The Federal Govt passed legislation this year that allows single under 31 year olds to stay on their families health cover. I have been looking but cannot find any of the funds that actually changed their policies to allow this. Most have just revamped their policies to make it easier for dependents to keep coverage till 25.
Does anyone know of any fund that has made the change to allow up to 31 year olds?
They can be living away from home but still be on your cover as it is cheaper.
How do you prove dependency when living out of home?
Make memes on reddit. I'm sure anyone can see you can't rely on yourself.
I'm divorced and still on the family cover. The CSR at HCF recommended it when I went in to split the cover.
It's the only financial item where my ex has been totally reasonable.
@mskeggs: The relationship is immaterial. It's a way of saving $150/m.
When I was in my 20s I dropped health insurance because I couldn't afford it. If I could have stayed on my parents policy at a fair price I would have.
No.
Just because the Legislation changed doesn't mean the PHI have to offer this.
See the Page 1-4 Table @
https://www.finder.com.au/leaving-your-family-health-policy
Understand that PHI do not have to offer this but the legislation means they can. The Govt passed this legislation as a way to keep more young people in the private health care system before the 2% penalties kick in at 31. I am just just wondering if any PHI are actually doing what the govt wanted.
Imagine being 31 and relying on your parents for health insurance…
Imagine not all of the population having the same opportunities that your socioeconomic status upbringing has afforded you.
Imagine not all of the population having the same opportunities that your socioeconomic status upbringing has afforded you.
Yes, hence why we should make health insurance cheaper for all people under 31, not just those who are privileged to have parents who can afford it, not just those who are privileged enough to have parents they can be dependent on, not just those who are privileged to have parents in the country not overseas, and obviously god forbid, not just those who are fortunate enough to still have parents :)
You sound like someone who didn't spend two seconds thinking about your argument…
There are zero incentives for a younger person to get private health insurance, let alone for the average minimum age earner to afford such cover with the drastically increasing cost of living. Making it "cheaper" doesn't solve the problem, which you've now raised in response to someone having a crack at your unthoughtful dig.
@Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Well you're bringing up an entirely different argument altogether now - which is that there are zero incentives to get private health insurance. To that point, I agree. Anyway, don't switch the topic when you're losing an argument.
Just find it laughable that you're making yourself out to be the beacon of righteousness and justice whilst defending the rights of over-privileged kids with rich parents to continue to leech and mooch off their parents at the expense of other people.
Here is an example for you:
(i) Person X earns above the MLS levy threshold and moved to Australia themselves with parents overseas, then now have to pay more tax (MLS levy) or purchase health insurance.
(ii) Zeggie also earns above the MLS levy threshold and has rich parents who have platinum PHI plans that can cover 31 y.o. mooch Zeggie - Zeggie does not have to pay MLS levy and is now better off than Person X
So who's advocating for the disadvantaged and who's failing to understand those who don't have the same opportunities as them now ey?
living at home
saving on rent etc
living the dream!
not sure parent share the same thought
Imagine being 31 and relying on your parents for health insurance…
It's not relying on your parents, it's good financial management and no different from OzBargainers sharing a spotify or netflix subscription.
My 24yo pays her fair share for full hospital and extras and that amount is about 60% the cost of what a singles cover would be. Why would you get an individual policy and pay more if you can use a group policy that is cheaper?
Why would you get an individual policy and pay more if you can use a group policy that is cheaper?
Because it is a policy that inherently disadvantages people who are independent and/or do not have parents to rely on.
Pose your question a different way - why should your daughter pay less than someone else identical in every way except whose parents are not able to purchase health insurance for whatever reason (overseas/estranged/dead…etc.)?
(profanity) Private Health Insurance.
(profanity) the PHI rebate.
(profanity) the Private Health Insurance blackmail levy.
I want to pay taxes for Medicare.
Yeah, whats the point anyway? Other than have a 'preferred' doctor, there is no real benefit outside of elective surgeries.
Dental for one. The public options are horrid and/or unavailable to most.
Well Hospital cover and just 'extras' cover is different right?
I think all of Dental is private or out of pocket essentially unless you have a health care card which is then considered 'co-pay'.
@ShoeJunkie: True, I threw them in the same basket. For hospital cover you're right. Maybe a "better" hospital and a preferred doctor.
Surely by 31 you have moved out, have a decent job and possibly a partner and family of your own.
I am unaware of any providers that offer this.