Would Be Willing to Pay Double The Medicare Levy for Free Dental, Ambulance, Aged Care and Optical? [Poll]

Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 17:20

We have a fantastic health care system but it has some clear (understandable) gaps. The system saves a lot of lives and we can all agree it is one of the shining lights of living in Australia. It is also a services we all have benefited from in our life time - either from going to the doctor with the flu, having a baby or life saving treatment

On the flip side our private health care system is very expensive either via private insurance or paying for services like Dental out of pocket.

Also our aged care sector needs to be totally over hauled and imo it should be a 'public' service run similar to our hospitals becuz most people in aged care have complex health needs ie Dementia, Diabetes etc that need better care then what is currently on offer. - again this is something most of us will benefit from within our life time

Now im not some blind socialist that demands everything for free - i know that everything comes at a cost but i would be interested in what people think.

Right now we pay a medicare Levy of 2% according to the ATO website and some higher earners also pay a medicare levy surcharge if they dont have PH insurance.

Personally i would have no problem paying an extra tax if it went to providing those services but i probably am in the minority!

As someone who believes we pay 'too much' tax - i actually would support the idea of increasing the levy to 4% for the extra services

Poll Options

  • 190
    Yes id pay a higher levy for the extra health care services
  • 40
    No I don't want to pay more tax id rather pay for these services myself when needed
Health & Beauty

Comments

  • ozhunter on 05/09/2020 - 17:37
    +1

    I'd guess if you're single and earning under 70k, you probably wouldn't want it increased. If you have a family, it would probably be cheaper in the long run.

    Though would that even be enough to cover those extra services?

  • holdenmg on 05/09/2020 - 17:44
    +1

    Lots of people already pay for Dental via Private Extras.

    If you include Dental into the 4% then is that going to totally cover all Dental by a Private Dentist (or just in a Public Dental Hospital).

    What about Braces or Invisalign and Cosmetic Dentistry…

    I'd like to see some costings and subscribe to your Newsletter. lol

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 18:12
      +1

      All essential dental would be covered - including a clean every 6 months and fillings

      • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 18:22
        +1

        Assuming on the very cheap side that two cleans and a filling every year costs $200 (it won't be anywhere close but let's put on some rose tinted glasses), and 20 million people access this service.

        That's an additional $4billion dollars to tax payers per year.

        That's assuming zero administrative cost, public running dental services as efficiently as private and a low low loooow average of $200 per person.

        What benefit does this $4billion annual cost actually provide? Bear in mind, tax payers want to see societal benefit, ie. trains = economic gain and lighter traffic.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 18:29
          +5

          What benefit do we get out of

          Politician life time pensions?

          What benefit do we get from luxury car tax? (we dont have a car industry)

          Why do we have TAC in our rego if it only benefits tho who have a car accident?

          i could go on

          The benefit would be improved dental care, people not driving there loved ones to the hospital when they should call an ambulance becuz they dont want to be hit with a 1500 charge, parents who can afford brace/glasses could get them…. i could go on

          • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 18:34

            @Trying2SaveABuck:

            Politician life time pensions?

            I don't agree with the pension but it is hard to get public attention for the issue as it doesn't cost anywhere near billions of dollars per year.

            What benefit do we get from luxury car tax?

            I'm against it also but the benefit is very obvious - the wealthy and/or individuals who spend more pays more in taxes, the wider public gets to enjoy goods and services paid for by tax payers without having to be penalised under the LCT.

            The benefit would be improved dental care, people not driving there loved ones to the hospital when they should call an ambulance becuz they dont want to be hit with a 1500 charge…

            You've moved well into the defined territory of personal interest. In this territory, we can also justify socialised cost of food.

            "The benefit would be fewer children going hungry, fewer people having to see loved ones suffer illnesses relates to nutrition…"

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 18:43
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: Political pensions cost 350m a year this cost will only continue to grow exponentially as more MPs retire……

              Luxury car tax - provides no benefit to the public as it was introduces to protect Aussie jobs - you argument that tax is the benefit is basically like saying tax = good where that is not the case tax is bad it is the services that it provides that are to benefit all the community but ultimately tax reduces the efficiency of a free market reducing the total size of the pie for all of us

              The tax on fuel is also another stupid tax - once again read what i said about tax reducing efficiency of a free market

              I feel like your missing the point but i understand if you dont support the idea - but the point is you pay a tax you KNOW where you benefit from it not you pay the tax and let the government decide what benefits you (even if it doesn't)

              I dont support all aspects of public health but this is one i could get behind

              • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 18:55
                +1

                @Trying2SaveABuck:

                Political pensions cost 350m a year this cost will only continue to grow exponentially as more MPs retire……

                You're preaching to the choir… Just saying.

                Luxury car tax - provides no benefit to the public

                The public doesn't have to pay for the tax, only people who want to buy luxury cars. The tax goes into government coffers. Coffers which pay for ideas like the one you are pitching.

                Again, you're preaching to the choir. I don't want to pay more tax. As for protecting local jobs? Yeeeeeaaaaahhhhh. The idea may be pitched as such but seriously, let's call it what it is - cash grab.

                The tax on fuel is also another stupid tax - once again read what i said about tax reducing efficiency of a free market

                It's a pay per use tax. Would you rather every vehicle, be it one that travels 500km/year and one that does 150,000km to pay the same rego to fund the roads, or tax based on travel. Taxing the fuel is taxation proportional to wear caused to the road.

                but the point is you pay a tax you KNOW where you benefit from it not you pay the tax and let the government decide what benefits you

                What? I am in the highest tax bracket. (Weird flex yadda yadda). I have broke my front tooth doing something stupid. You think I was eligible for an implant back then or under your proposed changes?

                Apart from that, I have never needed any dental work ever because I clean religiously.

                The tax you are proposing is one I KNOW will have absolutely no benefit to me.

                I am not missing the point. You just don't like the reality of your proposal.

          • holdenmg on 05/09/2020 - 18:37
            +1

            @Trying2SaveABuck: People can pay a modest amount for Ambulance Cover so $1500 charges are not incurred. Others have Ambulance Cover included in their Private Extras and Qld has free Ambulance for Qld Residents.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 18:45

              @holdenmg: Of course and i do but like i said above ill say it again

              'I feel like your missing the point but i understand if you dont support the idea - but the point is you pay a tax you KNOW where you benefit from it not you pay the tax and let the government decide what benefits you'

              • holdenmg on 05/09/2020 - 18:53
                +4

                @Trying2SaveABuck: Yes, I agree, there needs to be accountability.
                But the devil is in the detail.

                Our current system is broken, doesn't include Dental which should be part of Medicare.

                • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 18:55
                  +1

                  @holdenmg: I guess that's my point i HATE paying taxes but if i new my tax was going to something that even if i dont directly beneft from it isnt wasted on shit like MP pensions and free travel for those idiots i'd be willing to pay it

                  Also i'm horrified at the aged care system and the findings of the RC - i know (god willing) one day i will get old and i dont want to be in a place thats lets maggots eat away at me whilst i die helplessly

                  • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 19:29

                    @Trying2SaveABuck:

                    Also i'm horrified at the aged care system and the findings of the RC - i know (god willing) one day i will get old and i dont want to be in a place thats lets maggots eat away at me whilst i die helplessly

                    So am I.

                    There are three things you can do to mitigate the risk of you ending up in that situation.

                    1. Hope society will pay, and government will do a good job with your money and aged care regulation. That's something you have zero personal control over. That's like driving blindfolded and hoping everyone moves out of your way.

                    2. Raise children and instil family values that include looking after the elderly. You somewhat have some control but there is personal cost associated.

                    3. Save and invest wisely. You have the most control. That higher tax rate may impede your ability to do so.

                    • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 20:10

                      @[Deactivated]: You could have 5millions dollars in your retirement if you have dementia and cant manage your money there isnt much it is going to do…

                      • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 20:16

                        @Trying2SaveABuck: Power of attorney.

                        It's no different than giving that power to government.

                        You have dementia, either way, you can't do much.

                • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 19:00
                  -1

                  @holdenmg: Ask the Brits how their NHS dental is working out. Statistically, their dental health is worse. Perhaps they are genetically inferior dentally.

                  Or perhaps they have poor treatment outcomes.

                  (They have poor treatment outcomes.)

                  Unless we rework the whole dentist arrangement, ie there must be a prescribing dental physician and a dental surgeon to concur with the details of the prescription, only the dentist will benefit from dental being under Medicare.

                  To have the above check and balance of physician and surgeon for dentistry, and the added government inefficiency, the cost is going to be astounding.

                  • holdenmg on 05/09/2020 - 19:22
                    -1

                    @[Deactivated]: Well exactly. How much $ from the 4% are we going to allocate?

                    • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 19:33

                      @holdenmg: Without check and balance, it is a proverbial bottomless pit. A blank cheque.

                      There was a $4,000 dental scheme some 10 years ago. They stopped that quick smart because of this exact reason.

                      • holdenmg on 05/09/2020 - 19:43

                        @[Deactivated]: Just send me the blank cheque then… It can be our secret. lol

                        • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 19:49
                          +1

                          @holdenmg: Haha. I don't mind either. I'm always hoping my elective surgeries make it into Medicare and I'm sure dentists want it too (at least the ones that see the big picture.)

                          The day I get to bill out to Medicare for my elective procedures, I am hiring as many juniors as I can muster and pre-ordering a G7.

                          For those that doubt the business model, all you have to do is ask the pathology labs.

                    • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 20:11

                      @holdenmg: well 2% for the current services the other 2% for the new

        • brendanm on 05/09/2020 - 20:50
          +4

          This. A doubling of the fee is way way too low to come close to trying to cover everything listed.

          People who are careful with their teeth and health get nothing, Gazza the ice fiend contributes nothing burns through an extra $40k a year.

          • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 23:48
            +1

            @brendanm: I disagree with you could look after your teeth and still have issues with your teeth….

            Matter of fact you can also end up with jaw issues that can be expensive to manage too…

            You can have the healthiest life style and still get cancer or have a heart attack and vice versa you could be a smoker and eat maccers ever day and live till 100, health issues do not discriminate and weather people like it or no genetics play a huge role in your health outcomes something non of us can control

            sure you can reduce your risk but you can rarely eliminated it

    • smalltime0 on 06/09/2020 - 08:20

      You should check what that covers in case of emergency. I tripped and fell a while back, I don't have insurance, but they only cover basically what I'd have paid in one year.
      Compare that to the UK, where it is all covered under the NHS.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 18:16
    +3

    Non surgical optical, ie glasses, is cheap and sufficiently competitive (and trending more so). Adding a layer of government to distribute these services would increase the cost substantially. We'd essentially be increasing tax to fund administrative jobs without necessarily providing more service.

    Trauma and many other eye problems are covered under Medicare.

    Ambulance is a flat fee and I respect the rights of individuals who do not want to participate in the cost of the service. We need not impose to the cost to those unwilling to pay. It's the freedom to choose.

    Their well-being is obviously affected but the impact is really limited to them. Unlike wider Medicare issues which some issues if untreated affects us all (think viral outbreak. Hard to imagine but it can happen), ambulances are overwhelmingly dealing with trauma or acute issues.

    People have the right to choose and people are able to take responsibility also.

    Aged care has such a large cultural issue attached. So many cultures look after their elderly and have a different family-financial approach. In many cultures, parents make large financial investment in their children and later the children look after the parents in their old age. Government and society has little to do with it.

    To make these families pay towards other people's care in their old age isn't mutually/universally beneficial.

    The people that pay the most tax are the ones that need the least amount of dental work but when they do need dental treatment, it is likely the very expensive type that isn't covered by the public system.

    Ie. Lower social economic groups require more removals and fillings, and they require it more frequently due to neglect. Higher income groups are on average significantly more disciplined and less prone to situations arising from neglect, however, they are more likely to seek treatment options that are unimpeded by cost such as dental implants.

    If you want to include dental, there is the above problem where fair treatment would appear discriminatory as the two ends of the income spectrums have very different needs and disproportionately funds the system.

    Also, dental is both a physician and surgical role. This is a recipe for over-servicing. The current check and balance for dental is wait times in public, and out of pocket cost in private.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 18:24

      Like with Doctors it actually might reduce the cost of dentel forcing dentist to bulk bill and not just charge crazy money for procedures.

      I work in health care and i can tell you dentist DONT want this to happen becuz they cant keep charging 6k for brace….

      Your arguments are fair but can be used for anything… it is about building a society were we all have access to adequate care - it is not about rich and poor ppl

      ie we all pay for kids to go too school but not everyone has kids

      • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 18:28
        +2

        forcing dentist to bulk bill and not just charge crazy money for procedures.

        Which industry shall we use tax payers' money to destroy with dumping?

        Imagine your industry, let's say it is fish farming, is under consideration. How is it ethical/logical/good to have you fork the bill for a department to become your competition that can afford to give the fish away for free?

        There are sufficient dentist for competitive pricing to happen.

    • smalltime0 on 06/09/2020 - 08:21

      You know you don't opt-in to ambulances right?
      If someone calls one for you, you're obligated to pay.

      • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2020 - 08:33
        +2

        The subscription is opt-in.

        If you're incapacitated and someone calls an ambulance for you, the primary concern isn't cost anymore. That ship has sailed.

        • smalltime0 on 06/09/2020 - 08:56

          No, you can refuse, and I did (though, I was concussed and the person calling it happened to be a nurse).
          You still pay out of pocket for the Ambulance, it doesn't matter if you opted in or not.

          And to be clear, the nurse did the right thing. I ended up needing surgery.

          • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2020 - 09:02

            @smalltime0: Should have got ambulance cover.

            Not sure what point you're trying to make. It's a simple matter of choosing not to subscribe and then later being hit with an incidental cost.

            • smalltime0 on 06/09/2020 - 09:14

              @[Deactivated]: "Ambulance is a flat fee and I respect the rights of individuals who do not want to participate in the cost of the service. "
              You literally don't get to choose. If someone calls an Ambulance for you, you are liable for the fee.
              EDIT: It was $988, given that this was the first time I would have gotten any benefit, not paying into a private system was better.
              I was, and am, 100% for a NHS style system in Aus

              • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2020 - 09:52
                +1

                @smalltime0: So you do get get a choice to choose whether you want to pay the flat fee or pay per use.

                Unless you are suggesting that you don't get a choice when you need one? Or that somehow, others can inflict financial harm by frivolously calling an ambulance for you.

                It's like car insurance. You can be insured. You can be uninsured. Your choice. You don't get to choose when you get hit but if you do, you're going to have to pay. There is a better case for making car insurance mandatory than there is to socialise the cost of ambulances. At fault drivers often cannot afford the repair cost for the other party. With an ambulance, the party is limited to the individual concerned.

  • Seraphin7 on 05/09/2020 - 18:17
    +4

    Have you costed this? What makes you think that increasing the levy to 4% will pay for everything you are including?

    Have you factored in the fact that once something is "free" the demand for it is suddenly a lot higher than it is when you have to pay for it yourself?

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 18:25

      read my above reply to tshow'

      I have not done costing it is just a hypothetical

      • Seraphin7 on 05/09/2020 - 18:26

        So the solution is to force highly skilled and experienced professionals to accept less for their services than they currently receive, and presumably their customers are prepared to pay?

        • entropysbane on 05/09/2020 - 18:40
          +1

          Why yes, of course!
          Also, the cunning part of the plan is that most people would be paid for with Other Peoples’ Money (OPM).

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 18:48

          Considering 95% of the people who were trained were given HEC and has had government funding put into there unis where got trained at i dont think it is a bad thing?

          Dentist have monopoly on something that could be public provided

          • entropysbane on 05/09/2020 - 19:03

            @Trying2SaveABuck: As I recall the free uni years were from about 1974 or thereabouts until 1984. HECS started after that. So just over a decade I suppose.

            I guess before then there was the Menzies era commonwealth scholarships or those on cadetships with government departments, banks or mining companies, and a lot of Legacy kids of course, but most of them would be retired now.

            They would certainly be past their prime medico wise.

            And what on earth do you mean dentists have a monopoly? In the sense I can’t go to a vet or the old codger down the road with a pair of pliers to have my teeth examined?

          • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 19:05
            +1

            @Trying2SaveABuck: What?!

            Dentist have a monopoly? That's like saying bus drivers have a monopoly on driving busses because all busses are driven by bus drivers.

            I just googled dentist. The search results tells me there are hundreds of dentists within my driving distance. Unless they work for the same company (I also did an ABN search, they don't), they are not a "monopoly".

            That's a gross misuse of the word.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 19:08
              -2

              @[Deactivated]: You can get to your destination via car/plane/train/walk or ride etc

              you need a root canal you one option

              • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 19:14
                +1

                @Trying2SaveABuck:

                you need a root canal you one option

                So there's only one company that does root canals?

                You're misusing the word monopoly - ie. One entity selling/providing a service.

                In this case, there are multiple entities. The dentists are not financially associated with one another. They are seperate business.

                That's like saying "shops are monopolies because only shops sell things".

                Second fallacy is that a root canal is **never"* the only option. Removing the tooth is also an option.

  • ryan1jz on 05/09/2020 - 18:18
    +4

    I'd pay a higher levy, and I'd also be happy to up my tax rate to %50 if I had to, if it meant public hospitals got more funding, along with schools and other infrastructure that society in general would benefit from.

    • lubos on 05/09/2020 - 18:30
      +2

      Someone who is on $40k earns $667 per week after tax.

      With your proposal their after tax pay would come to $384 per week.

      • ryan1jz on 05/09/2020 - 18:34
        +2

        I don't propose a blanket tax increase for everyone, don't make it seem like that's what I said. I am in a pay bracket where I feel I can pay more, ($80k ish base wage). Maybe if I paid more, that person on $40k could get their teeth fixed and have more confidence about themselves, get braces for their kids, more public transport options for them, better equipped schools, take a load off their shoulders. Then they could be happier, healthier, not have as much stress, and perhaps have more opportunities to get further ahead with a little extra help.

        Edit: I like how my original comment was upvoted, then downvoted. I guess it says a lot about wanting to help others less fortunate.

        • lubos on 05/09/2020 - 18:49
          +3

          Someone who is on $80k earns $1,169 per week after tax.

          With your proposal their after tax pay would come to $769 per week.

          I just want you to think about the numbers before making bold claims how you'd be happy to give up $400 per week from your $1,169 after tax pay.

          • ryan1jz on 05/09/2020 - 19:01
            +1

            @lubos: While I admit a simple tax increase wouldn't be enough, it would need a mindset change and a shake up of government. $50billion of our tax payer dollars went to outdated submarines for the navy to be built by the French. $443 million for the fake great barrier reef foundation. $30 million to Foxtel for no reason? Minor examples, these are things that do not benefit taxpayers, but doesn't cause much hoohah anymore. But as soon as someone suggests something to help other people you get called a communist. If the tax rate was increased and actually spent on making things better for the average person, a lot of costs would probably disappear and the reduction in take home pay might not sting as much. Buy back all the private owned essential services so your taxes aren't paying for a shareholders dividend.

            I am getting carried away, but simply put, I'm happy to pay more, if someone else benefits. I keep myself in good shape and health, I will never have children, but I want people who aren't as lucky as me to get healthcare they need and the education they need.

            Sue me.

        • entropysbane on 05/09/2020 - 18:52
          +2

          I see. You want to be virtuous but want Other People to pay with OPM.

          • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 19:01

            @entropysbane: Hey i never said 50% im just saying 4% opposed to 2%

            ie atm you earn 50k a year you pay 1k - $19 a week

            at 4% you would be paying 2k - ie $38 a week

          • ryan1jz on 05/09/2020 - 19:02

            @entropysbane: Thats how taxes work, and my post literally said that I would be happy to pay more. I am the Other People you are talking about.

            • entropysbane on 05/09/2020 - 19:09
              +1

              @ryan1jz: No, you are speaking for yourself.

              Why not donate it then? Every week.

              • ryan1jz on 05/09/2020 - 19:13

                @entropysbane: Correct, thats how forum posts work. However your initial post said I wanted other people to pay for things with other peoples money. What is it, am I speaking for myself, saying I'm happy to pay more, or am I saying I want other people to pay for it?

                • entropysbane on 05/09/2020 - 19:14
                  +1

                  @ryan1jz: You are assuming everyone in your situation will make the same decisions as you. You are being free with Other Peoples’ Money.

                  • ryan1jz on 05/09/2020 - 19:43

                    @entropysbane: Thats why in one of my posts I said it's a mindset change thats needed. Enough of the, "I have mine" and more of wanting to help others. The strong have the power to lift the weak up, not hold them down. I know that mindset change wont happen in my lifetime (34yo), but I hope it eventually does. The attitude of fighting against chipping in extra for the greater good is sad, there is enough wealth to help, educate, rehabilitate, to progress this society further, but the mindset needs to change.
                    I'm done for this Friday night, comrade ryan1jz out.

      • smalltime0 on 06/09/2020 - 09:33

        what is progressive tax?

    • ozhunter on 05/09/2020 - 19:01
      +1

      I'd pay a higher levy, and I'd also be happy to up my tax rate to %50 if I had to

      Would you happily donate of you own free will? You can donate directly to them right now.

      • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 19:19

        Dinesh D'Souza style?

      • ryan1jz on 05/09/2020 - 19:45
        -2

        I choose to pay extra tax in every pay and also make extra super contributions every pay so the Government doesn't have to pay me a pension (hopefully) in the future. I'm trying my best with what I have to ease the burden. I know I sound like a left wing sap, but you can sue me if you wish.

        • lubos on 06/09/2020 - 08:12
          +2

          I choose to pay extra tax in every pay

          So what. You get bigger tax refund then. You are not helping anyone.

          also make extra super contributions every pay so the Government doesn't have to pay me a pension (hopefully) in the future

          Making extra super contributions means you end up paying less income tax. People who want to minimize their taxes max out their concessionary super contributions all the way up to $25k or as much as they can. I find it hilarious someone who is calling for 50% income tax hike is taking advantage of salary sacrifice which is a method to reduce income tax.

          Not only you build up equity in your super faster, any capital gains realized in pension phase are tax free and all earnings once in pension phase are tax free too. Not only that, you also get all franking credits refunded too. Dick Smith has received $500,000 in franking credit refunds last financial year. I'd argue the pension would be cheaper for government.

          I'm trying my best with what I have to ease the burden. I know I sound like a left wing sap, but you can sue me if you wish.

          Stop it. You are delusional.

  • entropysbane on 05/09/2020 - 18:49
    +5

    The real flaw in this uncosted thought bubble is that the medicare levy does not account for actual health spending. Health is already more than 19% of the Federal tax take (that is, not counting whatever state governments also spend on hospitals and the like).

    If you don’t believe me look at the back of your tax return where it itemises where your tax went and work it out. Pretty nifty.

    How about this is an alternative plan: think of a swath of programs where the government is spending heaps to stop doing and you can then use the savings on health.

    That is a harder thing to work out than just demanding we feed even more into the various maw of government spending.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 18:50

      Health care in Australia is ~10% GDP

      IN the US where it is a shambolic it is 17.7%

      The public approach is far more efficient and effective

      here is my source https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/941d2d8b-68e0-4883-a0c0-138d43dba1b0/aihw-aus-221-chapter-2-2.pdf.aspx#:~:text=16.-,AUS,Canberra%3A%20AIHW.&text=Using%20the%20OECD%20System%20of,was%209.0%25%20(Figure%202.2

      https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta…

      • entropysbane on 05/09/2020 - 18:55
        +2

        Look at the back of your tax return and work
        Out what it is tax wise, which is what we are talking about here.

        Our system which is a mix of private and public is better than the health the USA or NHS in UK, true.
        We get the drive to adopt innovations quicker than a pure public system would offer, but get the breadth of support from a public nsystem.

        But always remember:
        Private health manages demand with price.
        Public health manages demand with queues.

    • smalltime0 on 06/09/2020 - 09:34

      We spend way more on capital gains and negative gearing exemptions, and we are the only jurisdiction in the world that does this.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 18:58
    -1

    Our system drifts closer to the american system each and every day!

    People in higher tax brackets should cover it, since they are just that blessed

  • burningrage on 05/09/2020 - 19:11

    Nice thread but it's not going to happen unless OP is an MP.

    • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 19:24

      It's not going to happen. Period.

      There are countries where it exist because the rich identify with the country strongly. They are willing to be subject to higher taxes not because they like it but the thought of having to move is not one taken lightly.

      A lot of our wealthy are immigrants with rather high geographic mobility.

      To increase tax and spend it frivolously with no benefit to this group will most probably be counter intuitive.

      I believe that if our tax is any higher, one of two things will happen.

      1. Tax havens will be utilised. The effort/risk would become more appealing.

      2. Emigration.

      Whilst you can up the tax, the likely outcome will be a net decrease in revenue in the long run.

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 23:56
        +1

        I know it is unlikely again it is a hypothetical

        but to reply to your response

        1. already happens

        2. This will never happen unless Australia becomes a 3rd world country. There is literally double of the population of Australia trying to immigrate to Australia - we allow 200k a year the rest of them have to wait… making Australia a better place to live for everyone to live regardless of income would if anything make it a more attractive place to live?

        As for the mega rich if that is what you meant refer to point 1, it already happens Melcom Turnbull sifters his money to the Cayman islands to avoid tax if the PM (now former) of Australia is avoiding tax i dare say everyone wealthy is….

        • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2020 - 07:51

          There is literally double of the population of Australia trying to immigrate to Australia

          No doubt.

          I'm talking about the emigration of those in the high tax bracket. You are talking about immigration in general.

          i dare say everyone wealthy is [avoiding tax]….

          There is a risk:reward ratio. Currently, there may be many that are willing to take the risk. Increase the tax further and many may infact turn to every.

          • smalltime0 on 06/09/2020 - 09:37

            @[Deactivated]: And His point; which you definitely didn't read; was that people in the high tax bracket offshore their income anyway. Really we should crack down on them.

            • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2020 - 09:57

              @smalltime0: And we should. That point is valid but irrelevant.

              We are talking about the consequence of increasing taxes which is more people would move their wealth.

              More is a relative term. People could have money offshored now. They can offshore more.

              More means more abundant than the current arrangement.

              Conflating the two issues doesn't make the point any stronger.

          • Seraphin7 on 06/09/2020 - 09:43
            +1

            @[Deactivated]:

            i dare say everyone wealthy is [avoiding tax]….

            Very, very few people are avoiding tax. You have a few dishonest people out there, you always will and, frankly, you'll never eliminate that cohort. The vast majority are simply out there trying to make ends meet from one day to the next, not trying to rip off the system.

            On the other hand, the vast majority of people out there are minimising their tax … whether they are "ultra-wealthy" or humble outer-suburb employees.

            And rightly so.

            In the immortal words of Kerry Packer, "I can tell you that as a government, you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!"

            • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2020 - 10:01

              @Seraphin7: Potaeto potahto to me.

              He didn't use the words tax evasion so I took it to mean legal tax minimisation.

              I'm an optimist.

              • Seraphin7 on 06/09/2020 - 10:13
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: I'm a realist.

                As soon as anyone starts blurting out, "the rich are 'avoiding' tax", I know the immediate implication is there is something illegal going on.

                The reality … as you know … is that the level of tax crime at an individual level in Australia is very low and is being perpetrated across the income spectrum.

                Of course those on higher incomes will likely have a greater number of deductions as they have greater ability to engage in investment with attaching costs.

                As you also know those costs are provided by the tax laws to encourage those same people to invest such that over time the net value of the income producing asset rising, actually giving rise to even higher tax revenues in the future.

                But it's easy for the lazy to just blurt out "the rich are avoiding tax" without actually understanding the tax system at even the most rudimentary level. The result is that genuine tax reform that will actually benefit everyone never gets a guernsey because the lazy and the ignorant can't get past this "soak the rich" mantra typically driven by little more than a desire to drink at someone else's trough and to get something for nothing.

  • parisienne on 05/09/2020 - 19:41
    +2

    The current Medicare levy doesn't even begin to cover a bandaid in relation to what people access right now,let alone a mere 2% more to cover those types of additions.It would have to be a much greater increase than anyone would be willing to pay before we could begin thinking of those type of services being covered (and as seraphin7 said,it is something that would be utilised more than it would be paid into.I am one who has private health insurance and don't feel like paying for others to get free what i currently pay for)

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 06/09/2020 - 00:01

      well in this system you would probably not need PH

      and i dont know what your earn but i dare say the increase in levy would probably be less then your PH insurance (once factoring any gaps u need to pay)

      Wouldn't that be better??

  • whooah1979 on 05/09/2020 - 19:42
    +2

    We should be paying less tax, bot more. Anyone that want to pay more can donate their refund to the ATO.

  • wallet72 on 05/09/2020 - 19:42

    I think the government should be looking for alternative ideas to change the entire medical system. I had this discussion a few months ago and we thought of a few ideas that would help things…

    1. For every year a doctor works in a public health system, 25% off FEE-HELP/HECS gets wiped.
    2. Free housing, rates, utilities, and a free holiday every year for a GP that works in a country area.
    3. Open tenders to supply medical equipment
    4. If the government funds research, they own all or part of the results
    5. Bring dental and optical completely into Medicare
    6. Stop regulating the number of Medicare funding testing places (things like MRI machines are artificially by the government)
    7. LISTEN to the medical professionals when it comes to treatment plans. I have a few chronic diseases that will shorten my life, I've lost track of how many times I've been told 'this won't work, but we must try it otherwise the government won't cover the cost of the treatment that will work)

    these are over simplified, but it's a start.

    • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2020 - 20:08

      Points 1 and 2 will cost a lot and still not attract doctors to remote regions. Currently, they can get GPs to remote areas a lot more cheaply, immigration. I doubt they'll choose the expensive option.

      Point 3 is sort of already there but with so few competing suppliers, it isn't really working. The cost of registering for TGA is prohibitive. The government is actually their own worst enemy here.

      Point 4 is also kinda true. The type of research the government funds isn't typically financially valuable so it's really a moot point. The ones the government subsidizes, they do so to keep the employment here so sticking them with IP rights will be counter intuitive.

      Point 6 isn't true. You can get Medicare rebate at any imaging centre that wants to participate in the bulk billing program (subject to some conditions off course.)

      Point 7 - formalities are necessary. Without them, some doctors will be more efficient but many more will be far less. It's a matter of accountability. Without it, the cost surges.

    • dp1 on 06/09/2020 - 10:37

      1 would not be necessary as most doctors spend 7-10 years in the public system before private practice.

      2 already happens in a lot of towns, housing and car and flights paid for by the Shire council. Shortages of doctors in the country are the same as shortages of teachers and tradies and everyone else in country towns, if the reasons that people don't want to live there long-term aren't addressed, people will not stick around.
      A country practice can be a millstone for a GP, it can take years for you to find a locum to cover you for a few weeks holiday. You can't retire because again nobody wants to take over.

      3 agree with tshow for the equipment issue but there is poor competitiveness on drug prices compared to UK or NZ, which is hard to explain. Drugs which have been around for decades aren't incurring TGA costs.

  • WreckTangle on 05/09/2020 - 19:51

    Yip. Its a good idea

  • Fiximol on 05/09/2020 - 20:10
    +1

    What you are proposing with respect to dental services is actually unconstitutional and would require a referendum of our constitution. Dentists and doctors are able to set their own fees as they wish - for the government to mandate otherwise is considered civil conscription and is in breach of Australian Constitution section 51(xxiiiA). This is a HUGE deal and you can be sure dentists will fight tooth and nail against this (unless they are getting paid exorbitant amounts, in which case why bother with public provision?). OTOH, there might be enough desperate dentists to make this work. This would be the hardest change IMO.

    With respect to optometry, I don't wear glasses so my experience is limited, but I imagine the private sector is pretty competitive? (i.e. specsavers) Still, probably not too difficult to have optical equipment funded if there is somehow political appetite for it. This would probably be the simplest change.

    Ambulance services is currently the responsibility of the individual State Governments. Raising a Federal Levy would not change this. This would require a change in the funding mechanisms and would need to be agreed upon by all states. This would probably be the second trickiest change.

    Aged care is… yeah, let's see what happens at the end of the current inquiry.

    When they discussed raising the levy from 2% to 2.5% to fund the NDIS, it was expected to deliver $8 billion over 2 years, so we can roughly estimate that a doubling of the levy will deliver an additional $16 billion per year. The cost to 'fix' existing public aged care is probably around a quarter of that, for now, without accounting for the increase as the proportion of the elderly live longer. If you want to turn all aged care to state based, it is estimated that the private sector is a '$20 Billion a year industry' so a doubling of the levy would not be sufficient to replace this. This would probably be the third hardest change simply due to the dollar value.

  • bongom on 05/09/2020 - 20:11
    +1

    Your assumption that doubling the medicare levy would result in double the amount of money spent on healthcare is wishful thinking.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/09/2020 - 23:43

      It is a hypothetical question …

      • ozhunter on 06/09/2020 - 00:06

        Yea, but the question seems extremely misleading.

        As if doubling the levy is all that is needed to take care of everyone's optical, dental, aged care, and ambulance expenses.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 06/09/2020 - 11:03

          Again it is a hypothetical question i dont know what is misleading - ie it is made up

  • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2020 - 01:41
    +3

    The problem with socialism is you will eventually run out of other people's money.

    • whooah1979 on 06/09/2020 - 01:43

      We could always do this when the tax runs out.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RZxmzPjE9Q
      or this.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEMCYBPUR00

      • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2020 - 10:42

        Ah! MMT aka voodoo economics. Works fine now while so many are unemployed but will lead to hyperinflation once things goes back to normal.

    • Stoozer on 06/09/2020 - 08:57

      Fortunately the federal government can never run out of Australia Dollars since they are the monopoly issuer

      • [Deactivated] on 06/09/2020 - 10:49

        Obvs, my comment was an over-simplification. The truth is that taxes do not pay for government spending but are just a way of managing inflation. So we won't run out of money per se, it'll just become worthless (literally!) .

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 06/09/2020 - 11:15

      WARNING THIS COMMENT WILL OFFEND PPL - plz note i dont care

      I agree and i am generally opposed 90% of socialism becuz it is basically taking money from those who worked for it and giving it to those who havent. - Modern day socialism is mostly virtue signally and a culture of 'victimisation' which is why socialism is a bit of a cancer in modern society becuz it aims to help the 'minority' not the overall population

      Where as what i am saying would help the majority of the population and specifically it would help Australians

      Furthermore, health care and education are the pillars of society that i have no issue paying my 'fair share' of tax for - socialism generally as a whole is pretty rubbish i agree but if it is focused on actually improving Australia/Australians (more like patriotism) as a whole and not 'minorities' constantly moaning or the PC idiots destroying western culture then imo it needs to be considered.

  • OzHunterNSW on 06/09/2020 - 12:19

    If you are paying 12k a year… imagine how much you would have over 30-40-50 years.

    It is all a gambol

  • Candour on 06/09/2020 - 12:59

    The private health industry is a vast tax on people. Called a choice. It subverts medicare. We need more equality and not create money making schemes or the rich and powerful to control their political masters who will serve them and destroy the rest who are not so rich, powerful, or cunning. I think if we can focus public interest and policy on the greater good of the greatest number and not let the rich and powerful get richer at the expense of the weaker members, we may have a more feasible strong economy which could have survived covid. the leverage supported industries like airlines and other oil and coal 'handouts' are the ones which a beholden government will support, while demonising premiers who stand up for science, climate change, fire safety, and non-pollution.

    • Speckled Jim on 06/09/2020 - 20:10

      Private health carries inherent inefficiency of duplication across several providers. No matter, they're not in the game to provide an efficient service, but make a profit.

      Anyone with any interest on this issue should listen to the Nixon tapes on the subject. A lobbyist explains the scam to the enraptured POTUS. More entertaining is the Sicko doco from some years back (~2006), they play the relevant part in that.

      For us, the party of "lower taxes" (LOL) are about to unleash a higher GST on us. That carves itself up to the states, who ultimately run our public systems anyway. So like it or not, it's happening.

      • Stoozer on 07/09/2020 - 09:01

        Medicare still picks up the tab for 75% of the schedule fee for procedures performed in a hospital, the private insurer only has to pay the other 25%.

  • knightslay2 on 06/09/2020 - 23:02

    Perhaps general cleaning for dental will suffice. they are quite cheap. Ambulance pricing is managed by the states anyway, that's what private health insurance is for to cover it.

  • Brendoo on 07/09/2020 - 02:26

    No way. The extra 2% is way above what it costs to pay for those extra things yourself. At least in my case. Even the current 2% is beyond what I would pay for medical (single, healthy, not old), obviously I'm paying mostly for others. Income Tax in Australia is outrageously high, no way we want another 2% surcharge.

    And Aged Care is a much more complex issue than can be solved by a Medicare surcharge. Paying for people's aged care home, food and 24x7 care for many, many years could not be covered by part of an extra 2%, not even close.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/09/2020 - 12:34

      Just remember it might more then what you pay now but one day you will be old and unless you are in the .01% you will likely have a number of health issues….

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join