Is Health Insurance worth It if/when I retire?

bh5354 on 06/03/2022 - 12:27

Hi all,

Just a bit of background first:
- I consider myself fairly healthy, eat right, exercise 4 times a week, etc.
Hardly ever see a GP for any minor health issues.
- I have private Health insurance just to save on the 1% extra Medicare Levy Surcharge (tax).

By my own calculation I will achieve FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early) in about 3 years time.
By this time I will be 50 years old. Not exactly young, but hey, I've achieved FIRE! :)

Question is if/when I quit my job, not having PAYG tax, is health insurance still worth it?
- My income at retirement will be less than $90k p.a., so financially, there is zero benefit anymore.

  • I do understand as I get older, More likely I will need hospital, eye care, dental care, etc.
    But just by saving $130 per month (current health insurance cost), I can pay for those thing out of pocket.

  • I may get back into Health insurance when I hit 60.
    Will premium cost a lot more if I just skipped 10 years of no insurance?
    Will health insurance charge me less if I just continue my $130 and only go up slowly per year?
    Just some quick google search, I'm finding health insurance for seniors (65+) are $300 per month :(

Financial Health Insurance Insurance

Comments

    • mskeggs on 06/03/2022 - 12:40
      +44

      I don’t think this is very fair.
      The dodgy doctors work equally in the private system.
      The complaints about under resourcing and waiting lists are sometimes true, but apply to free care under Medicare in a public hospital.
      Consider an overnight simple surgery in a private hospital won’t see much change out of $5000 and it becomes clearer why Medicare isn’t unlimited.

      I hate private insurance, think it should be banned and everybody use the public system - if people are scared about waits or quality they should vote to fix it.

      That said, with our current system where private insurance is priced to be dramatically better value for older people, I would continue your private insurance.
      Any hospital admission in the next decade will see you well in front.

      • Mad Max on 07/03/2022 - 09:23
        +10

        if people are scared about waits or quality they should vote to fix it

        Vote how?
        Essentially and practically only 2 choices LNP or ALP.
        They have both been in government for long stretches of time and under either one nothing improved really.
        You only need to look at different states under different governments. Health system is still a basket case.

        • mskeggs on 07/03/2022 - 10:04
          +27

          That's pretty much why I think private care should be disallowed, like in Canada.
          If the top tier tax payers have to share the same system as those on welfare, I'd suggest overall service delivery would greatly improve.

          • Mad Max on 07/03/2022 - 10:14
            -7

            @mskeggs: I doubt it would improve. Governments are not capable of running efficient and effective business including health. They just throw money at it which gets wasted (ALP) or reduce the money to cut the excess indiscriminate waste leaving the service more or less the same (LNP).
            If private care was completely disallowed the top tier tax payers or people that have money would go overseas to ensure top quality immediate treatment.

            • mskeggs on 07/03/2022 - 10:23
              +17

              @Mad Max: Maybe. Just like they all leave because of our high tax rates.
              Or maybe we would actually see the many hundreds of thousands who fall into the top brackets join everyone else in demanding better care.
              When the government supplies services used by all, like police or water or sewer, they magically deliver well. Yet when the services have private options like hospital and schooling, for some reason the wealthy are less interested in making sure everyone has good services.

            • iseeyou1312 on 07/03/2022 - 18:04
              +6

              @Mad Max: Americans are paying 2-3 times what Australians pay in a completely privately run system, that delivers them worse healthcare outcomes. Natural monopolies do not operate efficiently when they are privatised.

              • Shleepy on 08/03/2022 - 11:20
                -1

                @iseeyou1312: 2-3 times is definitely an overstatement. They spend about 17% of GDP on health versus about 9.3% for Australia. In dollar terms it is about double, but no where near 3 times. In any case, people completely miss the point that the United States has large public health systems, especially the one run by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Indeed, Americans spend more per capita on public provided health care than private. And they tend to be far more efficient than anything the private sector puts together, despite efforts by the Federal Government to limit their ability to negotiate lower prices on things like medications.

                • iseeyou1312 on 08/03/2022 - 14:26
                  +4

                  @Shleepy: America has a higher GDP per capita than Australia, so you can't just compare % of GDP spending as it's not the same amount of resources. US government spending on healthcare goes through private providers, something like our NDIS, which is also a complete rort.

                  It's also deeply concerning our government is gradually bringing the American system over here in pieces, whilst constantly freezing/cutting medicare rebates.

                  • Shleepy on 09/03/2022 - 11:29

                    @iseeyou1312: Disregarding the idea that % GDP spend is not a useful gauge of spending of available resources (as it has the same denominator, doesn't rely on currency fluctuations, and is obviously quite different to simple total GDP), in what world in Australia are you getting services from Commonwealth government providers? Have you ever been to a Commonwealth hospital or a GP who is a Commonwealth employee? Have you ever had a scan at a Commonwealth MRI/X-Ray clinic? Our healthcare spend here absolutely goes through private providers. Like the US, hospitals here are either owned by the States (equivalent to university hospitals in the US) who are largely paid through Medicare and state subsidies, or are private. GPs, labs, etc are almost all private and paid through Australian Government spending (or spending from insurance companies and consumers). The overall model of service delivery is not so different despite a difference in language.

                • [Deactivated] on 08/03/2022 - 20:47

                  @Shleepy: Username checks out

              • Jackson on 08/03/2022 - 15:41
                +1

                @iseeyou1312: This, the US pay multiples more than any other country with a first rate public health system and they get crap, despite having a big economy and population. Public health is one of the few areas where it's benefits are indisputable

          • Colombian on 07/03/2022 - 12:37
            +4

            @mskeggs: AFAIK Canada has Private Health Insurance, it is just that it is more regulated and Doctors have an obligation to work in the public system as well.

          • gromit on 07/03/2022 - 13:55
            +1

            @mskeggs: Canada absolutely still has private health care system in addition to the public one. What it does is ban doctors selling core services outside of the medicare system.

    • Zondor on 08/03/2022 - 12:52

      Haha you should see some of the wackjob doctors in private man. They rip people apart to get as many people on/off the table as fast as possible for maximum $$,$$$

    • borrisz0r on 08/03/2022 - 15:00
      +1

      Long term health worker here. Both in public and private sector.

      This statement is complete crap. Privates also have scandals, they are just swept under rugs out of the public eye. Look at the pathology debacle that happened with Vinnie's private path provider. No accountability, just a statement saying they made a mistake and the issue has been rectified… Then they make the same mistake a week later. Was it investigated? No.

      In a lot of cases (e.g. oncology treatments) you get far better treatments in the public sector.

      Just because it's private, doesn't necessarily mean it is better. In saying that, I would have the insurance just to cover off any non life threatening surgery that may be needed, e.g. knee or hip replacement.

  • boomramada on 06/03/2022 - 12:38
    -1

    Not worth it when you retire, it just provides you a bed space, just stick with extras, and some money in the bank.

    • mskeggs on 06/03/2022 - 12:42
      +11

      This seems weird to me, when hospitalisation rates are so much, much higher among older people.

      • pharkurnell on 06/03/2022 - 12:44
        +2

        and health naturally drops…

      • boomramada on 06/03/2022 - 12:53
        -1

        It's all depends on so many things, how long you in hospital for , emergency situations etc.
        Ie emergency you don't need private.
        Ie Standard hip/knees replacement, does.

        Plus if you haven't had private insurance before, there be big age tax too right?

        There are no direct answer to seen which is worth while. If you have 2M $ retirement funds, why not lol

    • dragonos81 on 06/03/2022 - 12:53
      +1

      I'd say Extras are rarely worth it …
      I'm 40 years old, have only the cheapest junk hospital only insurance because it's cheaper than paying medicare levy surcharge for me (and includes ambulance).

      • boomramada on 06/03/2022 - 12:55
        +3

        For me it does;
        Ambulance cover / dental / eye - prescription.
        It's all depends on the person I guess.

      • Miss B on 07/03/2022 - 19:36
        +4

        Extras is worth it if you use it right. Sign up with someone like Medibank for 2 weeks when they waive 2/6 month waiting periods. Get your dental checkup, maybe a couple of massages if it interests you, if you use glasses/contact lenses get those sorted. Go to their dentists so you have no out of pocket costs unless you need extra dental work. Plus if they're still doing it, I was able to get $30 of amcal vouchers from their rewards program. Cost me $50 for a fortnight and I got nearly $1000 out of it last time.

        They're currently offering it: https://www.medibank.com.au/health-insurance/c/waits-waived
        Promo code EXTRAS

        If you think you'll need extra dental work that isn't major dental (as major is 12 month waiting period so won't be covered), spring for the Top 90% cover ($52/fn). Otherwise the Top 60%($24/fn) will be fine if you're just getting a dental checkup. If you're interested in other services it may be worth checking how much you can get back on them first as it tends to only be a small amount if it's not their preferred providers.

        https://www.medibank.com.au/health-insurance/cover/top-extra…

        It sounds like you wouldn't get as much, if any, rebate so it would cost you a little more. It would be about double for couple/family cover.

        You shouldn't get extras because you may need it one day, only get extras if you're going to get value from it.

      • iseeyou1312 on 08/03/2022 - 14:28

        It really depends on what you're intending to claim, and what the government rebate is (the government will pay for up to 33% of your PHI depending on age and income level).

  • Andy22 on 06/03/2022 - 12:49
    -4

    Keep it, If you try again when you're 60 your health situation will be reassessed and when your not so healthy anymore, some premiums will skyrocket or not even insure you…

    • YesPleaseThankYou on 07/03/2022 - 14:14

      Your statement does not apply to health insurance in Australia.

      • The insurer cannot increase your health insurance premiums based on your health.
      • The insurer cannot refuse to provide health insurance to you based on age or health status.
      • WhyAmICommenting on 07/03/2022 - 14:50

        Your first point only mentions health, not age.

        • YesPleaseThankYou on 07/03/2022 - 14:57

          Good pickup - it gets a bit complicated - but, generally health insurers also cannot increase premiums because of age.

          I say it gets complicated because one has to consider the surcharges and incentives listed here https://www.privatehealth.gov.au/health_insurance/surcharges…

          Definitely, however, the following claim made by the OP is untrue in respect of health insurance in Australia:

          If you try again when you're 60 your health situation will be reassessed and when your not so healthy anymore, some premiums will skyrocket or not even insure you

          It may be true for other types of insurance (eg, life insurance) or to health insurance in other countries (eg, USA).

          • gromit on 07/03/2022 - 20:08

            @YesPleaseThankYou: however you can get screwed over by pre existing conditions clauses and waiting periods. which as you age are more and more likely, case in point my best mate took out health insurance and a few months later needed to have something done with his heart, part of it lasered or something with a probe inserted. Anyway they denied the claim as a pre existing condition even though he wasn't aware of it himself it seems the doctors report basically was proof that it wasn't something that just happened and would have started prior to his insurance..

            • YesPleaseThankYou on 07/03/2022 - 20:12

              @gromit: Waiting periods prevent someone getting health insurance then immediately claiming a (sometimes expensive) procedure.

              There is a maximum 12-month waiting period for hospital treatments, refer https://www.privatehealth.gov.au/health_insurance/howitworks…

              • gromit on 07/03/2022 - 20:26

                @YesPleaseThankYou: Yes, I am aware. But they can also be used to catch you out as was case with my friend. If it was classed as new condition he would have been covered, but as they decided it was pre existing the waiting period kicked in.

  • Catullus on 06/03/2022 - 12:53

    Absolutely, keep going. and nothing wrong with public system except too many patients and wait time can get out of hand.

  • holdenmg on 06/03/2022 - 13:49

    Hi,

    On your fact situation you aren't covered for Ambulance.
    https://www.ambulance.nsw.gov.au/our-services/accounts-and-f… something you could be covered for by Private Insurance.

    If you are looking at Optical, Dental etc, you can get cost effective Extras and leave the rest to Medicare as long as you don't mind a wait.

  • nige0090 on 06/03/2022 - 13:49
    +4

    You are at an age where I would worry about unexpected expensive medical problems.
    In a medical emergency (e.g. cancer, where you need surgery immediately) you should get equivalent immediate care on both the public and private systems.
    But for the subsequent treatment you should get more options and faster treatment with the private system.
    For a non emergency medical problem, you would have to deal with queues on the public system.

    Of course, if you have no serious medical problems for the 10 years, medical insurance will seem like wasted money.
    But, if you need to claim, the medical insurance will seem like a good investment.

    It really depends on how much you believe in the concept of insurance (which is always a grudge purchase).
    You may choose the cheapest 3rd party insurance for an old low value car, and self insure yourself against damage to any else property (because you are a good driver and will never have an accident).
    Or you may choose expensive comprehensive insurance to protect your valuable car and have peace of mind in all eventualities.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/03/2022 - 13:59
    +5

    Keep. Wait times under public for anything that isn’t life threatening are atrocious

  • upended on 06/03/2022 - 14:00
    +13

    But just by saving $130 per month (current health insurance cost), I can pay for those thing out of pocket.

    Assuming you again purchase private health insurance when you turn 60, i.e. in 10 years time, you will have saved $130 x 12 x 10 = $15,600. Even of you take into account a 5% increase on your insurance costs per year, the max you would save won't be more than $17,500. Note that these are just back of the envelope calculations. Banks are not paying any significant interest so you won't earn much by keeping this cash in a bank. In these 10 years, if you require hospitalisation and you decide to go to a private hospital, you may exhaust this money, if not more in just one admission. When doing your calculations, also account for the Medicare levy that you'll pay if you don't have private health cover. That will also eat into the $130 monthly savings. I'd personally put my health first. Of course, the choice is yours in how you want to approach this. Good luck!

  • RockyRaccoon on 06/03/2022 - 14:26
    +4

    I may get back into Health insurance when I hit 60.
    Will premium cost a lot more if I just skipped 10 years of no insurance?

    Yep, you lose lifetime cover savings. Is it worth it?

    Hindsight will be your friend.

    Insurance is when you pay to cover unexpected costs. Its not guarranteed to pay you back. Just like car insurance, house insurance or travel etc. Hey life insurance isnt worth it for you. You die others get paid. Its for others comfort not yours.

    I 've never claimed on house insurance. I could have saved a lot but, tomorrow….

    • dtc on 06/03/2022 - 14:57
      +2

      The difference is that if you dont have car insurance, there isnt a government backed housing service to provide you with a replacement car. There is a public health system - the real question for the OP is to understand what the public system provides and doesnt provide and to determine whether it works for him

      Personally, if you are FIRE at 50, then you want to make sure your health is good so that you can enjoy it. Paying for health insurance might do that, or having a reserve fund socked away might do that. Having health insurance and day surgery means you are still up for several $1000 anyway

      • bh5354 on 06/03/2022 - 19:25

        Thanks dtc.

        Your response makes the most sense :)

        • TheDolphin on 07/03/2022 - 08:03
          +10

          Yes it does and I thought the same and was discussing dropping our health insurance with my wife last year but we kept it.

          A few months later had some abnormal blood results, MRI under public system, results indicated "abnormality" need biopsy, I asked the surgeon what was the wait under public? 6 weeks, private 4 days, I went private. Result, semi aggressive cancer, I asked what was wait for public for surgery, at least 3 months, Private 4 weeks. It wasn't immediately life threatening but the longer you wait the greater the chance it spreads.

          Under private I had keyhole robotic assisted surgery, my choice of experienced surgeon. Under public it would have been open surgery performed by who knows who? Very likely a resident surgeon learning the ropes, where do you think they gain experience before they move to more lucrative private system?

          Oh and on day surgery, just had a procedure done on my ear under private, cost me about $1500 all up, free under public. Public wait was over 2 years, private wait was 3 weeks but postponed by a month because of Dan Andrews panicking. So for $1500 I saved 2 years of discomfort and having to avoid an activity I love for 2 years ( scuba diving ).

          I am sticking with my private cover.

    • iseeyou1312 on 07/03/2022 - 18:09

      Yep, you lose lifetime cover savings. Is it worth it?

      They'll pay an extra 2% per year for each year without PHI (up to 70%), which is waived after having PHI for ten years.

  • screensaver on 06/03/2022 - 15:27

    I have good bronze cover for 19 a week, I dont use extras. I am keeping it, and will go up to silver later. I switch 3 times a year to get free weeks. Or you can use the medibank livebetter app to get 200 free premium paid.

  • nige0090 on 06/03/2022 - 15:28
    +2

    Congratulations on achieving your FIRE status.
    How will your $90k income be derived? Super, dividends, investment properties etc

    • bh5354 on 06/03/2022 - 17:04

      Thanks :)
      90% of this passive income will come from investment properties.
      Been accumulating properties since my early 30's.
      It makes sense that it took me 20 years to make it +ve geared enough to retire on :)

      And no, I won't be getting 90k pa from rent.
      But I have tracked all my incomes & expenses over the past 7-8 years, and I really can FIRE soon enough.

      • vinnychase on 06/03/2022 - 17:39

        This is kinda more related to your retirement than your health insurance lol but What's your current family situation like? (like do you have any dependents. Kids, parents, wives, husbands,).
        Also what work do you do? (like desk job, engineer, firefighter, tech entrepreneur …)

        • bh5354 on 06/03/2022 - 19:23
          +5

          Getting a bit more personal now…
          I'll try to best answer you without given too much detail of who I am :P

          I am married. No kids and don't intend to have kids now (I'm too old)
          I work in the IT (computer) field, I earn mid-$100k per year..
          I really am not going to provide wife's income info.

          My wife and I own our own home. And as mentioned, I have investment properties.

          I know, you're going to say having no kids is the reason why we can save up for early retirement.

          • But I truly believe the greatest factor in achieving FIRE is I track all my income & expenses for years.
            Knowing my end goal (ie: how much I need to retire) makes FIRE so much easier.
            Otherwise, I would still be working away day after day, year after year and not know how I am financially doing.
          • takezo on 07/03/2022 - 12:14
            +1

            @bh5354: I'm actually in a very similar boat to yourself, down to the fact that I also work in IT.

            Are you planning on just going from FT to nothing? I initially thought this would be the way, but more recently have been thinking of just winding down gradually. Looking at perhaps doing 4 days a week from this year and then re-evaluating.

            • bh5354 on 07/03/2022 - 19:59

              @takezo: Really will be going from FT to nothing - whenever that FIRE day is.
              It's just my personality. I just to like to do things, or completely stop.

              I hear when a person works 4 days a week, that will become a part time worker. You don't get benefits like sick leave or redundancy (if a person gets fired), so I can't see what the benefit is of working part time.

              • serpserpserp on 07/03/2022 - 20:51

                @bh5354:

                You don't get benefits like sick leave or redundancy (if a person gets fired)

                Maybe in some pathetic small business or start up. But in a real company you'd be on the EBA if you are a permanent part timer.

                Some people go 4 days non permanent, but they get paid for it.

              • takezo on 08/03/2022 - 10:18

                @bh5354: Yeah your second statement is definitely incorrect. Working 4 days or 5 makes no difference to your benefits aside from getting paid 4/5ths of everything.

          • serpserpserp on 07/03/2022 - 20:54

            @bh5354:

            I know, you're going to say having no kids is the reason why we can save up for early retirement.

            It is. If I didn't have kids I'd outright own a few properties by now.

            am not going to provide wife's income info.

            Will she stop working to? 90k a year tax free should be heaps for you to live off.

      • mdavant on 08/03/2022 - 06:08
        +1

        Fire qn.

        Have you accounted for interest rate rises and increases in cost of living?

  • avoidfullprice on 06/03/2022 - 20:52
    +2

    Healthy or not, accident happens. If you don't get compensation for your surgery and rehab, make sure you save up a rainy day for that. That's the point of insurance.

    I suppose FIRE people can get carried away with 4% draw down using a spreadsheet based on their today's expenditure level, with little consideration when life goes out of script. Nothing personal, just an observation.

  • Mad Max on 07/03/2022 - 00:40

    Insurances make money out of insuring people.
    A lot of people contribute, a few get paid out for what they are insured.
    It all depends on how comfortable you are with taking some risk and with your financial capacity to come up with the money if something unexpected happens.
    At 50 your health could be good at least for another 20 years. I know 90 years old people that have never been in an hospital. Or you could be unlucky and have a lot of health issues. I suppose you could look at your parents and have some sort of genetic guidance, but that would not take into account any accidents. Keep in mind that many accidents would attract some sort of cover/payout anyway.
    So if you have enough money to cover the unexpected and if your expected risk is low you may be better saving the health insurance costs. Especially considering that due to your lower FIRE income will no longer be penalised with extra tax.

  • tabitha731 on 07/03/2022 - 07:18

    You're fit and healthy now IN YHIS POINT in time…. Who's to say u don't have an underlying health issue u don't know about… And then u decide to forgot ur health insurance to save a few $…. Really?? Is ur health of such low value to u, that u would prefer to be a burden on society and the health system?

    • Mad Max on 07/03/2022 - 09:17

       Is ur health of such low value to u, that u would prefer to be a burden on society and the health system?

      So essentially what you are saying is that all the people that rely on Medicare and the public health system are a burden on society.

      • Maestrok on 07/03/2022 - 13:20

        actually debatable statement ….. unfortunately ;-) …such a sad but true situation.

  • saltypete on 07/03/2022 - 08:56
    +1

    I am retired and have insurance. Others I know do not.
    Your body’s past performance is no guarantee of future outcome. In fact we have been subsidising oldies as we pay for insurance.
    The problem is that it is of little use, until it is…… I was diagnosed with Prostate cancer a few years ago. Picked the Urologist of choice from a couple of recommendations. Had investigations and eventually surgery when I needed it, not according to a waiting list. The delicate surgery was done by a surgeon with a good track record who had done many hundreds previously etc etc.
    Others in public will get treated as their number comes up by whoever is allocated.

    Check out waiting lists for common issues in your area before you decide.

    It stinks really, but I can afford it and pay it.

    BTW a yearly visit to a GP that you get on with where bloods are done is REALLY REALLY important.
    I got indicators early on (low, but trending) by my GP using years of results to identify a trend. If I had waited until I felt there was an issue I’d currently be a dead man walking…..

  • lilbudgie on 07/03/2022 - 09:23

    While saving your premium in the bank does sound ok on paper it doesn't add up in real life but it also depends a lot on where you live and the hospitals you have access to. Living in regional QLD public hospital wait lists are just plain stupid. My son has just badly torn ligaments in his ankle and a private surgeon wouldn't even see him without private health. That was a month ago and he is still waiting for even a first appointment for a public hospital surgeon. He has since taken out private health but of course has to wait the 12 months but the way it is looking the 12 months will come before even his first appointment does. Meanwhile he is becoming accustomed to limping around.

    It is quite common for surgeon's to refuse privately funded patients here because in the event of something going real bad and you end up spending time in ICU the dollars really go into overdrive and most people wouldn't be able to afford it. Even if you did manage to save $50,000 how far would that go for a knee replacement then in a few months you may need something else but all that money has gone. We have always had private health and even though for years we didn't use it we have certainly made up for lost time now we are over 60.

    If you lived in the city where they get all the great infrastructure and there are doctors, surgeons and hospitals everywhere then of course using the public system would be a viable solution. Unless you are in a capital city your options are very limited. I pay about the same for my private health as I do for my house insurance every year. I have never had to claim on my house insurance but I have had some high priced claims on my health insurance.

    • mauricem on 08/03/2022 - 13:34

      I thought Qld is supposed to have a no longer than 12 month wait time for surgery before the govt pays to have you go private?
      I had cataract surgery by private optho surgeon as a public patient at no cost due to being on wait list for just over 12 months. It was fairly mild in one eye only so didn't mind waiting and saving a few $k.
      This may vary depending on triage etc but this was as cat3 patient ie the least urgent.

  • Mad Max on 07/03/2022 - 09:37
    +1

    Read this article.
    https://www.smh.com.au/money/saving/dont-be-fooled-by-the-pr…

  • fprjet on 07/03/2022 - 09:50
    +3

    Definitely, I have seen firsthand difference btw private cover and no cover.
    Mum, heart attack got to hospital, first question do you have private… answer no ( was told no differnce in care …Which is true, however they look at he cheapest options and try to do things as outpatient to free up bed)she in there for a couple days everything good to be released in two days was told will need to do an angiogram as an outpatient in 2 weeks, go in to see her the next day wea re told 2 of arteries blocked can't operate and passed that day. If was on private angiogram would have been done. have seen the difference first hand with other relo's with private. And for the record y parents had private health until we were in our 20's dropping it was the mistake..

    • Deridas on 07/03/2022 - 10:42

      Condolences for the passing of your mother
      Just curious to know - if a coronary angiogram was not performed, how would one know there was 2 arteries that were "blocked"?
      I suspect perhaps there are quite a few missing details there.

      • fprjet on 07/03/2022 - 17:57

        Thank you.

        When we arrived they took us into a room and we ere told overnight she had two of the three main arteries blocked no point trying to operate all they could do was make her comfortable she was mean to come out on the monday, this was sunday morning over 10 years ago …

        • serpserpserp on 07/03/2022 - 22:12

          I think the person was asking how did they know there was two blocks? An angiogram would have had to be performed to see this. Not sure how old mum would have been, but if she was in her late 70s or 80s she might not have been viable.

          Also I think they might be asking because having PHI might not have changed this outcome.

          Sorry for your loss. These things are horrible.

          • fprjet on 08/03/2022 - 09:36

            @serpserpserp: Thanks, she was 78 with previous heart history, we weren't told anything. All we were told before this happen was she was going to be released that day and would have to do an angiogram in 2 weeks as an outpatient This was Monash in clayton. I believe she must have had another hear attack or chest pain that night when we arrived in the morning to meet her, as she was sedated and we were told she had a couple of hours left.

            • Deridas on 08/03/2022 - 12:56

              @fprjet: Thanks for taking my question seriously, and thanks serpserpserp for clarifying my intentions.

              fprjet, reading between the lines, your mum most certainly have had an angiogram - so based on what you have told me, the likely scenario would've been this

              Your mum had a myocardial infarction, which warranted urgent coronary angiogram, which I'm 99% sure she'd had. The angiogram showed there was "blockages", but either due to technical difficulties, or the location, or the fact that she's improving, or the blockages were too chronic, or the fact that acutely it won't change outcome, or maybe the infarction had completed itself, or the evidence for fixing it at all is not clear and it needs a multidisciplinary meeting, or something or other reason why it's not feasible to "fix" the blockage (eg, put in a stent) right at that current time of the coronary angiogram.

              At the time when the doctors spoke to you, that would be the scenario - they would have done the angiogram (and found the two blockages"), but for some (very valid reason) they weren't able to, or meant to, nor expected to, "fix" the blockages, and given the clinical status, the plan would be to bring the patient back later and attempt it as an elective procedure, perhaps after discussion with other teams, or other cardiologists, or special equipment, or wait for the clinical status to improve then reassess if evidence/expert opinion is of any benefit. At the time they spoke to you, your mum should have been "stable", and "expected to improve to a point where she can go home soon". Obviously she was definitely not in the same state as pre-heart attack.

              Clearly down the track in her admission, there was another unpredicted, and unpreventable event (but not unexpected, given she was 78, just had a heart attack, and not sure what other wear and tear on her body), either another heart attack (of which as mentioned above, they can't fix it, and so she would have to be palliated), or perhaps an aspiration event, or a stroke (unlikely that otherwise they'd have told you) - but regardless that second event was most certainly terminal, and it sounded like she had good end of life care.

              Reading between the lines, that's probably the likely scenario that has happened.

              Now the question is, will PHI have made a difference in the scenario above, and its a resounding no. Having PHI would not have made any difference to the decision for angiogram, intervention, or subsequent care, or the end of life care. There would be no intervention or anything extra that would be medically be indicated that a public patient would not have had done but a private patient would.

              Sorry for your loss, but reading between the lines PHI would've made zero difference. It certainly feels like your mother had appropriate care. I hope you have closure on the fact that from what I can see I don't think there could've been a better outcome from the health system point of view. Obviously (esp 10yrs ago) doctors are so busy they don't actually have time to sit down and tell you all this.

              There's a lot of PHI and government bashing here in this thread, but hopefully this case can shed light on the fact that perhaps there's another side of things. Regardless, honestly, would we want the American system? The UK system? The Chinese system?

              Disclaimer - I'm not a cardiologist, I have nothing to do with health funds, and I'm not a politician

              • fprjet on 09/03/2022 - 10:33

                @Deridas: Thank you for your long reply, she had had a heart attack 15 years earlier they were aware of that, she was in hospital for a week ready to come out next day. She had no other issues, blood pressure was controlled. They thought she was fine to leave the next day. Everything was organized to come back in 2 weeks. She had no fatigue , shortness of breath and had was otherwise looking forward to getting out. She was a Dynamo, regularly walked 5K's a day at least walked she would have been good enough to clear the blockages had they gone in earlier, they did not explain how they knew two of the three arteries were blocked but she must of had another hear attack that night…. I disagree with you but then you't necessarily know the full story, but I appreciate your effort.

                • Deridas on 09/03/2022 - 12:36

                  @fprjet: The question is, will private health insurance make a difference, and the answer is a resounding "no". It would not be possible to work out "there are two blockages" in a patient with a myocardial infarction without a coronary angiogram. They are right there with the blockages with a catheter and if they would angioplasty/stent world have done so. To have been feasible to do an intervention then and there but decision not to all because whether patient is private or not in a public hospital in an emergency does not make sense.

                  Done forget in a public hospital there's half a dozen people involved in the process. If there's any sniff of inappropriate care simply cheese they're not "private", it'll be all over A Current Affair with a whistleblower. This is Australia.

                  • fprjet on 10/03/2022 - 09:19

                    @Deridas: If she had of had private they wouldn't have waited to do the procedure as an outpatient.

                    • Deridas on 11/03/2022 - 09:31

                      @fprjet: As I mentioned, it wouldn't have made a difference, as it was likely technically not feasible at the time for intervention

                      … but either due to technical difficulties, or the location, or the fact that she's improving, or the blockages were too chronic, or the fact that acutely it won't change outcome, or maybe the infarction had completed itself, or the evidence for fixing it at all is not clear and it needs a multidisciplinary meeting, or something or other reason why it's not feasible to "fix" the blockage (eg, put in a stent) right at that current time of the coronary angiogram.

                      Very few cardiologists, let alone private facilities would even touch such a high risk patient to expedite that process.

                      I have been nice in trying to explain based on what you have mentioned it would've made no difference whether private health insurance or not, that's fine if you continue to think that way, though you'd find nobody from healthcare who regularly works in a cardiac ward or angio suite would agree with you.

  • screensaver on 07/03/2022 - 10:32

    I do it to have access to all the other hospitals and facilities such as Royal Rehab Hospital

  • oz2882 on 07/03/2022 - 11:26
    +3

    $1500 a year is well worth it. A little money buys you a peace of mind. Don’t see it as a waste if you don’t need to use it, you should be glad that you’re healthy.

  • Peck on 07/03/2022 - 11:26

    It is called 'Insurance'. Often those that need insurance the most, can't afford it. I'd stick with it.

    • BigBirdy on 07/03/2022 - 11:32

      Often those who need it the most, think they don’t need it, think it’s a scam, think they can self-insure, think they can scam others to pay. Eg prolific car crashers, unhealthy lifestyles, etc

  • BigBirdy on 07/03/2022 - 11:29
    +1

    Here’s a tip, if you don’t need to worry about the Medicare Surcharge Levy, there are a few non-MLS hospital policies that have high excess ($1000) but considerably cheaper premiums, and you still retain lifetime cover status. Eg GOLD Single from $130/month. GOLD covers all hospital services, anything else and you’re missing services that an ageing person may need (cardiac, cataract, joint replacement, etc). Regarding extras, my own dental costs went up considerably thru my late 50s onward (about $8k in the last 5 years of major dental). Any other underlying health issues are likely to require more care (eg physio, optical, etc). I also retired around 50, and it’s been brilliant!

  • Maestrok on 07/03/2022 - 13:36
    +1

    For the phase of life you're approaching, technically insurance is less about your health and more about your risk tolerance and appetite. Don't think of it as covering your usage of services but rather you're covering your quality of life.

    Yes we're fortunate to live in a country where you'd be looked after when it comes to medical emergencies but anything beyond that (e.g. elective procedures) you'd definitely be better off having the option of private healthcare from a quality of life perspective.

    Of course if you anticipate that you'd have enough to afford to pay for private healthcare out of pocket…. then that's an option too…but I don't think you'd be worried about saving $130/mth if you're happy to pay out of pocket when needed :-p

    This is all assuming you are of the opinion that the quality of service for public/private is equal. Things change if you value one more than the other.

    Bottom line is probably if you can afford it, you're probably better off having it.

  • Gnilgorf on 07/03/2022 - 15:31
    -1

    So a heads up since I didn't see anyone else mention this, and you were considering dropping health insurance for 13 years (if you dropped it now, 47 ish, until you were 60)

    Lifetime Health Cover (LHC) will kick in and add a 2% loading cost (for 10 years) onto your hospital cover for every year that you did not maintain hospital cover for, after the age of 31. So in your case, you'd be paying an extra 26% loading on top of the already higher rates that you would be paying as a 60 year old, up until you are 70.
    Assuming your current health insurance is extras + hospital cover.

    There are a whole bunch of extra conditions etc but that's the gist of it. My parents got a bit of a shock when they recently looked into renewing their long abandoned health insurance…

    • YesPleaseThankYou on 07/03/2022 - 20:17

      on top of the already higher rates that you would be paying as a 60 year old, up until you are 70.

      Sorry, what are these "higher rates" that a 60 to 70 year old would be paying?

    • tcme on 08/03/2022 - 09:40

      Yeah, but paying the loading is still cheaper than paying for cover you don't need.

      • Dr Techno on 09/03/2022 - 16:16

        This is true. The missed years of Health Insurance is more savings than paying extra for the loading. Loading is removed after 10 years of continuous health cover. I actually dropped mine when I was 38 and just kept on with extras. MIght need to pick it up next Financial year since my salary has increased alot.

  • CanadaAye on 07/03/2022 - 15:32

    If you can afford it (you can) then retain it. You're still young but considering that you're more likely to experience health issues as you age the benefit of retaining it throughout is that you're not rolling the dice on when you think you will need it. The value of having the cash at hand is not great if you don't need it.

    Enjoy the early retirement you've worked hard for with the peace of mind of having a degree of cover for the unexpected. Travel and make memories you lucky bastard, I'm very jealous :)

  • tonsta on 07/03/2022 - 15:50

    Stop the exercising, people die from exercise all the time.

    • serpserpserp on 07/03/2022 - 22:23

      Interesting. I think listening to your body is more important. But yes, don't put on 10-15kg over a year or two of low activity then decide on the first 30 degree, sunny day that you are going to go out and run 10km's like you use to a decade to get back into shape.

  • cashless on 07/03/2022 - 18:23

    Obviously, if the OP has any super accumulated, he cannot access them until reaching 60 yo, but maybe that is part of the plan?

  • YesPleaseThankYou on 07/03/2022 - 20:14

    I have said it before and I will say it again, keep chasing the promotional offers (churning) and you can save up to 60%. Eg, Medibank currently has a 6 weeks free offer.

  • OzHunterNSW on 07/03/2022 - 23:02

    You are paying extra tax per year and it goes up each year.

    If you are wealthy…. you don't need it.

    If you are on a pension,,,, you don't need it - it is FREEEEEEEEEE

  • Mokr on 08/03/2022 - 13:58
    +1

    Having experienced public v private - if you have the money - go private -

    stuff gets done way much faster - takes months to get a scan - versus weeks private - and you have better specialists - Just depends on your health needs -

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join