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/little-evidence-health-insurance-rebate-has-achieved-savings-for-consumers-20131223-2zumz.html

So yet again Liberals are wrong or are they just misleading?


Quote:

Improving private health insurance We will strengthen Medicare and take pressure off the public hospital system by restoring the Private Health Insurance Rebate as soon as we responsibly can. This will encourage more Australians to take up private health insurance. http://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan/health

But hey I'm sure the fanboi's here will correct me not only verbally but also with links to articles which will show me & others the truth ;)

This is that pig Howard and his doing.  Every year the govt pays massive corporate welfare to private health insurers (and calls it a rebate to us, hoping we wont notice) when that $$$ should be going straight into the health budget which we pay for in taxes and the medicare levy.  We're enduring this not because of sound economics but because of Howard's neocon ideology.  It was always the plan to emulate the US health system irrespective of what a flawed and sh!t system it is because its ideological. Well the chickens are coming home to roost.  Look forward to more 6% rises per year from now on.  The carbon tax is a walk in the park compared to what the coalition plans to do to our cost of living from now on. 

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:26am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:23am: Now watch the health insurance companies collapse. Keep it affordable or go out of business. They should have learned from the retail sector. Tell that to the unions

Let's begin with the two most powerful health sector unions in the country. The AMA and the College of Surgeons.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 7:03am: the average family policy including ancillaries such as dental is likely to rise by more than $200 a year because of the average 6.2 per cent increase for 2014 endorsed by Health Minister Peter Dutton. Wasn't there something about keeping the COL down for Australian's?

Oh yes. Just another broken promise by the clowns.


Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 7:03am: ''There is no doubt this increase could have been lower had it not been for the pressures placed on the sector by Labor,'' he said in a statement. Mr Dutton declined a request for an interview to explain what these pressures were. As usual when called to back up verbal diarrhea they fold >:(

It's just a blant exercise in blame shifting. Blaming the government would have some plausibility if they at least explained why.


Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

Quote: Each year, the federal government pays health funds more than $5 billion to subsidise health insurance premiums. It is a significant sum of money, more than one-third of the total amount it pays to the states and territories for all health services and infrastructure. 1 third of total health spend, anyone else find this disturbing???

Yes, very much so.

Five billion dollars to prop up private health insurance. Four billion dollars to the mining industry. Both are profitable industries that don't need the subsidies. And the Abbott government kick up a fuss about five hundred million for the automotive industry and a one-off 25 million for SPC Ardmona? Really?

For five billion dollars, we could increase Medicare rebates across the board, possibly enough to eliminate the "gap" and so remove the need for gap insurance.


Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

Quote: Since 1998, the average health insurance premium has risen by 130 per cent, while overall prices have gone up by less than 50 per cent. Cost up 50% Prices up 130% But of course its not corporate welfare.

;D

More seriously, it's clear that they are just lining their own profits with the rebate. Phase out the rebate and they would still make a profit.

woody2014 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:05am: It means more people will opt out, putting an even bigger strain on the public health (non) system. http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_91615373_mhmsjjwf3g.png So you would rather the coy's go broke..And put a larger strain on the public system  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

weren't you against subsidising private industry? Or is it OK to subsidies those that save you money?

If they cannot survive they should go broke. They should remove the subsidies as well as remove any caps on increases on premiums ...  let the market decide if they are wanted

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

woody2014 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:11am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:05am: It means more people will opt out, putting an even bigger strain on the public health (non) system. http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_91615373_mhmsjjwf3g.png So you would rather the coy's go broke..And put a larger strain on the public system  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) weren't you against subsidising private industry? Or is it OK to subsidies those that save you money? If they cannot survive they should go broke. They should remove the subsidies as well as remove any caps on increases on premiums ...  let the market decide if they are wanted

The increases to premiums require Ministerial approval because they are partly funded by the Federal budget. If the subsidies are removed, there is no longer a need for the Health Minister to command the price and the market can decide the price.

If the subsidy money was redirected into Medicare to increase rebates and close the gap, premiums may actually go down because there's no longer a need for gap insurance.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:29am:

Swagman wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:26am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:23am: Now watch the health insurance companies collapse. Keep it affordable or go out of business. They should have learned from the retail sector. Tell that to the unions The unions would have far more to do with the cost of public health than private health insurance. It's like blaming the unions because my house and contents insurance is getting expensive?

Artificially inflating the price of labour arguably makes business uncompetitive. (which is what labour cartels (AKA Unions) do BTW)

Do wages ever go down in any business? Rarely.  Maybe in real terms but not actually. Why? Because of unions.  Even when businesses are struggling the cost of labour cannot be adjusted....because of unions.

Hey, but this is a good thing? Isn't it?

In the short term maybe but after a while when the businesses close and jobs become scarce who's fault is it?

Hey unions maintain standards of living.....don't they?

Nope, they indoctrinate their one-eyed supporters into thinking so but in reality the standard of living is just bought by debt.  Just like the family overspending on credit cards eventually it will bite them on the bum.

The US and Europe has been buying their standard of living on the credit card for 70 odd years and they are now only realising that this is the case......and it's biting them on the bum.  :(

Australia is the same.  Billions of tax payer funds go into propping up inefficient industries on the proviso of providing work.  Billions of tax payer funds are thrown at the welfare state.  Billions of tax payer funds thrown down a bottomless hole...for what?  To buy a standard of living.

Six years of Labor.  Six years and $300 Billion spent on buying our standard of living.

Bought and not earnt..... >:(

We dropped out of private 7 years ago. The savings are fantastic so is the bank balance.

anyone have pet insurance?
funeral insurance?
income protection insurance?
life insurance?
mortgage insurance?

LOL

on top of home and contents insurance, car insurance.

FEAR of the unknown and guilt is a fantastic money spinner.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

let the market decide if they are wanted

The market already made its decision on Private Health Funds.

Hence our tax $$$ propping up this greedy industries profits.

The reason we have the rebate is because participation fell to an all time low.

Why?

Because as now people paid into these funds every month for years if not decades without making a claim.

They then got to the stage in life where things start to wear out, so they have that knee/hip replaced, they have that heart valve replaced.
Thinking all along that they are covered by the 10's of 1000's paid during the young & fit years.

However once home & recuperating the bills start to come in & so did the excuses of why their operation was not covered by the policy they have paid into for years.

People were leaving in droves, the market had made their decision but our pollies & corporate giants did not like the markets decision, so here we are contributing 5 billion a year in corporate welfare.

Hence now you can instantly claim for sh!t frankly you don't need covered as a sort of sugar hit( $700 in premiums YAY :D,  I get $7.50 back on a $60 pair of Nikes, my insurance rules!)

I pay private health insurance because the thieving govt want to tax me more if I don't...... despite paying the medicare tax.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

woody2014 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:11am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:05am: It means more people will opt out, putting an even bigger strain on the public health (non) system. http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_91615373_mhmsjjwf3g.png So you would rather the coy's go broke..And put a larger strain on the public system  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) The health insurance companies will do what they do. It means that those that want to stay in a health fund will continue to face substantial  price increases because there will be less customers. At the moment health insurance is only affordable to middle income earners, like a lot of things that used to be available to everyone but the very impoverished.....electricity is fast becoming a luxury item. Some essential services should NEVER be privatised. Now watch the health insurance companies collapse. Keep it affordable or go out of business. They should have learned from the retail sector.

health HASNT been privatised.  if you want to pay nothing and go public then that is yoru right.  But at the same time, people also have the RIGHT to augment their health cover by paying extra for it.  the same argument applies to private education.  neither has been privatised

Bam wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 9:45am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 9:29am: woody2014 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:11am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:05am: It means more people will opt out, putting an even bigger strain on the public health (non) system. http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_91615373_mhmsjjwf3g.png So you would rather the coy's go broke..And put a larger strain on the public system  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) weren't you against subsidising private industry? Or is it OK to subsidies those that save you money? If they cannot survive they should go broke. They should remove the subsidies as well as remove any caps on increases on premiums ...  let the market decide if they are wanted The increases to premiums require Ministerial approval because they are partly funded by the Federal budget. If the subsidies are removed, there is no longer a need for the Health Minister to command the price and the market can decide the price. If the subsidy money was redirected into Medicare to increase rebates and close the gap, premiums may actually go down because there's no longer a need for gap insurance.

pure la-la land thinking.   funding medicare enough to remove gap payments and pay doctors and hospitals the fees that are required would require close to 50% increase in the health budget.

the whole problem with the health budget is that costs are increased well above the CPI and have done so for decades.  And that isn't going to stop.  people are living longer and medicine is now able to provide some pretty advanced treatments now but they are mainly extremely expensive.  If you want a society covered by advanced health care you need to accept that this comes at a very large price and it is going to rise at double the CPI for the foreseeable future.

a friend of mine was in private health insurance and had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. The public system would have sent him home because it wasn't 'serious' enough.  The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life.  his recuperations bills topped $300K.

public patient outcome: dead
Private patient outcome: alive


what price insurance?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 10:41am:

a friend of mine was in private health insurance and had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. The public system would have sent him home because it wasn't 'serious' enough.  The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life.  his recuperations bills topped $300K. public patient outcome: dead Private patient outcome: alive what price insurance?

Sure Dr longweekend

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mtQyXBhVvOw/T-cg6F4WYWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/twp-TCAIb7Q/s1600/iStock_000010119850XSmall.jpg

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 10:37am:

funding medicare enough to remove gap payments and pay doctors and hospitals the fees that are required would require close to 50% increase in the health budget.

Not that bigger leap when you consider the rebate already equates to 1 third of spending INCLUDING infrastructure


Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

Each year, the federal government pays health funds more than $5 billion to subsidise health insurance premiums. It is a significant sum of money, more than one-third of the total amount it pays to the states and territories for all health services and infrastructure.

Little evidence health insurance rebate has achieved savings for consumers      

Date
    December 24, 2013      :(


Each year, the federal government pays health funds more than $5 billion to subsidise health insurance premiums. It is a significant sum of money, more than one-third of the total amount it pays to the states and territories for all health services and infrastructure.

    A serious re-examination of health funding is required, especially with an ageing population

At $5.4 billion this financial year, rising to $5.91 billion by 2016-17, the money pays for the 30 per cent rebate for most people who take out private health insurance.

The rebate is meant to keep costs down for consumers, but - as evidenced by the 6.2 per cent average increase in premiums announced on Monday - there is precious little evidence the rebate has achieved this in any meaningful way.      


The rebate, introduced in 1999, seemed to keep costs down for its first three years, largely due to a pre-election decision of the Howard government in 2001 to keep premiums flat.

The next year, after being re-elected, premiums were raised more than 10 per cent. Since 1998, the average health insurance premium has risen by 130 per cent, while overall prices have gone up by less than 50 per cent.

Much of the problem lies with how the rebate intersects with other measures to encourage people to take out private health insurance. While the rebate is the carrot, it's the stick of a higher Medicare levy for middle- and high-income earners that prompts most people to take up private insurance.

Coupled with lifetime cover provisions - which penalises people over 30 who have not taken out insurance - it is a pretty big stick.    

But it provides little incentive for health funds and hospitals to become more efficient.

As the stick encourages more people to join health funds, the cost of health insurance, and the rebate, keeps going up. The rebate is a highly circuitous and inefficient way for the government to invest in healthcare. Private health insurers take their cut in profit for essentially redirecting the funding into health spending.

The introduction of the means test for the rebate highlighted how little it affects health fund membership. Amid predictions from health insurers that there would be a mass exodus of members, numbers have actually increased since it was introduced. The truth is that 12.8 million people are covered by health insurance now, compared with 12.4 million when means testing was introduced.

A serious re-examination of health funding is required, especially with an ageing population. The government must investigate whether the rebate works to reduce health costs to consumers. Or makes little difference over the long-term, but at a whopping cost to taxpayers.      :(

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/little-evidence-health-insurance-rebate-has-achieved-savings-for-consumers-20131223-2zumz.html#ixzz2oLm1ZkvQ

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 10:51am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: a friend of mine was in private health insurance and had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. The public system would have sent him home because it wasn't 'serious' enough.  The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life.  his recuperations bills topped $300K. public patient outcome: dead Private patient outcome: alive what price insurance? Sure Dr longweekend http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mtQyXBhVvOw/T-cg6F4WYWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/twp-TCAIb7Q/s1600/iStock_000010119850XSmall.jpg

naturally you'd have said that.  I had appendicitis - apparently very severe - but I have a condition where my BPR vitals NEVER CHANGE even when I am sick.  I could have a heart attack and by blood pressure remains textbook. I have to advise doctors of it all the time.  because I had no apparent symptoms other than pain the public system would have sent me home to 'wait and see'.  but it burst but because of my private insurance I was in a hospital so I was operated on within 30mins.  If I were in the public system it would have taken  many many hours if not an entire day by which time I would be poisoned throughout my body.  at 35yo I was young enough to survive that but would have been in hospital for a month and off work for a year. 20 years later such an event could actually kill me.

so you wonder why I'm a fan of private insurance?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 10:32am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:23am: woody2014 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:11am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:05am: It means more people will opt out, putting an even bigger strain on the public health (non) system. http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_91615373_mhmsjjwf3g.png So you would rather the coy's go broke..And put a larger strain on the public system  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) The health insurance companies will do what they do. It means that those that want to stay in a health fund will continue to face substantial  price increases because there will be less customers. At the moment health insurance is only affordable to middle income earners, like a lot of things that used to be available to everyone but the very impoverished.....electricity is fast becoming a luxury item. Some essential services should NEVER be privatised. Now watch the health insurance companies collapse. Keep it affordable or go out of business. They should have learned from the retail sector. health HASNT been privatised.  if you want to pay nothing and go public then that is yoru right.  But at the same time, people also have the RIGHT to augment their health cover by paying extra for it.  the same argument applies to private education.  neither has been privatised

agree ... they should pay extra for it ...... not the taxman

wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:14am:

Little evidence health insurance rebate has achieved savings for consumers       Date     December 24, 2013      :( Each year, the federal government pays health funds more than $5 billion to subsidise health insurance premiums. It is a significant sum of money, more than one-third of the total amount it pays to the states and territories for all health services and infrastructure.     A serious re-examination of health funding is required, especially with an ageing population At $5.4 billion this financial year, rising to $5.91 billion by 2016-17, the money pays for the 30 per cent rebate for most people who take out private health insurance. The rebate is meant to keep costs down for consumers, but - as evidenced by the 6.2 per cent average increase in premiums announced on Monday - there is precious little evidence the rebate has achieved this in any meaningful way.       The rebate, introduced in 1999, seemed to keep costs down for its first three years, largely due to a pre-election decision of the Howard government in 2001 to keep premiums flat. The next year, after being re-elected, premiums were raised more than 10 per cent. Since 1998, the average health insurance premium has risen by 130 per cent, while overall prices have gone up by less than 50 per cent. Much of the problem lies with how the rebate intersects with other measures to encourage people to take out private health insurance. While the rebate is the carrot, it's the stick of a higher Medicare levy for middle- and high-income earners that prompts most people to take up private insurance. Coupled with lifetime cover provisions - which penalises people over 30 who have not taken out insurance - it is a pretty big stick.     But it provides little incentive for health funds and hospitals to become more efficient. As the stick encourages more people to join health funds, the cost of health insurance, and the rebate, keeps going up. The rebate is a highly circuitous and inefficient way for the government to invest in healthcare. Private health insurers take their cut in profit for essentially redirecting the funding into health spending. The introduction of the means test for the rebate highlighted how little it affects health fund membership. Amid predictions from health insurers that there would be a mass exodus of members, numbers have actually increased since it was introduced. The truth is that 12.8 million people are covered by health insurance now, compared with 12.4 million when means testing was introduced. A serious re-examination of health funding is required, especially with an ageing population. The government must investigate whether the rebate works to reduce health costs to consumers. Or makes little difference over the long-term, but at a whopping cost to taxpayers.      :( Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/little-evidence-health-insurance-rebate-has-achieved-savings-for-consumers-20131223-2zumz.html#ixzz2oLm1ZkvQ

subsidy notwoithstanding, on what planet do you expect a product or service not to go up in price???  EVERYTHING goes up and no subsidy is going to change that  - ever.  it is illogical.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 10:41am:

The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life

Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:17am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:51am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: a friend of mine was in private health insurance and had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. The public system would have sent him home because it wasn't 'serious' enough.  The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life.  his recuperations bills topped $300K. public patient outcome: dead Private patient outcome: alive what price insurance? Sure Dr longweekend http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mtQyXBhVvOw/T-cg6F4WYWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/twp-TCAIb7Q/s1600/iStock_000010119850XSmall.jpg naturally you'd have said that.  I had appendicitis - apparently very severe - but I have a condition where my BPR vitals NEVER CHANGE even when I am sick.  I could have a heart attack and by blood pressure remains textbook. I have to advise doctors of it all the time.  because I had no apparent symptoms other than pain the public system would have sent me home to 'wait and see'.  but it burst but because of my private insurance I was in a hospital so I was operated on within 30mins.  If I were in the public system it would have taken  many many hours if not an entire day by which time I would be poisoned throughout my body.  at 35yo I was young enough to survive that but would have been in hospital for a month and off work for a year. 20 years later such an event could actually kill me. so you wonder why I'm a fan of private insurance?

what a load of rubbish ... the public system deals with thousands of cases of burst appendixes every year?

lucky they all had a private system to fall back on  ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:17am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:32am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:23am: woody2014 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:11am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:05am: It means more people will opt out, putting an even bigger strain on the public health (non) system. http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_91615373_mhmsjjwf3g.png So you would rather the coy's go broke..And put a larger strain on the public system  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) The health insurance companies will do what they do. It means that those that want to stay in a health fund will continue to face substantial  price increases because there will be less customers. At the moment health insurance is only affordable to middle income earners, like a lot of things that used to be available to everyone but the very impoverished.....electricity is fast becoming a luxury item. Some essential services should NEVER be privatised. Now watch the health insurance companies collapse. Keep it affordable or go out of business. They should have learned from the retail sector. health HASNT been privatised.  if you want to pay nothing and go public then that is yoru right.  But at the same time, people also have the RIGHT to augment their health cover by paying extra for it.  the same argument applies to private education.  neither has been privatised agree ... they should pay extra for it ...... not the taxman

Yes but 'they' also shouldn't have to subsidise every body else that don't pay with the medicare tax.
>:(

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:19am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway.

LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery? 

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:17am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:51am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: a friend of mine was in private health insurance and had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. The public system would have sent him home because it wasn't 'serious' enough.  The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life.  his recuperations bills topped $300K. public patient outcome: dead Private patient outcome: alive what price insurance? Sure Dr longweekend http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mtQyXBhVvOw/T-cg6F4WYWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/twp-TCAIb7Q/s1600/iStock_000010119850XSmall.jpg naturally you'd have said that.  I had appendicitis - apparently very severe - but I have a condition where my BPR vitals NEVER CHANGE even when I am sick.  I could have a heart attack and by blood pressure remains textbook. I have to advise doctors of it all the time.  because I had no apparent symptoms other than pain the public system would have sent me home to 'wait and see'.  but it burst but because of my private insurance I was in a hospital so I was operated on within 30mins.  If I were in the public system it would have taken  many many hours if not an entire day by which time I would be poisoned throughout my body.  at 35yo I was young enough to survive that but would have been in hospital for a month and off work for a year. 20 years later such an event could actually kill me. so you wonder why I'm a fan of private insurance? what a load of rubbish ... the public system deals with thousands of cases of burst appendixes every year? lucky they all had a private system to fall back on  ;D ;D ;D

do u know that a lot of burst appendix KILL the patient??  the very young and very old often don't survive it.  and the point was that my private insurance ensure that I was kept in a hospital bed while a public hospital would not have done so.  and that meant 3 days in hospital instead of a month with a year long rehabilitation.

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:29am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:17am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:32am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:23am: woody2014 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:11am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:05am: It means more people will opt out, putting an even bigger strain on the public health (non) system. http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_91615373_mhmsjjwf3g.png So you would rather the coy's go broke..And put a larger strain on the public system  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) The health insurance companies will do what they do. It means that those that want to stay in a health fund will continue to face substantial  price increases because there will be less customers. At the moment health insurance is only affordable to middle income earners, like a lot of things that used to be available to everyone but the very impoverished.....electricity is fast becoming a luxury item. Some essential services should NEVER be privatised. Now watch the health insurance companies collapse. Keep it affordable or go out of business. They should have learned from the retail sector. health HASNT been privatised.  if you want to pay nothing and go public then that is yoru right.  But at the same time, people also have the RIGHT to augment their health cover by paying extra for it.  the same argument applies to private education.  neither has been privatised agree ... they should pay extra for it ...... not the taxman Yes but 'they' also shouldn't have to subsidise every body else that don't pay with the medicare tax. >:(

to be fair, in this case private health claims are paid on TOP of the medicare payments.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?

I lost my mother after she had a cerebral aneurysm, she was 57 years of age. LW is right, urgent surgery is vital.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:51am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?  I lost my mother after she had a cerebral aneurysm, she was 57 years of age. LW is right, urgent surgery is vital.

he was very, very lucky.  if he had been anywhere except a hospital when it burst he would have been toast.  He had no warning until the night before when he couldn't be woken up.  he was 3 weeks after his 40th bday.  not old.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:51am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?  I lost my mother after she had a cerebral aneurysm, she was 57 years of age. LW is right, urgent surgery is vital.

Yes this is correct but the problem is that the majority of private hospitals will not have a neurosurgeon on site and the most common responce to a critical emergance is to transfer a public hospital.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 12:08pm:

viewpoint wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:51am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?  I lost my mother after she had a cerebral aneurysm, she was 57 years of age. LW is right, urgent surgery is vital. Yes this is correct but the problem is that the majority of private hospitals will not have a neurosurgeon on site and the most common responce to a critical emergance is to transfer a public hospital.

actually that isn't true at all.  critical emergencies are not necessarily transferred to public hospitals at all.  they are transferred to wherever the skilled staff are at at the time.  EXCEPT that public patients don't get transferred to private hospitals because they aren't covered.

and no transfer from anywhere will save someone with a burst cerebral aneurysm.  you get 3-5 minutes tops. no longer.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

actually that isn't true at all.  critical emergencies are not necessarily transferred to public hospitals at all.  they are transferred to wherever the skilled staff are at at the time.  EXCEPT that public patients don't get transferred to private hospitals because they aren't covered. and no transfer from anywhere will save someone with a burst cerebral aneurysm.  you get 3-5 minutes tops. no longer.

Well I don't know about SA but in NSW no private hospital has emergencies, in fact all have signs telling you to go to the nearest public hospital.
None have surgeons in house unless there for scheduled surgery.

Your friend was EXTREMELY lucky that a neurosurgeon happened to be rostered on.

Now we've discussed personal experience & medical procedures any comment on the fact that premiums are increasing $150 p/year and the effect on COL?

Do you consider this yet another broken promise?

Do you think it's fair premiums have risen 130% but costs less than 50%?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 12:18pm: actually that isn't true at all.  critical emergencies are not necessarily transferred to public hospitals at all.  they are transferred to wherever the skilled staff are at at the time.  EXCEPT that public patients don't get transferred to private hospitals because they aren't covered. and no transfer from anywhere will save someone with a burst cerebral aneurysm.  you get 3-5 minutes tops. no longer. Well I don't know about SA but in NSW no private hospital has emergencies, in fact all have signs telling you to go to the nearest public hospital. None have surgeons in house unless there for scheduled surgery. Your friend was EXTREMELY lucky that a neurosurgeon happened to be rostered on. Now we've discussed personal experience & medical procedures any comment on the fact that premiums are increasing $150 p/year and the effect on COL? Do you consider this yet another broken promise? Do you think it's fair premiums have risen 130% but costs less than 50%?

there is a difference between having emergency depts. and their surgical capacity.  In this case, he was admitted to a private hospital unconscious and a neurosurgeon called in for an exploratory procedure at which point it burst.

how is it a broken promise that private health has gone up since it goes up every year at this time?

not sure what you mean by 50% rise in  'costs'.  whose costs?

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:29am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:17am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:32am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:23am: woody2014 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:11am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:05am: It means more people will opt out, putting an even bigger strain on the public health (non) system. http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_91615373_mhmsjjwf3g.png So you would rather the coy's go broke..And put a larger strain on the public system  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) The health insurance companies will do what they do. It means that those that want to stay in a health fund will continue to face substantial  price increases because there will be less customers. At the moment health insurance is only affordable to middle income earners, like a lot of things that used to be available to everyone but the very impoverished.....electricity is fast becoming a luxury item. Some essential services should NEVER be privatised. Now watch the health insurance companies collapse. Keep it affordable or go out of business. They should have learned from the retail sector. health HASNT been privatised.  if you want to pay nothing and go public then that is yoru right.  But at the same time, people also have the RIGHT to augment their health cover by paying extra for it.  the same argument applies to private education.  neither has been privatised agree ... they should pay extra for it ...... not the taxman Yes but 'they' also shouldn't have to subsidise every body else that don't pay with the medicare tax. >:(

you don't think the private system you use claims medicare from the govt?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?

Medicine another of your areas of expertise I take it  ;D ;D ;D

I'm not in any sort of false delusion, that would be you ... I said the chances are .... you do understand English don't you?

there are no doctors or surgeons in private hospitals after hours ... you want to pay private health because they MAY be a surgeon available in the next room, go for it. I'd rather save my money.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:44am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:23am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:17am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:51am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: a friend of mine was in private health insurance and had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. The public system would have sent him home because it wasn't 'serious' enough.  The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life.  his recuperations bills topped $300K. public patient outcome: dead Private patient outcome: alive what price insurance? Sure Dr longweekend http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mtQyXBhVvOw/T-cg6F4WYWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/twp-TCAIb7Q/s1600/iStock_000010119850XSmall.jpg naturally you'd have said that.  I had appendicitis - apparently very severe - but I have a condition where my BPR vitals NEVER CHANGE even when I am sick.  I could have a heart attack and by blood pressure remains textbook. I have to advise doctors of it all the time.  because I had no apparent symptoms other than pain the public system would have sent me home to 'wait and see'.  but it burst but because of my private insurance I was in a hospital so I was operated on within 30mins.  If I were in the public system it would have taken  many many hours if not an entire day by which time I would be poisoned throughout my body.  at 35yo I was young enough to survive that but would have been in hospital for a month and off work for a year. 20 years later such an event could actually kill me. so you wonder why I'm a fan of private insurance? what a load of rubbish ... the public system deals with thousands of cases of burst appendixes every year? lucky they all had a private system to fall back on  ;D ;D ;D do u know that a lot of burst appendix KILL the patient??  the very young and very old often don't survive it.  and the point was that my private insurance ensure that I was kept in a hospital bed while a public hospital would not have done so.  and that meant 3 days in hospital instead of a month with a year long rehabilitation.

no patients die in private hospitals Longy? My brothers appendix burst, he used the public system and was fine. I'm pretty sure he was up and about the following week too. 

why wouldn't private hospitals keep you in? At over $3500 a night, there rates are higher than a 6 star hotel. Money for Jam as far as the private hospitals are concerned. Why should my tax dollars pay for that? You want peace of mind, you pay for your own!

viewpoint wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:51am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?  I lost my mother after she had a cerebral aneurysm, she was 57 years of age. LW is right, urgent surgery is vital.

Sorry to hear that ... but unless she happens to be in a hosptial when it bursts, it makes no difference what sort of health cover you have.

I don't disagree, she was in fact in the city (Perth) and although was taken to RPH after collapsing and operated on, she passed away soon after. She had private insurance, but no, no amount of any insurance could have made a difference.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:17am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:51am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: a friend of mine was in private health insurance and had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. The public system would have sent him home because it wasn't 'serious' enough.  The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life.  his recuperations bills topped $300K. public patient outcome: dead Private patient outcome: alive what price insurance? Sure Dr longweekend http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mtQyXBhVvOw/T-cg6F4WYWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/twp-TCAIb7Q/s1600/iStock_000010119850XSmall.jpg naturally you'd have said that.  I had appendicitis - apparently very severe - but I have a condition where my BPR vitals NEVER CHANGE even when I am sick.  I could have a heart attack and by blood pressure remains textbook. I have to advise doctors of it all the time.  because I had no apparent symptoms other than pain the public system would have sent me home to 'wait and see'.  but it burst but because of my private insurance I was in a hospital so I was operated on within 30mins.  If I were in the public system it would have taken  many many hours if not an entire day by which time I would be poisoned throughout my body.  at 35yo I was young enough to survive that but would have been in hospital for a month and off work for a year. 20 years later such an event could actually kill me. so you wonder why I'm a fan of private insurance?

You don't know what would have happened IF you had have gone public.

We all hear horror stories about the public system......but

My friend had severe stomach pains, her husband drove her to the public hospital, they scanned her, saw it was inflamed appendix, operated at 9pm and she was released the next day.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:44am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:23am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:17am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:51am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: a friend of mine was in private health insurance and had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. The public system would have sent him home because it wasn't 'serious' enough.  The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life.  his recuperations bills topped $300K. public patient outcome: dead Private patient outcome: alive what price insurance? Sure Dr longweekend http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mtQyXBhVvOw/T-cg6F4WYWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/twp-TCAIb7Q/s1600/iStock_000010119850XSmall.jpg naturally you'd have said that.  I had appendicitis - apparently very severe - but I have a condition where my BPR vitals NEVER CHANGE even when I am sick.  I could have a heart attack and by blood pressure remains textbook. I have to advise doctors of it all the time.  because I had no apparent symptoms other than pain the public system would have sent me home to 'wait and see'.  but it burst but because of my private insurance I was in a hospital so I was operated on within 30mins.  If I were in the public system it would have taken  many many hours if not an entire day by which time I would be poisoned throughout my body.  at 35yo I was young enough to survive that but would have been in hospital for a month and off work for a year. 20 years later such an event could actually kill me. so you wonder why I'm a fan of private insurance? what a load of rubbish ... the public system deals with thousands of cases of burst appendixes every year? lucky they all had a private system to fall back on  ;D ;D ;D do u know that a lot of burst appendix KILL the patient??  the very young and very old often don't survive it.  and the point was that my private insurance ensure that I was kept in a hospital bed while a public hospital would not have done so.  and that meant 3 days in hospital instead of a month with a year long rehabilitation.

My appendix burst unexpectantly last year and I was lucky to survive it.  I was in hospital 10 days, public patient, and all was excellent.  Treatment was exceptional.

Two weeks ago my daughter had surgery as a public patient through a private hospital, free of charge.

I has surgery on a Sunday two weeks ago to put two screws in my ankle, as a public patient.
Needless to say its been quiet here for the last fortnight in our house.

I cant rate the public system highly enough.

Verge wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

I cant rate the public system highly enough

I agree. had both my kids through the public system and cannot fault a thing. Superb all around.

Private businesses are taking advantage of a sympathetic far right govt to increase the burden on their customers.

Do not forget that every taxpayer whether they have private insurance or not subsidise the multi billion dollar private health insurance industry.

So far since Abbott has risen to power increases due to the falling dollar and businesses gouging their customers have far outweighed the cost of pricing carbon pollution.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 12:52pm:

there is a difference between having emergency depts. and their surgical capacity.  In this case, he was admitted to a private hospital unconscious and a neurosurgeon called in for an exploratory procedure at which point it burst.

Like I said must be different in SA, no unconscious person would be admitted to a private hospital in NSW.
Either travelling by Ambo or private car, they'd be directed to the nearest A&E



longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 12:52pm:

how is it a broken promise that private health has gone up since it goes up every year at this time?

Promised to keep COL down, could have approved a lesser increase instead of the 2nd largest.


longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 12:52pm:

not sure what you mean by 50% rise in  'costs'.  whose costs?

well it doesn't say however it is in the quoted article


Quote:

Since 1998, the average health insurance premium has risen by 130 per cent, while overall prices have gone up by less than 50 per cent.

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

I pay private health insurance because the thieving govt want to tax me more if I don't...... despite paying the medicare tax.

This is the Medicare surcharge for high-income earners without private health insurance. Blame Howard and Costello for this, they introduced it.

IMO this surcharge should be abolished. It distorts the market. Bring back personal choice on health insurance.

I think for many this latest increase will  be the straw that breaks the camel's back. A lot of us will be forced to dump our private insurance because we simply will not be able to afford the premiums.

In retirement I have kept private coverage going but I think this may be a 'bridge too far', the well only has so much and everyone from Health to Electricity think it's open season on wager earners.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:51am:

I lost my mother after she had a cerebral aneurysm, she was 57 years of age. LW is right, urgent surgery is vital.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

I don't disagree, she was in fact in the city (Perth) and although was taken to RPH after collapsing and operated on, she passed away soon after. She had private insurance, but no, no amount of any insurance could have made a difference.

My condolences. At Christmas remember to raise a toast: to absent friends and family, in memory ever bright.

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 1:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?  Medicine another of your areas of expertise I take it  ;D ;D ;D I'm not in any sort of false delusion, that would be you ... I said the chances are .... you do understand English don't you? there are no doctors or surgeons in private hospitals after hours ... you want to pay private health because they MAY be a surgeon available in the next room, go for it. I'd rather save my money.

how many surgeons do you think are in public hospitals after hours???  like everything else you post you do so with utter ignorance of the topic.  If a cerebral haemorrhage bursts you don't get transferred ANYHWERE no matter where you are - unless it is to the morgue.

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

Verge wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 2:10pm: I cant rate the public system highly enough I agree. had both my kids through the public system and cannot fault a thing. Superb all around.

Indeed, both my kids also went through the public education system and we can't praise it enough. 

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:44am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:23am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:17am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:51am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: a friend of mine was in private health insurance and had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. The public system would have sent him home because it wasn't 'serious' enough.  The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life.  his recuperations bills topped $300K. public patient outcome: dead Private patient outcome: alive what price insurance? Sure Dr longweekend http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mtQyXBhVvOw/T-cg6F4WYWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/twp-TCAIb7Q/s1600/iStock_000010119850XSmall.jpg naturally you'd have said that.  I had appendicitis - apparently very severe - but I have a condition where my BPR vitals NEVER CHANGE even when I am sick.  I could have a heart attack and by blood pressure remains textbook. I have to advise doctors of it all the time.  because I had no apparent symptoms other than pain the public system would have sent me home to 'wait and see'.  but it burst but because of my private insurance I was in a hospital so I was operated on within 30mins.  If I were in the public system it would have taken  many many hours if not an entire day by which time I would be poisoned throughout my body.  at 35yo I was young enough to survive that but would have been in hospital for a month and off work for a year. 20 years later such an event could actually kill me. so you wonder why I'm a fan of private insurance? what a load of rubbish ... the public system deals with thousands of cases of burst appendixes every year? lucky they all had a private system to fall back on  ;D ;D ;D do u know that a lot of burst appendix KILL the patient??  the very young and very old often don't survive it.  and the point was that my private insurance ensure that I was kept in a hospital bed while a public hospital would not have done so.  and that meant 3 days in hospital instead of a month with a year long rehabilitation. no patients die in private hospitals Longy? My brothers appendix burst, he used the public system and was fine. I'm pretty sure he was up and about the following week too.  why wouldn't private hospitals keep you in? At over $3500 a night, there rates are higher than a 6 star hotel. Money for Jam as far as the private hospitals are concerned. Why should my tax dollars pay for that? You want peace of mind, you pay for your own!

clearly you've never stayed in private hospital.  and for the record, the fees you are quoting are AMERICAN HOSPITALS.

you really are an ignorant person on any topic you choose to debate.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

I don't disagree, she was in fact in the city (Perth) and although was taken to RPH after collapsing and operated on, she passed away soon after. She had private insurance, but no, no amount of any insurance could have made a difference.

if you aren't in hospital and a surgeon available very quickly you have no chance if it is a major bleed.  if it is a small bleed you may have a short time but it is still a big risk.

Verge wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:44am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:23am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:17am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:51am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: a friend of mine was in private health insurance and had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. The public system would have sent him home because it wasn't 'serious' enough.  The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life.  his recuperations bills topped $300K. public patient outcome: dead Private patient outcome: alive what price insurance? Sure Dr longweekend http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mtQyXBhVvOw/T-cg6F4WYWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/twp-TCAIb7Q/s1600/iStock_000010119850XSmall.jpg naturally you'd have said that.  I had appendicitis - apparently very severe - but I have a condition where my BPR vitals NEVER CHANGE even when I am sick.  I could have a heart attack and by blood pressure remains textbook. I have to advise doctors of it all the time.  because I had no apparent symptoms other than pain the public system would have sent me home to 'wait and see'.  but it burst but because of my private insurance I was in a hospital so I was operated on within 30mins.  If I were in the public system it would have taken  many many hours if not an entire day by which time I would be poisoned throughout my body.  at 35yo I was young enough to survive that but would have been in hospital for a month and off work for a year. 20 years later such an event could actually kill me. so you wonder why I'm a fan of private insurance? what a load of rubbish ... the public system deals with thousands of cases of burst appendixes every year? lucky they all had a private system to fall back on  ;D ;D ;D do u know that a lot of burst appendix KILL the patient??  the very young and very old often don't survive it.  and the point was that my private insurance ensure that I was kept in a hospital bed while a public hospital would not have done so.  and that meant 3 days in hospital instead of a month with a year long rehabilitation. My appendix burst unexpectantly last year and I was lucky to survive it.  I was in hospital 10 days, public patient, and all was excellent.  Treatment was exceptional. Two weeks ago my daughter had surgery as a public patient through a private hospital, free of charge. I has surgery on a Sunday two weeks ago to put two screws in my ankle, as a public patient. Needless to say its been quiet here for the last fortnight in our house. I cant rate the public system highly enough.

glad it went well for you.  10 days seems an exceptionally long time in hospital tho.  They kick you out for heart surgery faster than that.  was this the cause of your '6 months absence'?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 2:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 12:52pm: there is a difference between having emergency depts. and their surgical capacity.  In this case, he was admitted to a private hospital unconscious and a neurosurgeon called in for an exploratory procedure at which point it burst. Like I said must be different in SA, no unconscious person would be admitted to a private hospital in NSW. Either travelling by Ambo or private car, they'd be directed to the nearest A&E longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 12:52pm: how is it a broken promise that private health has gone up since it goes up every year at this time? Promised to keep COL down, could have approved a lesser increase instead of the 2nd largest. longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 12:52pm: not sure what you mean by 50% rise in  'costs'.  whose costs? well it doesn't say however it is in the quoted article Quote: Since 1998, the average health insurance premium has risen by 130 per cent, while overall prices have gone up by less than 50 per cent.

its a pretty meaningless comment then and sounds like a made-up generalisation with no supporting data.

Bam wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

Swagman wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:04am: I pay private health insurance because the thieving govt want to tax me more if I don't...... despite paying the medicare tax. This is the Medicare surcharge for high-income earners without private health insurance. Blame Howard and Costello for this, they introduced it. IMO this surcharge should be abolished. It distorts the market. Bring back personal choice on health insurance.

I thought you supported more taxes on the rich???  you do seem to have some convoluted ideologies.

red baron wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

I think for many this latest increase will  be the straw that breaks the camel's back. A lot of us will be forced to dump our private insurance because we simply will not be able to afford the premiums. In retirement I have kept private coverage going but I think this may be a 'bridge too far', the well only has so much and everyone from Health to Electricity think it's open season on wager earners.

And what? You had no idea before the election that the 99% were going to cop a barrage of this from this govt.  And this is only after 4 months.  You know its one thing for you to regret your voting decisions after the fact but the trouble is that everyone else who could see the obvious are now forced to pay for your stupidity as well.  Now that's the real tragedy of it all. 

A smart healthy person self insures..Put the same premiums into a separate account from the day you start work and a long with any major stuff being done in public hospitals you will have more than enough to cover any health issues and in fact it makes quite a good nest egg after a few decades.
Private health insurance in this country is like throwing hundred dollar bills down the toilet.

adelcrow wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 3:53pm:

A smart healthy person self insures..Put the same premiums into a separate account from the day you start work and a long with any major stuff being done in public hospitals you will have more than enough to cover any health issues and in fact it makes quite a good nest egg after a few decades. Private health insurance in this country is like throwing hundred dollar bills down the toilet.

and if you got hit with a $300K bill like my friend then what???  the public hospitals were unwilling to look after a person in ICU for over a year and years of outpatient work after. 

I gues you self insure your house as well?  and your car??

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 4:27pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:53pm: A smart healthy person self insures..Put the same premiums into a separate account from the day you start work and a long with any major stuff being done in public hospitals you will have more than enough to cover any health issues and in fact it makes quite a good nest egg after a few decades. Private health insurance in this country is like throwing hundred dollar bills down the toilet. and if you got hit with a $300K bill like my friend then what???  the public hospitals were unwilling to look after a person in ICU for over a year and years of outpatient work after.  I gues you self insure your house as well?  and your car??

Well Ive managed to undergo quite extensive cancer treatment over the past 5 yrs and apart from a few odds and ends most of it was done in various public hospitals and I still have much more than $300,000 in my self insurance account which I started when i was 15 in the early 1970's.
Why would anyone get a bill of $300,000 in Australia given our health system?

adelcrow wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 4:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 4:27pm: adelcrow wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:53pm: A smart healthy person self insures..Put the same premiums into a separate account from the day you start work and a long with any major stuff being done in public hospitals you will have more than enough to cover any health issues and in fact it makes quite a good nest egg after a few decades. Private health insurance in this country is like throwing hundred dollar bills down the toilet. and if you got hit with a $300K bill like my friend then what???  the public hospitals were unwilling to look after a person in ICU for over a year and years of outpatient work after.  I gues you self insure your house as well?  and your car?? Well Ive managed to undergo quite extensive cancer treatment over the past 5 yrs and apart from a few odds and ends most of it was done in various public hospitals and I still have much more than $300,000 in my self insurance account which I started when i was 15 in the early 1970's. Why would anyone get a bill of $300,000 in Australia given our health system?

The $300K was the hospital bill which the private health covered.  The point is that if not in private health he would have been ditched out of hospital and left to flounder at home completely paralysed and with only home care.  That is the difference between surviving and not.

bummer on the cancer. 

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 3:41pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?  Medicine another of your areas of expertise I take it  ;D ;D ;D I'm not in any sort of false delusion, that would be you ... I said the chances are .... you do understand English don't you? there are no doctors or surgeons in private hospitals after hours ... you want to pay private health because they MAY be a surgeon available in the next room, go for it. I'd rather save my money. how many surgeons do you think are in public hospitals after hours???  like everything else you post you do so with utter ignorance of the topic.  If a cerebral haemorrhage bursts you don't get transferred ANYHWERE no matter where you are - unless it is to the morgue.

there is always a doctor on duty in a public hospital, stupid .... can you say the same about private? :D :D

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:41pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?  Medicine another of your areas of expertise I take it  ;D ;D ;D I'm not in any sort of false delusion, that would be you ... I said the chances are .... you do understand English don't you? there are no doctors or surgeons in private hospitals after hours ... you want to pay private health because they MAY be a surgeon available in the next room, go for it. I'd rather save my money. how many surgeons do you think are in public hospitals after hours???  like everything else you post you do so with utter ignorance of the topic.  If a cerebral haemorrhage bursts you don't get transferred ANYHWERE no matter where you are - unless it is to the morgue. there is always a doctor on duty in a public hospital, stupid .... can you say the same about private? :D :D

depends on how big the hospital is ;)

red baron wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

I think for many this latest increase will  be the straw that breaks the camel's back. A lot of us will be forced to dump our private insurance because we simply will not be able to afford the premiums. In retirement I have kept private coverage going but I think this may be a 'bridge too far', the well only has so much and everyone from Health to Electricity think it's open season on wager earners.

Yep the well is slowly drying up as the "entitled" class draw ever more from the productive class.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 4:45pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 4:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 4:27pm: adelcrow wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:53pm: A smart healthy person self insures..Put the same premiums into a separate account from the day you start work and a long with any major stuff being done in public hospitals you will have more than enough to cover any health issues and in fact it makes quite a good nest egg after a few decades. Private health insurance in this country is like throwing hundred dollar bills down the toilet. and if you got hit with a $300K bill like my friend then what???  the public hospitals were unwilling to look after a person in ICU for over a year and years of outpatient work after.  I gues you self insure your house as well?  and your car?? Well Ive managed to undergo quite extensive cancer treatment over the past 5 yrs and apart from a few odds and ends most of it was done in various public hospitals and I still have much more than $300,000 in my self insurance account which I started when i was 15 in the early 1970's. Why would anyone get a bill of $300,000 in Australia given our health system? The $300K was the hospital bill which the private health covered.  The point is that if not in private health he would have been ditched out of hospital and left to flounder at home completely paralysed and with only home care.  That is the difference between surviving and not. bummer on the cancer.

Its all good now..clear bill of health from last year so just the usual 3 monthly checkups these days.
I wont argue the point about health self insurance but I consider it the same as self managed super funds.
Im much better off in my mid 50's because ive always had control of both.
There will always be an exception to every rule but even if he had self insured from day one he would still be in front based on the money in my fund.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 3:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:44am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:23am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:17am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:51am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: a friend of mine was in private health insurance and had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. The public system would have sent him home because it wasn't 'serious' enough.  The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life.  his recuperations bills topped $300K. public patient outcome: dead Private patient outcome: alive what price insurance? Sure Dr longweekend http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mtQyXBhVvOw/T-cg6F4WYWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/twp-TCAIb7Q/s1600/iStock_000010119850XSmall.jpg naturally you'd have said that.  I had appendicitis - apparently very severe - but I have a condition where my BPR vitals NEVER CHANGE even when I am sick.  I could have a heart attack and by blood pressure remains textbook. I have to advise doctors of it all the time.  because I had no apparent symptoms other than pain the public system would have sent me home to 'wait and see'.  but it burst but because of my private insurance I was in a hospital so I was operated on within 30mins.  If I were in the public system it would have taken  many many hours if not an entire day by which time I would be poisoned throughout my body.  at 35yo I was young enough to survive that but would have been in hospital for a month and off work for a year. 20 years later such an event could actually kill me. so you wonder why I'm a fan of private insurance? what a load of rubbish ... the public system deals with thousands of cases of burst appendixes every year? lucky they all had a private system to fall back on  ;D ;D ;D do u know that a lot of burst appendix KILL the patient??  the very young and very old often don't survive it.  and the point was that my private insurance ensure that I was kept in a hospital bed while a public hospital would not have done so.  and that meant 3 days in hospital instead of a month with a year long rehabilitation. no patients die in private hospitals Longy? My brothers appendix burst, he used the public system and was fine. I'm pretty sure he was up and about the following week too.  why wouldn't private hospitals keep you in? At over $3500 a night, there rates are higher than a 6 star hotel. Money for Jam as far as the private hospitals are concerned. Why should my tax dollars pay for that? You want peace of mind, you pay for your own! clearly you've never stayed in private hospital.  and for the record, the fees you are quoting are AMERICAN HOSPITALS. you really are an ignorant person on any topic you choose to debate.

no longy, contrary to what you think, the figure I quoted is an Australian figure. 

Is it possible that you may one day actually post something based on facts rather than imagination? Do you like looking like a fool?

woody2014 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 5:32pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:41pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?  Medicine another of your areas of expertise I take it  ;D ;D ;D I'm not in any sort of false delusion, that would be you ... I said the chances are .... you do understand English don't you? there are no doctors or surgeons in private hospitals after hours ... you want to pay private health because they MAY be a surgeon available in the next room, go for it. I'd rather save my money. how many surgeons do you think are in public hospitals after hours???  like everything else you post you do so with utter ignorance of the topic.  If a cerebral haemorrhage bursts you don't get transferred ANYHWERE no matter where you are - unless it is to the morgue. there is always a doctor on duty in a public hospital, stupid .... can you say the same about private? :D :D depends on how big the hospital is ;)

actually, I doubt it ... most private hospitals that I am aware off only keep nurses on after hours ... why would they pay a doctor to hang around just in case? It's a business and profits come first.

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

woody2014 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 5:34pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 5:32pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:41pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?  Medicine another of your areas of expertise I take it  ;D ;D ;D I'm not in any sort of false delusion, that would be you ... I said the chances are .... you do understand English don't you? there are no doctors or surgeons in private hospitals after hours ... you want to pay private health because they MAY be a surgeon available in the next room, go for it. I'd rather save my money. how many surgeons do you think are in public hospitals after hours???  like everything else you post you do so with utter ignorance of the topic.  If a cerebral haemorrhage bursts you don't get transferred ANYHWERE no matter where you are - unless it is to the morgue. there is always a doctor on duty in a public hospital, stupid .... can you say the same about private? :D :D depends on how big the hospital is ;) actually, I doubt it ... most private hospitals that I am aware off only keep nurses on after hours ... why would they pay a doctor to hang around just in case? It's a business and profits come first.

ingle Room Accommodation

The department has increased its recommended single room fees by 2.5% on the 2012-13 rates in line with the Commonwealth’s increase in the default minimum shared room rate.

Patient Classification
Length of Stay

Recommended Single Room Rate
2013 -14

Advanced surgical patient:
• first 14 days
• over 14 days



$772
$574

Surgical or obstetric patient:
• first 14 days
• over 14 days



$733
$574

Psychiatric* patient:
• first 42 days
• 43-65 days
• over 65 days



$733
$618
$574

Rehabilitation* patient:
• first 49 days
• 50-65 days
• over 65 days



$733
$618
$574

Other patient:
• first 14 days
• over 14 days



$645
$574

* The circumstances under which Rehabilitation and Psychiatric fees can be charged by hospitals were clarified under changes to the Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules 2011. Payment for patients undergoing psychiatric or rehabilitation treatment, is subject to health insurer approval of a particular treatment program and the relevance to the patient diagnosis. Refer circular PHI 78/11.

Note: Where a patient is placed into a single room and they have elected to have a single room they are to be charged the single room rate. Hospitals should not retrospectively seek a single room election from a patient after a private patient is placed into a single room for clinical need.

Patient Classifications

The classifications advanced surgical, surgical and other are defined in Schedule 1 of the Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules 2011, made under the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. The item numbers contained in each classification are taken from the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and based on the complexity and fee charged for the procedure.

The determinations contain schedules of MBS item numbers for professional services under each patient classification. Schedule 1 specifies:

advanced surgical patient: is specified in Part 2 of this Schedule and the item numbers are derived from the MBS and apply to those MBS items that have an MBS fee that is greater than $852.95.

surgical patient: is specified in Part 2 of this Schedule and the item numbers are derived from the MBS and apply to those MBS items that have an MBS fee within the range of $254.00 to $852.95.

obstetric patient: is specified in Part one of this Schedule. (definition taken from Part 2 of Schedule 1)

psychiatric patient: is a patient in a hospital who is admitted for the purposes of undertaking a specific psychiatric treatment program that is deemed by the insurer to be relevant and appropriate for the treatment of the patient's disease, injury or condition.(definition taken from Part 2 of Schedule 1)

rehabilitation patient: is a patient in a hospital who is admitted for the purposes of undertaking a specific rehabilitation treatment program that is deemed by the insurer to be relevant and appropriate for the treatment of the patient's disease, injury or condition.(definition taken from Part 2 of Schedule 1)

other patient: are deemed to be any patients in a hospital other than advanced surgical, surgical, obstetric, psychiatric, or rehabilitation patients.(definition taken from Part 2 of Schedule 1)

Reference: Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rul

woody2014 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 5:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 5:47pm: woody2014 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 5:34pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 5:32pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:41pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1387832592/28#28 date=1387845668] The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?  Medicine another of your areas of expertise I take it  ;D ;D ;D I'm not in any sort of false delusion, that would be you ... I said the chances are .... you do understand English don't you? there are no doctors or surgeons in private hospitals after hours ... you want to pay private health because they MAY be a surgeon available in the next room, go for it. I'd rather save my money. how many surgeons do you think are in public hospitals after hours???  like everything else you post you do so with utter ignorance of the topic.  If a cerebral haemorrhage bursts you don't get transferred ANYHWERE no matter where you are - unless it is to the morgue. there is always a doctor on duty in a public hospital, stupid .... can you say the same about private? :D :D depends on how big the hospital is ;) actually, I doubt it ... most private hospitals that I am aware off only keep nurses on after hours ... why would they pay a doctor to hang around just in case? It's a business and profits come first.

ingle Room Accommodation

The department has increased its recommended single room fees by 2.5% on the 2012-13 rates in line with the Commonwealth’s increase in the default minimum shared room rate.

Patient Classification
Length of Stay

Recommended Single Room Rate
2013 -14

Advanced surgical patient:
• first 14 days
• over 14 days



$772
$574

Surgical or obstetric patient:
• first 14 days
• over 14 days



$733
$574

Psychiatric* patient:
• first 42 days
• 43-65 days
• over 65 days



$733
$618
$574

Rehabilitation* patient:
• first 49 days
• 50-65 days
• over 65 days



$733
$618
$574

Other patient:
• first 14 days
• over 14 days



$645
$574

* The circumstances under which Rehabilitation and Psychiatric fees can be charged by hospitals were clarified under changes to the Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules 2011. Payment for patients undergoing psychiatric or rehabilitation treatment, is subject to health insurer approval of a particular treatment program and the relevance to the patient diagnosis. Refer circular PHI 78/11.

Note: Where a patient is placed into a single room and they have elected to have a single room they are to be charged the single room rate. Hospitals should not retrospectively seek a single room election from a patient after a private patient is placed into a single room for clinical need.

Patient Classifications

The classifications advanced surgical, surgical and other are defined in Schedule 1 of the Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules 2011, made under the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. The item numbers contained in each classification are taken from the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and based on the complexity and fee charged for the procedure.

The determinations contain schedules of MBS item numbers for professional services under each patient classification. Schedule 1 specifies:

advanced surgical patient: is specified in Part 2 of this Schedule and the item numbers are derived from the MBS and apply to those MBS items that have an MBS fee that is greater than $852.95.

surgical patient: is specified in Part 2 of this Schedule and the item numbers are derived from the MBS and apply to those MBS items that have an MBS fee within the range of $254.00 to $852.95.

obstetric patient: is specified in Part one of this Schedule. (definition taken from Part 2 of Schedule 1)

psychiatric patient: is a patient in a hospital who is admitted for the purposes of undertaking a specific psychiatric treatment program that is deemed by the insurer to be relevant and appropriate for the treatment of the patient's disease, injury or condition.(definition taken from Part 2 of Schedule 1)

rehabilitation patient: is a patient in a hospital who is admitted for the purposes of undertaking a specific rehabilitation treatment program that is deemed by the insurer to be relevant and appropriate for the treatment of the patient's disease, injury or condition.(definition taken from Part 2 of Schedule 1)

other patient: are deemed to be any patients in a hospital other than advanced surgical, surgical, obstetric, psychiatric, or rehabilitation patients.(definition taken from Part 2 of Schedule 1)

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Swagman wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:04am: I pay private health insurance because the thieving govt want to tax me more if I don't...... despite paying the medicare tax. This is the Medicare surcharge for high-income earners without private health insurance. Blame Howard and Costello for this, they introduced it. IMO this surcharge should be abolished. It distorts the market. Bring back personal choice on health insurance. I thought you supported more taxes on the rich???  you do seem to have some convoluted ideologies.

I maybe wrong here but if I posted similar to Bam I'd expect the same general answer from you.

This is what you fail to understand there is a big difference in taxing for punishment and fair and reasonable taxation.

I too would support the abolishion of this surcharge, but by the same token you'd have to be dirt poor to get the 30% rebate as well.

I really don't think we'd have to change much either, just stop thinking because you pay tax your entitled to stuff.
No government assistence for anyone earning 80K(single) 150K(duel)
Keep the same portional rates we have.

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:41pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?  Medicine another of your areas of expertise I take it  ;D ;D ;D I'm not in any sort of false delusion, that would be you ... I said the chances are .... you do understand English don't you? there are no doctors or surgeons in private hospitals after hours ... you want to pay private health because they MAY be a surgeon available in the next room, go for it. I'd rather save my money. how many surgeons do you think are in public hospitals after hours???  like everything else you post you do so with utter ignorance of the topic.  If a cerebral haemorrhage bursts you don't get transferred ANYHWERE no matter where you are - unless it is to the morgue. there is always a doctor on duty in a public hospital, stupid .... can you say the same about private? :D :D

what kind of stupid question is that?  it depends on the size and I said SURGEON not doctor and there is a wealth of difference.

adelcrow wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 5:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 4:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 4:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 4:27pm: adelcrow wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:53pm: A smart healthy person self insures..Put the same premiums into a separate account from the day you start work and a long with any major stuff being done in public hospitals you will have more than enough to cover any health issues and in fact it makes quite a good nest egg after a few decades. Private health insurance in this country is like throwing hundred dollar bills down the toilet. and if you got hit with a $300K bill like my friend then what???  the public hospitals were unwilling to look after a person in ICU for over a year and years of outpatient work after.  I gues you self insure your house as well?  and your car?? Well Ive managed to undergo quite extensive cancer treatment over the past 5 yrs and apart from a few odds and ends most of it was done in various public hospitals and I still have much more than $300,000 in my self insurance account which I started when i was 15 in the early 1970's. Why would anyone get a bill of $300,000 in Australia given our health system? The $300K was the hospital bill which the private health covered.  The point is that if not in private health he would have been ditched out of hospital and left to flounder at home completely paralysed and with only home care.  That is the difference between surviving and not. bummer on the cancer.  Its all good now..clear bill of health from last year so just the usual 3 monthly checkups these days. I wont argue the point about health self insurance but I consider it the same as self managed super funds. Im much better off in my mid 50's because ive always had control of both. There will always be an exception to every rule but even if he had self insured from day one he would still be in front based on the money in my fund.

would you have had 300K 20 years ago???  and what if your need for $300K worth of cover occurred 40 years ago???  that's the problem with self-insurance - it plays the odds and if u win you do well but if you lose you lose very big including perhaps death.  that's kind the entire point of insurance.

John Smith wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 5:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:43pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:44am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:23am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:17am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:51am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: a friend of mine was in private health insurance and had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm. The public system would have sent him home because it wasn't 'serious' enough.  The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life.  his recuperations bills topped $300K. public patient outcome: dead Private patient outcome: alive what price insurance? Sure Dr longweekend http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mtQyXBhVvOw/T-cg6F4WYWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/twp-TCAIb7Q/s1600/iStock_000010119850XSmall.jpg naturally you'd have said that.  I had appendicitis - apparently very severe - but I have a condition where my BPR vitals NEVER CHANGE even when I am sick.  I could have a heart attack and by blood pressure remains textbook. I have to advise doctors of it all the time.  because I had no apparent symptoms other than pain the public system would have sent me home to 'wait and see'.  but it burst but because of my private insurance I was in a hospital so I was operated on within 30mins.  If I were in the public system it would have taken  many many hours if not an entire day by which time I would be poisoned throughout my body.  at 35yo I was young enough to survive that but would have been in hospital for a month and off work for a year. 20 years later such an event could actually kill me. so you wonder why I'm a fan of private insurance? what a load of rubbish ... the public system deals with thousands of cases of burst appendixes every year? lucky they all had a private system to fall back on  ;D ;D ;D do u know that a lot of burst appendix KILL the patient??  the very young and very old often don't survive it.  and the point was that my private insurance ensure that I was kept in a hospital bed while a public hospital would not have done so.  and that meant 3 days in hospital instead of a month with a year long rehabilitation. no patients die in private hospitals Longy? My brothers appendix burst, he used the public system and was fine. I'm pretty sure he was up and about the following week too.  why wouldn't private hospitals keep you in? At over $3500 a night, there rates are higher than a 6 star hotel. Money for Jam as far as the private hospitals are concerned. Why should my tax dollars pay for that? You want peace of mind, you pay for your own! clearly you've never stayed in private hospital.  and for the record, the fees you are quoting are AMERICAN HOSPITALS. you really are an ignorant person on any topic you choose to debate. no longy, contrary to what you think, the figure I quoted is an Australian figure.  Is it possible that you may one day actually post something based on facts rather than imagination? Do you like looking like a fool?

care to provide a link to support the case that hospital rooms cost $3500/day??  and I don't mean HDu or ICU.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:49pm: Bam wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Swagman wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:04am: I pay private health insurance because the thieving govt want to tax me more if I don't...... despite paying the medicare tax. This is the Medicare surcharge for high-income earners without private health insurance. Blame Howard and Costello for this, they introduced it. IMO this surcharge should be abolished. It distorts the market. Bring back personal choice on health insurance. I thought you supported more taxes on the rich???  you do seem to have some convoluted ideologies. I maybe wrong here but if I posted similar to Bam I'd expect the same general answer from you. This is what you fail to understand there is a big difference in taxing for punishment and fair and reasonable taxation. I too would support the abolishion of this surcharge, but by the same token you'd have to be dirt poor to get the 30% rebate as well. I really don't think we'd have to change much either, just stop thinking because you pay tax your entitled to stuff. No government assistence for anyone earning 80K(single) 150K(duel) Keep the same portional rates we have.

what about the flipside to that?  those that pay no taxation or no effective taxation... what right do they have to an entitlement.  it seems you want the on-contributors to be entitled while the contributors are to be denied.  There is a Jewish proverb 'do not muzzle the ox while he is threshing out the grain'  the point is that when someone works hard they are entitled to participate in the fruits of their labor.    It is part of the reasons why I don't belive the well off should be unilaterally denied the benefits of govt largesse.  they will only ever recoup an very, very small portion of what they contribute.  Is that so much to ask?  Unless of course you think of govt as little more than an income redistribution system at which point you might as well become a communist.

most upper  and middle earner welfare is token.  you carry on about private health supplement worth perhaps $1200pa while lower earners can get 10 times as much.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:49pm: Bam wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Swagman wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:04am: I pay private health insurance because the thieving govt want to tax me more if I don't...... despite paying the medicare tax. This is the Medicare surcharge for high-income earners without private health insurance. Blame Howard and Costello for this, they introduced it. IMO this surcharge should be abolished. It distorts the market. Bring back personal choice on health insurance. I thought you supported more taxes on the rich???  you do seem to have some convoluted ideologies. I maybe wrong here but if I posted similar to Bam I'd expect the same general answer from you. This is what you fail to understand there is a big difference in taxing for punishment and fair and reasonable taxation. I too would support the abolishion of this surcharge, but by the same token you'd have to be dirt poor to get the 30% rebate as well. I really don't think we'd have to change much either, just stop thinking because you pay tax your entitled to stuff. No government assistence for anyone earning 80K(single) 150K(duel) Keep the same portional rates we have.

nah... you are different to Bam.  that clown is a left-winger ideologue who destroyed his own forum by banning anyone who disagreed with him - which was a fair few considering he had only 6 posters left when it collapsed.  that moron repeatedly wants the rich punished and the poor rewarded.  I have no time for such idiocy or such arrogant fools.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

what about the flipside to that?  those that pay no taxation or no effective taxation... what right do they have to an entitlement.

If you think living in a sh!tty housing flat, drunk or drug addelled at worst, depressed and forever worrying about money at best is some sort of entitlement,your nuts.


longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

It is part of the reasons why I don't belive the well off should be unilaterally denied the benefits of govt largesse.

Their not and in my system they'd be better of because they'd end up actually paying less.
And what exactly do you think the government does for only 1 portion of the community?
Don't the rich get to drive their nice cars on nice roads?
Don't the well off get to hire reasonably intelligent people, imagine if 50% of the population couldn't read or write, had no idea about even basic problem solving?
The defense forces if ever called on to be that (rather than a wingman) won't say no you earn to much, protect yourself.



longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

Unless of course you think of govt as little more than an income redistribution system at which point you might as well become a communist.

So my free market has morphed into communism.
My no welfare for middle to high wealth but a sliding scale offering aid to those poor and dirt poor totaling nothing more than a roof and enough for basic meals for the worst.
You seem to think Im proposing a 5 bedder, boat & 2 cars.
I also reject corporate welfare which I think this rebate has proven to be, but I'm not against low interest government loans for emerging industries.

It's about fairness not winners or losers

As I said "You get the Society you are willing to pay for"

And if our tax $ were used as they are supposed to be we'd all pay less and get more.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:50pm:

care to provide a link to support the case that hospital rooms cost $3500/day??  no, i did a quick search and they don't like to advertise their prices and I don't mean HDu or ICU.

why not? I didn't say all stays were $3500 .... don't try to change the rules just to win the argument

woody2014 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

The department has increased its recommended single room fees by 2.5% on the 2012-13 rates in line with the Commonwealth’s increase in the default minimum shared room rate.Patient ClassificationLength of StayRecommended Single Room Rate 2013 -14Advanced surgical patient:• first 14 days• over 14 days $772$574Surgical or obstetric patient:• first 14 days• over 14 days $733$574Psychiatric* patient:• first 42 days• 43-65 days• over 65 days $733$618$574Rehabilitation* patient:• first 49 days• 50-65 days• over 65 days $733$618$574Other patient:• first 14 days• over 14 days $645$574

Is that for govt. hospitals?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 5:32pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:41pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 1:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:42am: John Smith wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 11:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:41am: The aneurysm burst in hospital and he was operated on immediately (literally) saving his life Bullsh1t ..... if the aneurysm burst while he was in a private hospital the chances are he would have been transferred to a public hospital anyway. LOL how little you know about medicine.  what do you think the time frame for saving the patient is with a burst aneurysm???  3 minutes!!!  they grabbed a neurosurgeon scrubbing up in an adjacent theatre to assist the surgeon because time was of the essence.  why are u of this false delusion that public hospitals are the only ones that do brain surgery?  Medicine another of your areas of expertise I take it  ;D ;D ;D I'm not in any sort of false delusion, that would be you ... I said the chances are .... you do understand English don't you? there are no doctors or surgeons in private hospitals after hours ... you want to pay private health because they MAY be a surgeon available in the next room, go for it. I'd rather save my money. how many surgeons do you think are in public hospitals after hours???  like everything else you post you do so with utter ignorance of the topic.  If a cerebral haemorrhage bursts you don't get transferred ANYHWERE no matter where you are - unless it is to the morgue. there is always a doctor on duty in a public hospital, stupid .... can you say the same about private? :D :D what kind of stupid question is that?  it depends on the size and I said SURGEON not doctor and there is a wealth of difference.

well you won't find either ... unless the doctor has been called in for something, they do not work after hours in a private hospital

adelcrow wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 4:37pm:

Well Ive managed to undergo quite extensive cancer treatment over the past 5 yrs and apart from a few odds and ends most of it was done in various public hospitals and I still have much more than $300,000 in my self insurance account which I started when i was 15 in the early 1970's. Why would anyone get a bill of $300,000 in Australia given our health system?

meh, I call bullshit, I have noted your irrational and at times insane sounding postings and I don't reckon you have anything like 300k in scratch.  You don't display the sort of rational thinking that allows that sort of accumulation.  Or even the capacity for employment. 

After spewing an endless stream of  idiotic posts I am now supposed to accept that you are a well adjusted individual with a 300k health account?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:57pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:49pm: Bam wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Swagman wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:04am: I pay private health insurance because the thieving govt want to tax me more if I don't...... despite paying the medicare tax. This is the Medicare surcharge for high-income earners without private health insurance. Blame Howard and Costello for this, they introduced it. IMO this surcharge should be abolished. It distorts the market. Bring back personal choice on health insurance. I thought you supported more taxes on the rich???  you do seem to have some convoluted ideologies. I maybe wrong here but if I posted similar to Bam I'd expect the same general answer from you. This is what you fail to understand there is a big difference in taxing for punishment and fair and reasonable taxation. I too would support the abolishion of this surcharge, but by the same token you'd have to be dirt poor to get the 30% rebate as well. I really don't think we'd have to change much either, just stop thinking because you pay tax your entitled to stuff. No government assistence for anyone earning 80K(single) 150K(duel) Keep the same portional rates we have. nah... you are different to Bam.  that clown is a left-winger ideologue who destroyed his own forum by banning anyone who disagreed with him - which was a fair few considering he had only 6 posters left when it collapsed.  that moron repeatedly wants the rich punished and the poor rewarded.  I have no time for such idiocy or such arrogant fools.

Longweekend58,

It is time you stopped posting lies about me and making personal attacks. I have reported the post quoted above to the moderators. You can expect to be suspended in due course because what you have posted is defamatory.

Yes, I am a moderator at another forum. I suspended you because you broke the forum rules, many times, for making personal attacks. Not because we disagreed, but because you make personal attacks as an argument tactic.

The quoted post above is evidence that you have not learnt this lesson.

What's worse is that you're just making up defamatory falsehoods about something where you cannot possibly have personal knowledge because moderation decisions are not made public. Others were suspended for similar misdeeds and from across the political spectrum. You are lying, longweekend58. Judging by the number of people that call you a liar on these forums, I doubt that many would be surprised by this.

During the period of your likely suspension, take the time to reflect on your tendency to make personal attacks and don't be a recidivist when you get back. I don't expect you will change your ways, but we live in hope.

BAM

Bam wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 7:16am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:57pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:49pm: Bam wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Swagman wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:04am: I pay private health insurance because the thieving govt want to tax me more if I don't...... despite paying the medicare tax. This is the Medicare surcharge for high-income earners without private health insurance. Blame Howard and Costello for this, they introduced it. IMO this surcharge should be abolished. It distorts the market. Bring back personal choice on health insurance. I thought you supported more taxes on the rich???  you do seem to have some convoluted ideologies. I maybe wrong here but if I posted similar to Bam I'd expect the same general answer from you. This is what you fail to understand there is a big difference in taxing for punishment and fair and reasonable taxation. I too would support the abolishion of this surcharge, but by the same token you'd have to be dirt poor to get the 30% rebate as well. I really don't think we'd have to change much either, just stop thinking because you pay tax your entitled to stuff. No government assistence for anyone earning 80K(single) 150K(duel) Keep the same portional rates we have. nah... you are different to Bam.  that clown is a left-winger ideologue who destroyed his own forum by banning anyone who disagreed with him - which was a fair few considering he had only 6 posters left when it collapsed.  that moron repeatedly wants the rich punished and the poor rewarded.  I have no time for such idiocy or such arrogant fools. Longweekend58, It is time you stopped posting lies about me and making personal attacks. I have reported the post quoted above to the moderators. You can expect to be suspended in due course because what you have posted is defamatory. Yes, I am a moderator at another forum. I suspended you because you broke the forum rules, many times, for making personal attacks. Not because we disagreed, but because you make personal attacks as an argument tactic. The quoted post above is evidence that you have not learnt this lesson. What's worse is that you're just making up defamatory falsehoods about something where you cannot possibly have personal knowledge because moderation decisions are not made public. Others were suspended for similar misdeeds and from across the political spectrum. You are lying, longweekend58. Judging by the number of people that call you a liar on these forums, I doubt that many would be surprised by this. During the period of your likely suspension, take the time to reflect on your tendency to make personal attacks and don't be a recidivist when you get back. I don't expect you will change your ways, but we live in hope. BAM

lol.. ban longy for that.,. you have got to be kidding..you sound far too sensitive for this forum precious ...personal attacks..lol.. its a lefty pass time on here..one or two never make any comment at all unless its personal I am sure the mods will fall about laughing over your complaint..

I guess you are a sissy.. ;D ;D

or a bully.... recidivist  longy committed a CRIME oh gawd.. ::)

add pompous prat to that..ooooppps another ban coming up.


happy chrissy day anyway if you can manage it..

You are lying, longweekend58. Judging by the number of people that call you a liar on these forums, I doubt that many would be surprised by this.

___________

many blessings

the beloved id weekender is forgiven for lies

ignorance whether duped or deliberately duping ..

the dupery inflicted upon this forum

by one such as weekender ultimately serves to

illuminate darkness

every being plays his / her part without permission

or moderation facilitated by egoistic control freaks

and clown maggots ( beloved id chimp interpretation )

thus then and within as much

all are forgiven and loved

and so it is so be it

namaste

- : ) =

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Swagman wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:04am: I pay private health insurance because the thieving govt want to tax me more if I don't...... despite paying the medicare tax. This is the Medicare surcharge for high-income earners without private health insurance. Blame Howard and Costello for this, they introduced it. IMO this surcharge should be abolished. It distorts the market. Bring back personal choice on health insurance. I thought you supported more taxes on the rich???  you do seem to have some convoluted ideologies.

Since you cannot work it out for yourself and rather indulge in inaccurate pigeonholing, I'll show you.

I have usually posted from the viewpoint of more consistent taxation. Concessional rates of capital gains are not consistent. 1% penalty surcharge on the Medicare levy is not consistent. Generous negative gearing with nothing for owner occupiers is not consistent. Generous subsidies to profitable industries (health, mining) with other industries getting nothing are not consistent. I have posted against all of these.

it_is_the_light wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 7:51am:

You are lying, longweekend58. Judging by the number of people that call you a liar on these forums, I doubt that many would be surprised by this. ___________ many blessings the beloved id weekender is forgiven for lies ignorance whether duped or deliberately duping .. the dupery inflicted upon this forum by one such as weekender ultimately serves to illuminate darkness every being plays his / her part without permission or moderation facilitated by egoistic control freaks and clown maggots ( beloved id chimp interpretation ) thus then and within as much all are forgiven and loved and so it is so be it namaste - : ) =

oh so longy is the only one to stretch the truth..OF COURSE!!..

;D ;D.. its only his opinion for the most part...which he is entitled to have on here. unless the marshals come on board and deal out bans that is... ::) ::).. not sure who made them the forum police...but I am sure we will find out soon enough..

some definitely think they are better than others...

do you forgive that light??>..or is that forum correctness at its best? :D

blessings cods,

for all are loved and forgiven

beloved being

many blessings unto all hearts

namaste

http://i1.ytimg.com/i/rNt3Gdex3oHwmJvgQkbpqA/mq1.jpg

- : ) =

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 8:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:49pm: Bam wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Swagman wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:04am: I pay private health insurance because the thieving govt want to tax me more if I don't...... despite paying the medicare tax. This is the Medicare surcharge for high-income earners without private health insurance. Blame Howard and Costello for this, they introduced it. IMO this surcharge should be abolished. It distorts the market. Bring back personal choice on health insurance. I thought you supported more taxes on the rich???  you do seem to have some convoluted ideologies. I maybe wrong here but if I posted similar to Bam I'd expect the same general answer from you. This is what you fail to understand there is a big difference in taxing for punishment and fair and reasonable taxation. I too would support the abolishion of this surcharge, but by the same token you'd have to be dirt poor to get the 30% rebate as well. I really don't think we'd have to change much either, just stop thinking because you pay tax your entitled to stuff. No government assistence for anyone earning 80K(single) 150K(duel) Keep the same portional rates we have. what about the flipside to that?  those that pay no taxation or no effective taxation... what right do they have to an entitlement.

Every right - if the state will not allow the labour market to be structured in such a way that everyone who wants a job can get one, the state must support the jobless in other ways. If someone is disabled, the state should provide for their care. Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to brown-tongue their way around the ol'-boy network to ensure they live on the gravy train for life.


Quote:

it seems you want the on-contributors to be entitled while the contributors are to be denied.

Typical woolly-headed rightwing thinking.


Quote:

There is a Jewish proverb 'do not muzzle the ox while he is threshing out the grain'

A more pertinent saying is, "From each according to one's means, to each according to one's needs."


Quote:

the point is that when someone works hard they are entitled to participate in the fruits of their labor.

Yes. They get PAID. ::) They could always ask the boss for more pay, or run their business better. Anyone who's paying a lot of tax is doing so because they're earning a lot of money. This is a point that you never mention.


Quote:

It is part of the reasons why I don't belive the well off should be unilaterally denied the benefits of govt largesse.

Why? It's not like they will be forced to eat scraps out of rubbish bins and sleep under bridges if they don't get it.


Quote:

they will only ever recoup an very, very small portion of what they contribute.  Is that so much to ask?

Yes, it is. If the well-off got as much as you seem to think they want, we would have a deficit so huge that we would default on our nation's debt very quickly. Don't bleed the cow dry if you just want a little milk.


Quote:

Unless of course you think of govt as little more than an income redistribution system at which point you might as well become a communist.

Commies! Commies! Look, commies! Reds under the beds! Looking forward to the good fortune that the new year of 1953 will bring? What are your views of Menzies and the new Queen?  ;D

Shh, don't tell him it's not 1952...


Quote:

most upper  and middle earner welfare is token.  you carry on about private health supplement worth perhaps $1200pa while lower earners can get 10 times as much.

Don't like the fact that low-income earners get these benefits? PAY THEM MORE IN WORK so they don't need government money.

As for welfare, Gina Rinehart gets more money from the government every week thanks to mining subsidies than a typical welfare recipient gets in a year.